&nbspFormer U.S. President Barack&nbspObama&nbspsaid on Tuesday that President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, struck during&nbspObama's presidency, was "misguided."

"I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake,"&nbspObama&nbspsaid in a statement, referring to the acronym for the agreement worked out by the United States, five other world powers and Iran.

Since leaving office in January 2017,&nbspObama, a Democrat, has largely remained on the sidelines of the political debate, although he has criticized his Republican successor's efforts to undo some of his major policy achievements.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
There are few issues more important to the security of the US than the potential spread of nuclear weapons or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. Today’s decision to put the JCPOA at risk is a serious mistake. My full statement: <a href="https://t.co/4oTdXESbxe">https://t.co/4oTdXESbxe</a>
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) <a href="https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/993938824752451586?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 8, 2018</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>

He has condemned Trump for pulling out of the Paris climate accord and for ending a program that shielded from deportation immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children. He also spoke out against Trump's effort to unravel the&nbspObamacare healthcare program.

Obama&nbspsaid the Iran agreement significantly rolled back Tehran's nuclear program and was a model for a possible deal Trump hopes to negotiate with North Korea to eliminate Pyongyang's nuclear weapons.

"That is why today’s announcement is so misguided,"&nbspObama&nbspsaid.

"Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated," he said.

President Trump on Tuesday announced the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal.

He terminated the US participation in the JCPOA citing that the deal failed to protect America's national security interest.

He also underscored that the deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.

The US President also delivered a message to the long-suffering people of Iran saying "the people of America stand with you."

Since leaving office in January 2017, Obama, a Democrat, has largely remained on the sidelines of the political debate, although he has criticized his Republican successor's efforts to undo some of his major policy achievements

&nbspFormer U.S. President Barack&nbspObama&nbspsaid on Tuesday that President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, struck during&nbspObama's presidency, was "misguided." "I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake,"&nbspObama&nbspsaid in a statement, referring to the acronym for the agreement worked out by the United States, five other world powers and Iran. Since leaving office in January 2017,&nbspObama, a Democrat, has largely remained on the sidelines of the political debate, although he has criticized his Republican successor's efforts to undo some of his major policy achievements. There are few issues more important to the security of the US than the potential spread of nuclear weapons or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. Today’s decision to put the JCPOA at risk is a serious mistake. My full statement: https://t.co/4oTdXESbxe — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 8, 2018 × He has condemned Trump for pulling out of the Paris climate accord and for ending a program that shielded from deportation immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children. He also spoke out against Trump's effort to unravel the&nbspObamacare healthcare program. Obama&nbspsaid the Iran agreement significantly rolled back Tehran's nuclear program and was a model for a possible deal Trump hopes to negotiate with North Korea to eliminate Pyongyang's nuclear weapons. "That is why today’s announcement is so misguided,"&nbspObama&nbspsaid. "Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated," he said. President Trump on Tuesday announced the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal. He terminated the US participation in the JCPOA citing that the deal failed to protect America's national security interest. He also underscored that the deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. The US President also delivered a message to the long-suffering people of Iran saying "the people of America stand with you."

Obama calls Trump's decision on Iran nuclear deal 'misguided'

In a shocker, rapper Kanye West in an interview with an entertainment website called African-American slavery that lasted for 400 years a matter of "choice".

As he spoke about the US President Donald Trump and the US rapper&nbsp;community’s love for him, Kanye also said, "When you hear about slavery for 400 years ... for 400 years? That sounds like a choice.”

He quickly added, "We're mentally imprisoned” before moving on to another topic.

As he wrapped up the interview, Kanye was interjected by a black member of staff at the company, Van Lathan. He said, "You're entitled to believe whatever you want, but there is fact and real-world, real-life consequence behind everything that you just said. We have to deal with the marginalisation that has come from the 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice.”

Van added, "I'm appalled, and brother I am unbelievably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something to me that isn't real."

Twitterati also took to their pages to condemn his remarks with some even suggesting him to refer to history books. This is the second time in less than a week’s span when Kanye has been <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kanye-west-breaks-his-twitter-silence-calls-donald-trump-his-brother-132873">trolled</a> on social media. He was trolled last week for releasing a new song defending his <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/kanye-west-supports-trump-in-a-series-of-tweets-receives-backlash-133421">support for Trump</a>, who according to Kanye is "fighting for the people".

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This is Kanye West saying "400yrs of slavery was a choice" is so insulting. ? <a href="https://t.co/ySqZxldVAK">pic.twitter.com/ySqZxldVAK</a>
— Mwes M Drew™ (@_mwes) <a href="https://twitter.com/_mwes/status/991623387087765504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 2018</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" data-lang="en">
Man, this Kanye West shit makes me sad as a former history teacher. Nothing is worse for the world than dumb people who think they are smart cause other dumb people agree with them. Especially when it comes to ignoring or revising the most horrific parts of humanity's past.
— Jesse Cox: at Monster Prom (@JesseCox) <a href="https://twitter.com/JesseCox/status/991607346701926400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 2018</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>

As the issue gathered steam on social media, Kanye took to Twitter to clear his stand and wrote: “The reason why I brought up the 400 years point is because we can't be mentally imprisoned for another 400 years. We need free thought now. Even the statement was an example of free thought &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It was just an idea.”

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
the reason why I brought up the 400 years point is because we can't be mentally imprisoned for another 400 years. We need free thought now. Even the statement was an example of free thought It was just an idea
— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) <a href="https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/991466506725744642?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2018</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>

In a series of tweets, he defended his stance and wrote about the real meaning of his statement. He added: “to make myself clear. Of course I know that slaves did not get shackled and put on a boat by free will.”

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
to make myself clear. Of course I know that slaves did not get shackled and put on a boat by free will
— KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) <a href="https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/991459400018624512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2018</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>

As per history, black people were forced to leave their homes in Africa and were brought to the US during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries to be sold as slaves.

In an interview with a leading entertainment news site, the rapper said that African-American slavery was their own creation and that 'we're mentally imprisoned'.

In a shocker, rapper Kanye West in an interview with an entertainment website called African-American slavery that lasted for 400 years a matter of "choice". As he spoke about the US President Donald Trump and the US rapper community’s love for him, Kanye also said, "When you hear about slavery for 400 years ... for 400 years? That sounds like a choice.” He quickly added, "We're mentally imprisoned” before moving on to another topic. As he wrapped up the interview, Kanye was interjected by a black member of staff at the company, Van Lathan. He said, "You're entitled to believe whatever you want, but there is fact and real-world, real-life consequence behind everything that you just said. We have to deal with the marginalisation that has come from the 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice.” Van added, "I'm appalled, and brother I am unbelievably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something to me that isn't real." Twitterati also took to their pages to condemn his remarks with some even suggesting him to refer to history books. This is the second time in less than a week’s span when Kanye has been trolled on social media. He was trolled last week for releasing a new song defending his support for Trump, who according to Kanye is "fighting for the people". This is Kanye West saying "400yrs of slavery was a choice" is so insulting. ? pic.twitter.com/ySqZxldVAK — Mwes M Drew™ (@_mwes) May 2, 2018 × Man, this Kanye West shit makes me sad as a former history teacher. Nothing is worse for the world than dumb people who think they are smart cause other dumb people agree with them. Especially when it comes to ignoring or revising the most horrific parts of humanity's past. — Jesse Cox: at Monster Prom (@JesseCox) May 2, 2018 × As the issue gathered steam on social media, Kanye took to Twitter to clear his stand and wrote: “The reason why I brought up the 400 years point is because we can't be mentally imprisoned for another 400 years. We need free thought now. Even the statement was an example of free thought It was just an idea.” the reason why I brought up the 400 years point is because we can't be mentally imprisoned for another 400 years. We need free thought now. Even the statement was an example of free thought It was just an idea — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) May 1, 2018 × In a series of tweets, he defended his stance and wrote about the real meaning of his statement. He added: “to make myself clear. Of course I know that slaves did not get shackled and put on a boat by free will.” to make myself clear. Of course I know that slaves did not get shackled and put on a boat by free will — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) May 1, 2018 × As per history, black people were forced to leave their homes in Africa and were brought to the US during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries to be sold as slaves.

Kanye West says 400 years of slavery was 'a choice'

Comedian Jordan Peele and BuzzFeed collaborated to make a mockumentary depicting former United States President Barack Obama delivering an official address to the people.

The video released by BuzzFeed shows former US President Obama referring to Donald Trump as&nbsp"a total and complete dips*** " among other statements. However, if you watch the video till the end you will understand that it is fake.&nbsp

The video is not an actual recording of Obama. It's a highly edited video that digitally alters footage of Obama to make his mouth mimic a voice actor's movements.&nbsp

"This is a dangerous time," Peele says while impersonating Obama. "Moving forward we need to be more vigilant with what we trust from the internet. It's a time where we need to rely on trusted news sources."

As per the media reports, the aim of this collaboration was to make its viewers aware that one must not believe everything that is shown in the videos circulated online.

Peele and BuzzFeed founder and CEO Jonah Peretti together helmed this video project under the banner Monkeypaw Productions to highlight the importance of the media literacy among people.

The video was shared by several internet users across Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat.

The reports further mention that the video was built using AfterEffects and an application called as Fakeapp.

Watch the video here:&nbsp

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cQ54GDm1eL0" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp

As per the media reports, the aim of this collaboration was to make its viewers aware that one must not believe everything that is shown in the videos circulated online

Comedian Jordan Peele and BuzzFeed collaborated to make a mockumentary depicting former United States President Barack Obama delivering an official address to the people. The video released by BuzzFeed shows former US President Obama referring to Donald Trump as "a total and complete dips*** " among other statements. However, if you watch the video till the end you will understand that it is fake. The video is not an actual recording of Obama. It's a highly edited video that digitally alters footage of Obama to make his mouth mimic a voice actor's movements. "This is a dangerous time," Peele says while impersonating Obama. "Moving forward we need to be more vigilant with what we trust from the internet. It's a time where we need to rely on trusted news sources." As per the media reports, the aim of this collaboration was to make its viewers aware that one must not believe everything that is shown in the videos circulated online. Peele and BuzzFeed founder and CEO Jonah Peretti together helmed this video project under the banner Monkeypaw Productions to highlight the importance of the media literacy among people. The video was shared by several internet users across Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat. The reports further mention that the video was built using AfterEffects and an application called as Fakeapp. Watch the video here: ×

'Trump is a total and complete dipshit,' says Obama. Warning: This video is fake

It is hard to imagine that most Americans have survived a year under the weight of a chaotic presidency. A year ago, the American political landscape was permanently transformed when Donald Trump was elected its 45th President. Trump rose to power by channeling the worst xenophobic and misogynist impulses that had, for long, stayed dormant in American society.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

His economic platform was heavily protectionist and the social one, a dog-whistle to white supremacists. He brought with him a history of sexual misconduct, displayed little grace in international diplomacy, demonstrated a shocking ignorance of American and international politics, and in the past year, has essentially ceded much of America&rsquo;s global leadership.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Moving forward, the Trump presidency is likely to further damage the credibility of American political institutions and destabilize the liberal international order. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

A year into the Trump presidency reveals several dangerous trends.&nbsp;

First, the president has shown little regard for America&rsquo;s most cherished political institutions &ndash; in particular &ndash; a free press and law enforcement. The liberal press has come under heavy attack for seeking accountability on facts. In what has turned into an hourly ritual, the president takes to social media where he attacks, vilifies, and spreads false information about the press, sowing confusion and breeding ignorance among the average American public.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Intelligence officials and law enforcement agencies have faced similar persecution. The unceremonious dismissal of the FBI Director, James Comey, in May 2017, for investigating the Trump presidency&rsquo;s links to Russia, was a remarkable abuse of political power. Donald Trump&rsquo;s strong-arm tactics, threats, and coercion signal a dark new reality. America is slowly but surely embracing authoritarianism. A reckless and power-hungry president with no respect for checks and balances threatens to seriously weaken American institutions and some critics correctly predict a possible constitutional crisis emerging soon.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Second, the Trump presidency has become synonymous with reclaiming white nationalism, evident in the president&rsquo;s inclination for harsh immigration policies (recall the Muslim ban, &ldquo;building the wall&rdquo; with Mexico) and his recent statements disparaging immigrants from non-white countries.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A combination of exclusionary policies and toxic rhetoric carries a ringing endorsement that unless you are white, you are not American. The Republican party shows signs of moral decay, failing to call out the president on his actions and is complicit in aiding a white nationalist agenda.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Third, Donald Trump believes America needs a stronger military to win its wars. This means a more muscular approach in foreign policy, sharp increases in defense expenditure, more bombs, more weapons, but little reflection on the lessons of history for America&rsquo;s future conduct of war. While the president swears by the American military, his actual policies and statements on transgender troops and women in the military are deeply prejudiced and will dent the image and professionalism of the American military.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

American civil-military relations often appear to be in tension when the president and his advisors make contradictory statements on matters of national security. While both James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, and H.R. McMaster, National Security Advisor, have shown thought and resolve on pressing national security issues like North Korea and Iraq, it is not entirely clear how much influence they can ultimately exercise in shaping policy independent of the president&rsquo;s political preferences.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Finally, America&rsquo;s image as the leader of the free world has suffered a major debacle abroad. An understaffed State Department, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and a less prominent role in the United Nations are some of the many diplomatic failings of this presidency pointing to the growing absence of global American leadership.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

What might a Trump presidency mean for India?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The answer here is hard to predict as little value can be placed on the words of an unpredictable megalomaniac. It is unlikely that the Trump administration will significantly deviate from the Obama administration&rsquo;s approach to India. Cooperation in defense, trade, and technology will continue as before and the two countries will continue to maintain a viable partnership.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The only decisive shift affecting foreign relations of both countries could emerge on the Pakistan front. In recent months and weeks, Trump has taken a much harder line on Pakistan than previous administrations. He has communicated a strong desire to dismantle terrorist groups, called Pakistan a state-sponsor of terrorism, and in the last few weeks, withdrawn aid to the country. Trump&rsquo;s pressure on Pakistan has been welcomed by many of India&rsquo;s top political leaders.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

While this works in favor of Indian security interests, it would be profoundly unwise for India to predicate its Pakistan policy around Donald Trump&rsquo;s plan to isolate Pakistan. As much as Trump believes, in theory, that Pakistan can be backed into a corner, it will be much harder, in fact, for the United States to sever all ties with Pakistan. The United States will require Pakistan&rsquo;s support to fight terrorism in some form and it would be prudent for India to not allow America&rsquo;s relationship with Pakistan to be the defining benchmark of its relationship with both. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

A separate and troubling moral question the Trump presidency poses for India is whether India is going to ignore the revival of white nationalism at its own peril to embrace its security interests first. America has a large Indian-American immigrant population who will, undoubtedly, be seriously impacted by Trump&rsquo;s immigration policies.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Tata Consultancy, India&rsquo;s largest software exporter, has already expressed serious concerns over the administration&rsquo;s unclear and draconian H1-B policy. Since Trump became president, Indian communities have also been threatened and persecuted by resurgent white nationalist groups. Some have even been murdered. Case in point: Srinivas Kuchibhotla, a 32-year-old Indian immigrant who was shot to death in Olathe, Kansas by a white nationalist.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There are important moral questions for the future of Indians living in America that are equally vital for India to consider in its current relationship with the United States. White nationalism is a scourge and India is no stranger to the legacy of colonialism. To secure a stronger economic future with America, it should not compromise its moral standing in the world.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

Trump administration will not significantly deviate from the Obama administration’s approach to India. Cooperation in defense, trade, and technology will continue as before.

It is hard to imagine that most Americans have survived a year under the weight of a chaotic presidency. A year ago, the American political landscape was permanently transformed when Donald Trump was elected its 45th President. Trump rose to power by channeling the worst xenophobic and misogynist impulses that had, for long, stayed dormant in American society. His economic platform was heavily protectionist and the social one, a dog-whistle to white supremacists. He brought with him a history of sexual misconduct, displayed little grace in international diplomacy, demonstrated a shocking ignorance of American and international politics, and in the past year, has essentially ceded much of America’s global leadership. Moving forward, the Trump presidency is likely to further damage the credibility of American political institutions and destabilize the liberal international order. A year into the Trump presidency reveals several dangerous trends. First, the president has shown little regard for America’s most cherished political institutions – in particular – a free press and law enforcement. The liberal press has come under heavy attack for seeking accountability on facts. In what has turned into an hourly ritual, the president takes to social media where he attacks, vilifies, and spreads false information about the press, sowing confusion and breeding ignorance among the average American public. Intelligence officials and law enforcement agencies have faced similar persecution. The unceremonious dismissal of the FBI Director, James Comey, in May 2017, for investigating the Trump presidency’s links to Russia, was a remarkable abuse of political power. Donald Trump’s strong-arm tactics, threats, and coercion signal a dark new reality. America is slowly but surely embracing authoritarianism. A reckless and power-hungry president with no respect for checks and balances threatens to seriously weaken American institutions and some critics correctly predict a possible constitutional crisis emerging soon. Second, the Trump presidency has become synonymous with reclaiming white nationalism, evident in the president’s inclination for harsh immigration policies (recall the Muslim ban, “building the wall” with Mexico) and his recent statements disparaging immigrants from non-white countries. A combination of exclusionary policies and toxic rhetoric carries a ringing endorsement that unless you are white, you are not American. The Republican party shows signs of moral decay, failing to call out the president on his actions and is complicit in aiding a white nationalist agenda. Third, Donald Trump believes America needs a stronger military to win its wars. This means a more muscular approach in foreign policy, sharp increases in defense expenditure, more bombs, more weapons, but little reflection on the lessons of history for America’s future conduct of war. While the president swears by the American military, his actual policies and statements on transgender troops and women in the military are deeply prejudiced and will dent the image and professionalism of the American military. American civil-military relations often appear to be in tension when the president and his advisors make contradictory statements on matters of national security. While both James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, and H.R. McMaster, National Security Advisor, have shown thought and resolve on pressing national security issues like North Korea and Iraq, it is not entirely clear how much influence they can ultimately exercise in shaping policy independent of the president’s political preferences. Finally, America’s image as the leader of the free world has suffered a major debacle abroad. An understaffed State Department, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and a less prominent role in the United Nations are some of the many diplomatic failings of this presidency pointing to the growing absence of global American leadership. What might a Trump presidency mean for India? The answer here is hard to predict as little value can be placed on the words of an unpredictable megalomaniac. It is unlikely that the Trump administration will significantly deviate from the Obama administration’s approach to India. Cooperation in defense, trade, and technology will continue as before and the two countries will continue to maintain a viable partnership. The only decisive shift affecting foreign relations of both countries could emerge on the Pakistan front. In recent months and weeks, Trump has taken a much harder line on Pakistan than previous administrations. He has communicated a strong desire to dismantle terrorist groups, called Pakistan a state-sponsor of terrorism, and in the last few weeks, withdrawn aid to the country. Trump’s pressure on Pakistan has been welcomed by many of India’s top political leaders. While this works in favor of Indian security interests, it would be profoundly unwise for India to predicate its Pakistan policy around Donald Trump’s plan to isolate Pakistan. As much as Trump believes, in theory, that Pakistan can be backed into a corner, it will be much harder, in fact, for the United States to sever all ties with Pakistan. The United States will require Pakistan’s support to fight terrorism in some form and it would be prudent for India to not allow America’s relationship with Pakistan to be the defining benchmark of its relationship with both. A separate and troubling moral question the Trump presidency poses for India is whether India is going to ignore the revival of white nationalism at its own peril to embrace its security interests first. America has a large Indian-American immigrant population who will, undoubtedly, be seriously impacted by Trump’s immigration policies. Tata Consultancy, India’s largest software exporter, has already expressed serious concerns over the administration’s unclear and draconian H1-B policy. Since Trump became president, Indian communities have also been threatened and persecuted by resurgent white nationalist groups. Some have even been murdered. Case in point: Srinivas Kuchibhotla, a 32-year-old Indian immigrant who was shot to death in Olathe, Kansas by a white nationalist. There are important moral questions for the future of Indians living in America that are equally vital for India to consider in its current relationship with the United States. White nationalism is a scourge and India is no stranger to the legacy of colonialism. To secure a stronger economic future with America, it should not compromise its moral standing in the world. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What might a Trump presidency mean for India and US?

India&#39;s foreign secretary S. Jaishankar<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/terrorism-anywhere-can-threaten-societies-anywhere-sushma-swaraj-at-raisina-dialogue-29822"> speaking at the Raisina Dialogue</a> stated that the rise of China, choices, postures, behaviour of the United States, the challenge of terrorism especially from ungoverned spaces and the rise of &quot;non-market economics&quot; would be the &quot;four big disruptions&quot; in times ahead.

While emphasizing that China<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/need-to-identify-nations-who-are-sponsors-of-terrorists-army-chief-at-raisina-dialogue-29797"> had &quot;opened up the international order&quot;,</a> the foreign secretary said: &quot;We need to have a balanced view. Certainly, for India, in some ways, China has been a motivator and an example.&quot;

&quot;Let&#39;s take the rise of China. Clearly what we are seeing is not just rise of global power but the rise of a very different power. And also whether that power will be a model to other countries or not, I think is an open question,&quot; Jaishankar said.

Jaishankar who is set to retire on January 28th said, &quot;Iraq was a disruption, in a sense Pakistan has, was, is, will be a disruptor. The Obama administration&#39;s choices on Russia were disruptions to international politics.&quot;

Expanding on the practice of &quot;non-market economics&quot; a term which means countries who seek to follow central planning, India&#39;s foreign secretary said: &quot;A lot of market economies are also practising non-market economics,&quot; while also pointing out that barriers in the trade and services were coming down.

India's foreign secretary said for India, China has been a motivator and an example.

India's foreign secretary S. Jaishankar speaking at the Raisina Dialogue stated that the rise of China, choices, postures, behaviour of the United States, the challenge of terrorism especially from ungoverned spaces and the rise of "non-market economics" would be the "four big disruptions" in times ahead. While emphasizing that China had "opened up the international order", the foreign secretary said: "We need to have a balanced view. Certainly, for India, in some ways, China has been a motivator and an example." "Let's take the rise of China. Clearly what we are seeing is not just rise of global power but the rise of a very different power. And also whether that power will be a model to other countries or not, I think is an open question," Jaishankar said. Jaishankar who is set to retire on January 28th said, "Iraq was a disruption, in a sense Pakistan has, was, is, will be a disruptor. The Obama administration's choices on Russia were disruptions to international politics." Expanding on the practice of "non-market economics" a term which means countries who seek to follow central planning, India's foreign secretary said: "A lot of market economies are also practising non-market economics," while also pointing out that barriers in the trade and services were coming down.

India's foreign secretary Jaishankar picks 'four big disruptions' at Raisina Dialogue

David Litt served from 2011 to 2016 as the special assistant to President Obama. He played a crucial role in the Obama presidency as the senior presidential speechwriter. He was the youngest to do in US history. Known as the comic muse for the US President, David is also known as the &quot;Man Behind the President&#39;s Jokes&quot;.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION took this opportunity to speak to David Litt who reflected on myriad topics from the role of jokes in politics to Trump, from Obama&#39;s iconic speeches to Air Force One.

&nbsp;

WION:&nbsp; You were just 24 years old when you started at the White House. How did you get to the speechwriter for Barack Obama?

Litt: I was one of the college students in 2008 who was energised by Barack Obama Campaign and after I graduated I moved to Ohio and worked at the state level at the campaigns and then I moved to Washington having no plans of becoming a speech writer, but then one thing led to another and then I&nbsp; ended up getting a job at a firm writing speech for CEOs and other companies mostly private sector leaders.&nbsp;

Few years after that White House had the opening at the bottom of the ladder for a speechwriter to the senior staff. And they basically said- Hey if you want to apply for this job your references are pretty good, you are the only applicant. Why don&#39;t you come over to work at the White House and I was like- Yeah okay, that sounds pretty good. I can do that.

So I hope there was a little talent involved but I think it was to be at the right place at the right time. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/170925-thegist-davidlitt.crop.promo-xlarge2-20180109111304.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
&#39;Man Behind the President&#39;s Jokes&#39; (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

 
Let&#39;s go a little backward and try and get to know the &#39;Man Behind Presidents Words&#39; a little better.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION: Where did you grow up? And how did it all started?&nbsp;

Litt: I grew up in New York City in Manhattan, and I was never incredibly politically active but my parents would talk about politics like the other people&#39;s parents talk about sports around at the dinner table, and I had never planned of being a political speechwriter but I did write a lot of comedy. So, I had done stand-up comedy when I was in High School, I edited a Humour Magazine when I was in college and that was the sort of entry that I had in writing. It turned out to be useful but I hadn&#39;t guessed that in advance. I never planned on being a writer professionally.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION: What was your first President Obama moment?&nbsp;

Litt: First time I met President Obama was for a video where he was wishing America Happy Thanks Giving so it was not a big important video but for me, it was really important. I have never written anything like this. And we went to the taping to watch the President and right before the President started, the videographer she stopped and she turn(ed) to me and said- Mr. President, this is David and this is the first time that he has ever written for you.

President Obama turned to me and said: Well, how is it going for you, David?

And I have literally no idea of what I said. I literally blacked out. Like I don&#39;t remember what I told the President.

Later, I found out that it was (a) completely common occurrence. Like people would meet him and completely short circuit and not remember a word they said.

I guess it happened to the best of us something that we are not familiar.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION: If I were to mention some of the most iconic speeches that Barack Obama made I would recall the speech on Race (relations) that he gave in 2008. Do you think he has more of a personal touch in his speeches, unlike other politicians?

Litt: I think the speech was very personal, I mean not exclusively. Many many speeches that President Obama gave was deeply personal.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION: How has comedy been the tool of getting a political message out?

Litt: One of the things that I learned when I was in the White House and it becomes more true with time is that comedy is a great way of getting attention and it&#39;s harder to get peoples attention than ever before. You know with the Internet.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION:&nbsp; One interesting thing about President Obama was that he gave a lot of references about people in his speeches. You were meant to be talking to these people and getting the insights. What was that like?

Litt:&nbsp; One of my favourite part of the job was to talk to people who were not in Washington DC; who were going to be mentioned by the President but they often didn&#39;t know that. So, I would talk to them, hear their stories and then we will pick people who were really inspiring. You know people who were demonstrating resilience of which all Americans can be proud of.

&nbsp;

WION:&nbsp; You have mentioned about &quot;The Plane&quot; in your book. How cool is it to be the one on &quot;The Plane&quot;?

Litt: Air Force One is just pretty awesome. I mean there is getting around that. There are lots of perks of the White House that wouldn&#39;t be as amazing as you think but Air Force is actually amazing. It wasn&#39;t even about the perks it was about being on Air Force One. More than the White House, in certain ways, Air Force One is the symbol of America...It&#39;s just really special. I do fly coach now. So yeah, I do miss that part of my job.

&nbsp;

WION: What is the process of writing a comic speech for the President?&nbsp;

Litt: In someway jokes are not the highest stakes thing the President has got to do, in fact, it can be just opposite. But they (jokes) can be very difficult because in a joke every word needs to be exactly right. So we would get jokes from 12-13 people, we would give hundreds of ideas and cut that down to 40, and then work with the President to pick with him the one he likes the most.&nbsp;

President Obama in addition to being a funny guy in person is amazing in delivering a joke on stage. So he made us look good which you know was pretty nice.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION: Tell us about two of the best memories while working for the White House?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Litt:&nbsp;That&#39;s a difficult question because there are so many things.

One of the best memory that I have is the first day I walked through the gate. The feeling of saying, wait is it really me in here? It was impossible not to have that going through in my head.&nbsp;

The other moment was when President Obama gave one of his best speeches, most important speeches that I think, was when he spoke for the victims of Mass Shooting in Charlottesville... at the same day the Supreme Court ruled in favour of marriage equality, so gays and lesbians could get married nationwide, and also a day before (the) Supreme Court upheld the Healthcare law. All three of those things combined people from all over Washington. (They) started coming to the White House and White House was lit up in the colour of a rainbow. You see a little progress every time and you see that your country is a lot better place in the evening than it was in the morning. That is pretty amazing to be a part off.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION: What were some of the challenges of writing speeches for one of the most powerful men on this planet?

Litt: People constantly criticising of what you write though they don&#39;t know that you are writing it. And also you have people who are always taking words out of context. I mean that is politics. And it is then when you have to constantly look over your shoulder while writing, which is hard.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION: What was the thing that you loved most about working with President Obama?&nbsp;

Litt:&nbsp; What I loved working with President Obama was to be a chance to be a part of these moments. To play even the smallest role in somebody&#39;s kid getting a healthcare when they needed or somebody feeling that their story is becoming a part of the American story that they never thought it would be. Just to be one of many many people contributing to that was a very very good feeling.&nbsp; And I really do miss that.

&nbsp;

WION: What were your fear while writing for the President?

Litt: My biggest fear was making a mistake that would make my Boss Look bad. You know if he looked bad it will be a national news may be not just in the US, it could be international news. So the stakes were just so much higher. The job was similar but the consequences of the mistakes were not just the same.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

WION:&nbsp;What do you think will be the most difficult part to deal while writing for President Trump?

Litt: One of the things that I learnt was that the words are important but what is more imp is the ideas behind it. Most difficult part for me to write for Donald Trump would be the world of his ideas which I do not agree with as it is contrary to everything America stood for since the beginning of the US. And so the speechwriting thing would be difficult and I wouldn&#39;t be taking up the job is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way he views the US.

&nbsp;

WION: In this age of social media where the Twitter rules, what is the relevance of a speech?

Litt:&nbsp; I think the speeches that the President gives will always matter. What might matter is the day to day speaking that the President would do. But I think in big moments like State of the Union or in times of Crisis, people want to hear from the President. People want to hear from there leaders. And I think that is still true even in a social media age. And people sill want this stability and the depth of understanding that you only can get through a speech; you can&#39;t really get through a tweet.

"Most difficult part for me to write for Donald Trump would be the world of his ideas, which I do not agree with, as it is contrary to everything America stood for since the beginning of the US", David Litt, senior presidential speechwriter of Barack Obama

David Litt served from 2011 to 2016 as the special assistant to President Obama. He played a crucial role in the Obama presidency as the senior presidential speechwriter. He was the youngest to do in US history. Known as the comic muse for the US President, David is also known as the "Man Behind the President's Jokes". WION took this opportunity to speak to David Litt who reflected on myriad topics from the role of jokes in politics to Trump, from Obama's iconic speeches to Air Force One. WION: You were just 24 years old when you started at the White House. How did you get to the speechwriter for Barack Obama? Litt: I was one of the college students in 2008 who was energised by Barack Obama Campaign and after I graduated I moved to Ohio and worked at the state level at the campaigns and then I moved to Washington having no plans of becoming a speech writer, but then one thing led to another and then I ended up getting a job at a firm writing speech for CEOs and other companies mostly private sector leaders. Few years after that White House had the opening at the bottom of the ladder for a speechwriter to the senior staff. And they basically said- Hey if you want to apply for this job your references are pretty good, you are the only applicant. Why don't you come over to work at the White House and I was like- Yeah okay, that sounds pretty good. I can do that. So I hope there was a little talent involved but I think it was to be at the right place at the right time. 'Man Behind the President's Jokes' (WION) × Let's go a little backward and try and get to know the 'Man Behind Presidents Words' a little better. WION: Where did you grow up? And how did it all started? Litt: I grew up in New York City in Manhattan, and I was never incredibly politically active but my parents would talk about politics like the other people's parents talk about sports around at the dinner table, and I had never planned of being a political speechwriter but I did write a lot of comedy. So, I had done stand-up comedy when I was in High School, I edited a Humour Magazine when I was in college and that was the sort of entry that I had in writing. It turned out to be useful but I hadn't guessed that in advance. I never planned on being a writer professionally. WION: What was your first President Obama moment? Litt: First time I met President Obama was for a video where he was wishing America Happy Thanks Giving so it was not a big important video but for me, it was really important. I have never written anything like this. And we went to the taping to watch the President and right before the President started, the videographer she stopped and she turn(ed) to me and said- Mr. President, this is David and this is the first time that he has ever written for you. President Obama turned to me and said: Well, how is it going for you, David? And I have literally no idea of what I said. I literally blacked out. Like I don't remember what I told the President. Later, I found out that it was (a) completely common occurrence. Like people would meet him and completely short circuit and not remember a word they said. I guess it happened to the best of us something that we are not familiar. WION: If I were to mention some of the most iconic speeches that Barack Obama made I would recall the speech on Race (relations) that he gave in 2008. Do you think he has more of a personal touch in his speeches, unlike other politicians? Litt: I think the speech was very personal, I mean not exclusively. Many many speeches that President Obama gave was deeply personal. WION: How has comedy been the tool of getting a political message out? Litt: One of the things that I learned when I was in the White House and it becomes more true with time is that comedy is a great way of getting attention and it's harder to get peoples attention than ever before. You know with the Internet. WION: One interesting thing about President Obama was that he gave a lot of references about people in his speeches. You were meant to be talking to these people and getting the insights. What was that like? Litt: One of my favourite part of the job was to talk to people who were not in Washington DC; who were going to be mentioned by the President but they often didn't know that. So, I would talk to them, hear their stories and then we will pick people who were really inspiring. You know people who were demonstrating resilience of which all Americans can be proud of. WION: You have mentioned about "The Plane" in your book. How cool is it to be the one on "The Plane"? Litt: Air Force One is just pretty awesome. I mean there is getting around that. There are lots of perks of the White House that wouldn't be as amazing as you think but Air Force is actually amazing. It wasn't even about the perks it was about being on Air Force One. More than the White House, in certain ways, Air Force One is the symbol of America...It's just really special. I do fly coach now. So yeah, I do miss that part of my job. WION: What is the process of writing a comic speech for the President? Litt: In someway jokes are not the highest stakes thing the President has got to do, in fact, it can be just opposite. But they (jokes) can be very difficult because in a joke every word needs to be exactly right. So we would get jokes from 12-13 people, we would give hundreds of ideas and cut that down to 40, and then work with the President to pick with him the one he likes the most. President Obama in addition to being a funny guy in person is amazing in delivering a joke on stage. So he made us look good which you know was pretty nice. WION: Tell us about two of the best memories while working for the White House? Litt: That's a difficult question because there are so many things. One of the best memory that I have is the first day I walked through the gate. The feeling of saying, wait is it really me in here? It was impossible not to have that going through in my head. The other moment was when President Obama gave one of his best speeches, most important speeches that I think, was when he spoke for the victims of Mass Shooting in Charlottesville... at the same day the Supreme Court ruled in favour of marriage equality, so gays and lesbians could get married nationwide, and also a day before (the) Supreme Court upheld the Healthcare law. All three of those things combined people from all over Washington. (They) started coming to the White House and White House was lit up in the colour of a rainbow. You see a little progress every time and you see that your country is a lot better place in the evening than it was in the morning. That is pretty amazing to be a part off. WION: What were some of the challenges of writing speeches for one of the most powerful men on this planet? Litt: People constantly criticising of what you write though they don't know that you are writing it. And also you have people who are always taking words out of context. I mean that is politics. And it is then when you have to constantly look over your shoulder while writing, which is hard. WION: What was the thing that you loved most about working with President Obama? Litt: What I loved working with President Obama was to be a chance to be a part of these moments. To play even the smallest role in somebody's kid getting a healthcare when they needed or somebody feeling that their story is becoming a part of the American story that they never thought it would be. Just to be one of many many people contributing to that was a very very good feeling. And I really do miss that. WION: What were your fear while writing for the President? Litt: My biggest fear was making a mistake that would make my Boss Look bad. You know if he looked bad it will be a national news may be not just in the US, it could be international news. So the stakes were just so much higher. The job was similar but the consequences of the mistakes were not just the same. WION: What do you think will be the most difficult part to deal while writing for President Trump? Litt: One of the things that I learnt was that the words are important but what is more imp is the ideas behind it. Most difficult part for me to write for Donald Trump would be the world of his ideas which I do not agree with as it is contrary to everything America stood for since the beginning of the US. And so the speechwriting thing would be difficult and I wouldn't be taking up the job is that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way he views the US. WION: In this age of social media where the Twitter rules, what is the relevance of a speech? Litt: I think the speeches that the President gives will always matter. What might matter is the day to day speaking that the President would do. But I think in big moments like State of the Union or in times of Crisis, people want to hear from the President. People want to hear from there leaders. And I think that is still true even in a social media age. And people sill want this stability and the depth of understanding that you only can get through a speech; you can't really get through a tweet.

Opinion: On Obama, Trump, Air Force One and Jokes

US President Donald Trump has got similar approval ratings in his first year in office as former US president Barack Obama in a recent poll.&nbsp;

The Rasmussen Reports poll Thursday revealed Trump had an approval rating of 46 per cent and a disapproval rating of 53 per cent. This is similar to what Obama scored in his first year of the presidency in 2009.

<iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5C5B1tIASy0" width="560"></iframe>

Obama had received an approval rating of 46 per cent and a disapproval rating of 54 per cent.&nbsp;

In terms of work done, the poll gave Trump an approval rating of 29 per cent and a disapproval rating of 44 per cent.&nbsp;

That was better than Obama, who got an approval rating of 24 per cent and a disapproval rating of 42 per cent.

On his inauguration day, Obama entered office with a high approval rating of 67 per cent&nbsp;and a disapproval rating of 32 per cent. Trump, on the other hand, received a much higher disapproval rating of almost 80 per cent.&nbsp;

Donald Trump has time and again protested against the unfavourable numbers released by media. The high disapproval and low approval rates for the current president are the outcomes of his controversial policies including ban on citizens from Muslim majority countries, constant jibes at North Korea over their nuclear tests, and recent&nbsp;one being his decision on Jerusalem.&nbsp;

A&nbsp;poll conducted by Politico/Morning Consult reflected a 51 per cent disapproval rating, with 60 per cent of respondents viewing Trump as &#39;reckless and stupid&#39;. At least 54 per cent believe Trump to be a &#39;sexist&#39;.

Rasmussen Reports' poll's number on Thursday revealed Trump getting an approval rating of 46 per cent, while disapproval rating of 53 per cent

US President Donald Trump has got similar approval ratings in his first year in office as former US president Barack Obama in a recent poll. The Rasmussen Reports poll Thursday revealed Trump had an approval rating of 46 per cent and a disapproval rating of 53 per cent. This is similar to what Obama scored in his first year of the presidency in 2009. Obama had received an approval rating of 46 per cent and a disapproval rating of 54 per cent. In terms of work done, the poll gave Trump an approval rating of 29 per cent and a disapproval rating of 44 per cent. That was better than Obama, who got an approval rating of 24 per cent and a disapproval rating of 42 per cent. On his inauguration day, Obama entered office with a high approval rating of 67 per cent and a disapproval rating of 32 per cent. Trump, on the other hand, received a much higher disapproval rating of almost 80 per cent. Donald Trump has time and again protested against the unfavourable numbers released by media. The high disapproval and low approval rates for the current president are the outcomes of his controversial policies including ban on citizens from Muslim majority countries, constant jibes at North Korea over their nuclear tests, and recent one being his decision on Jerusalem. A poll conducted by Politico/Morning Consult reflected a 51 per cent disapproval rating, with 60 per cent of respondents viewing Trump as 'reckless and stupid'. At least 54 per cent believe Trump to be a 'sexist'.

Trump's approval ratings similar to Obama's in first year in office

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/fire-breaks-out-in-lower-parel-mumbai-15-dead-27994" target="_blank">Video: Massive fire breaks out at Mumbai&#39;s Kamala Mills, 15 dead</a>

A massive fire broke out at the Kamala Mills compound in Lower Parel, Mumbai early Friday morning killing 15 people and injuring 12.&nbsp;The fire was reported at 12.30 am Friday.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-approval-rating-same-as-obama-in-first-year-at-office-28002">Trump&#39;s approval rating similar to Obama&#39;s first year at office</a>

Rasmussen Reports&#39; poll&#39;s number on Thursday revealed Trump getting an approval rating of 46 per cent, while disapproval rating of 53 per cent. This is similar to what Obama scored during his first year of presidency in 2009. Obama had received an approval rating of 46 per cent while a disapproval rating of 54 per cent.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/ex-soccer-star-king-george-weah-wins-liberias-presidency-28000">Ex-international footballer George Weah is new Liberia president</a>

Former soccer star&nbsp;George&nbsp;Weah&nbsp;has won Liberia&#39;s presidential run-off election and will succeed incumbent Ellen Johnson Sirleaf next month, the country&#39;s first democratic transition in over 70 years.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/vishwananthan-anand-wins-world-rapid-chess-championship-28003" target="_blank">Vishwananthan</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/vishwananthan-anand-wins-world-rapid-chess-championship-28003" target="_blank">&nbsp;Anand wins World Rapid Chess Championship</a>

India&#39;s Vishwanathan Anand won the World Rapid Chess Championship in Riyadh on Thursday.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/assam-tense-ahead-of-citizens-list-targeting-illegal-bangladeshis-27998" target="_blank">Assam tense ahead of citizens&#39; list identifying &#39;illegal Bangladeshis&#39;</a>

Assam has mobilised around 60,000 police and paramilitary troops ahead of the publication of a list of citizens it says will be used to detect and deport illegal immigrants - mainly Muslims - from neighbouring Bangladesh.

Video: Massive fire breaks out at Mumbai's Kamala Mills, 15 dead A massive fire broke out at the Kamala Mills compound in Lower Parel, Mumbai early Friday morning killing 15 people and injuring 12. The fire was reported at 12.30 am Friday. Trump's approval rating similar to Obama's first year at office Rasmussen Reports' poll's number on Thursday revealed Trump getting an approval rating of 46 per cent, while disapproval rating of 53 per cent. This is similar to what Obama scored during his first year of presidency in 2009. Obama had received an approval rating of 46 per cent while a disapproval rating of 54 per cent. Ex-international footballer George Weah is new Liberia president Former soccer star George Weah has won Liberia's presidential run-off election and will succeed incumbent Ellen Johnson Sirleaf next month, the country's first democratic transition in over 70 years. Vishwananthan Anand wins World Rapid Chess Championship India's Vishwanathan Anand won the World Rapid Chess Championship in Riyadh on Thursday. Assam tense ahead of citizens' list identifying 'illegal Bangladeshis' Assam has mobilised around 60,000 police and paramilitary troops ahead of the publication of a list of citizens it says will be used to detect and deport illegal immigrants - mainly Muslims - from neighbouring Bangladesh.

WION Morning News brief, 29 December 2017

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-hidden-camera-or-recording-chip-found-in-chetnas-shoe-27916" target="_blank">Jadhav&#39;s wife&#39;s shoes contained metal object, says Pakistan</a>

Pakistan has now said there was a metal object in Kulbhushan Jadhav&#39;s wife&#39;s shoes, news reports said Thursday. The reports said Pakistan was claiming the object was either a hidden camera or a recording chip.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/tillerson-lavrov-agree-to-continue-north-korea-diplomacy-us-state-department-27908" target="_blank">US, Russia agree to work on diplomatic solution to North Korea crisis</a>

The United States and Russia have agreed to work together and continue diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis over North Korea&#39;s nuclear missile programme, the US State Department said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-likely-to-present-triple-talaq-bill-in-lok-sabha-today-27909" target="_blank">Government to present triple talaq bill in Lok Sabha today, BJP reportedly issues whip to MPs</a>

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017, which criminalises triple talaq among Muslims, will be presented in the Lok Sabha on Thursday amid several Muslim organisations as well as opposition parties such as Congress, Left and BJD voicing their concerns.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/obama-most-admired-man-among-americans-gallup-poll-27913" target="_blank">Obama, Hillary most admired man, woman in </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/obama-most-admired-man-among-americans-gallup-poll-27913" target="_blank">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/obama-most-admired-man-among-americans-gallup-poll-27913" target="_blank">: Poll</a>

Former President Barack Obama has yet again topped the survey for the most admired man, by the Americans, for the 10th consecutive year, according to results by the Gallup poll. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was named the most admired women in a popular vote by almost 9 per cent of the Gallup poll respondents, edging out Michelle Obama.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/virat-kohli-getting-married-was-much-more-important-27917" target="_blank">Virat Kohli: Getting married was much more important (than cricket)</a>

Indian cricket team captain Virat Kohli who recently got married to Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma is ready for the upcoming South African tour. After hosting a lavish wedding reception party for the who&#39;s who of the Indian celebrity circle in Delhi and Mumbai, Virat on Wednesday spoke about his preparations for the South African series which includes three Tests, six One-Day Internationals (ODI) and three Twenty20 Internationals.&nbsp;

Jadhav's wife's shoes contained metal object, says Pakistan Pakistan has now said there was a metal object in Kulbhushan Jadhav's wife's shoes, news reports said Thursday. The reports said Pakistan was claiming the object was either a hidden camera or a recording chip. US, Russia agree to work on diplomatic solution to North Korea crisis The United States and Russia have agreed to work together and continue diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis over North Korea's nuclear missile programme, the US State Department said on Wednesday. Government to present triple talaq bill in Lok Sabha today, BJP reportedly issues whip to MPs The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017, which criminalises triple talaq among Muslims, will be presented in the Lok Sabha on Thursday amid several Muslim organisations as well as opposition parties such as Congress, Left and BJD voicing their concerns. Obama, Hillary most admired man, woman in US: Poll Former President Barack Obama has yet again topped the survey for the most admired man, by the Americans, for the 10th consecutive year, according to results by the Gallup poll. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was named the most admired women in a popular vote by almost 9 per cent of the Gallup poll respondents, edging out Michelle Obama. Virat Kohli: Getting married was much more important (than cricket) Indian cricket team captain Virat Kohli who recently got married to Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma is ready for the upcoming South African tour. After hosting a lavish wedding reception party for the who's who of the Indian celebrity circle in Delhi and Mumbai, Virat on Wednesday spoke about his preparations for the South African series which includes three Tests, six One-Day Internationals (ODI) and three Twenty20 Internationals.

WION morning news brief, December 28, 2017

Former President Barack Obama has yet again topped the survey for the most admired man,&nbsp;by the Americans, for the 10th consecutive year, according to results by the Gallup poll.&nbsp;

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was named the most admired women in a popular vote by almost 9 per cent of the Gallup poll respondents, edging out Michelle Obama.&nbsp;

17 percent of the Americans polled said Obama was the man they admired most, down from 22 per cent last year.&nbsp;

The current president, Donald&nbsp;Trump, has taken a hit, trailing behind Obama.

Trump was second with 14 per cent.

Obama and Trump were followed by Pope Francis who was third in the list with 3 per cent, with 2 per cent tallies for Arizona Senator John McCain, billionaire inventor Elon Musk and the Rev Billy Graham.&nbsp;

In 2016, Obama led Trump by 22 per cent to 15 per cent.

Gallup said the poll of 1,049 adults was conducted between December 4-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Obama came out top of the Gallup Survey for the 10th year in a row, Hillary for the 16th

Former President Barack Obama has yet again topped the survey for the most admired man, by the Americans, for the 10th consecutive year, according to results by the Gallup poll. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was named the most admired women in a popular vote by almost 9 per cent of the Gallup poll respondents, edging out Michelle Obama. 17 percent of the Americans polled said Obama was the man they admired most, down from 22 per cent last year. The current president, Donald Trump, has taken a hit, trailing behind Obama. Trump was second with 14 per cent. Obama and Trump were followed by Pope Francis who was third in the list with 3 per cent, with 2 per cent tallies for Arizona Senator John McCain, billionaire inventor Elon Musk and the Rev Billy Graham. In 2016, Obama led Trump by 22 per cent to 15 per cent. Gallup said the poll of 1,049 adults was conducted between December 4-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Obama, Hillary most admired man, woman in US: Poll

The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission unveiled plans on Tuesday to scrap landmark 2015 rules intended to ensure a free and open internet, moving to give broadband service providers sweeping power over what content consumers can access.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump in January, said the regulatory agency will vote at a December 14 meeting on his plan to rescind the so-called net neutrality rules championed by Democratic former President Barack Obama that treated internet service providers like public utilities.

Pai said the action would remove heavy-handed internet regulations. Critics said it would let internet service providers give preferential treatment to some sites and apps and allow them to favor their own digital content.

The Obama-era rules, aimed at giving consumers equal access to web content, barred broadband providers from blocking or slowing down access to content or charging consumers more for certain content.

The FCC action was a clear victory for big internet service providers such as AT&amp;T Inc, Comcast Corp, and Verizon Communications Inc, which favored a repeal.

Companies including Google parent Alphabet Inc, Facebook Inc, online shopping company Amazon and video streaming service Netflix Inc had urged Pai not to rescind the rules.

With three Republican and two Democratic commissioners, the FCC is all but certain to approve the repeal.

Trump, a Republican, expressed his opposition to net neutrality in 2014 before the regulations were even implemented, calling it a &ldquo;power grab&rdquo; by Obama.

Pai said his proposal would prevent state and local governments from creating their own net neutrality rules because internet service is &ldquo;inherently an interstate service.&rdquo; The preemption is most likely to handcuff Democratic-governed states and localities that could have considered their own plans to protect consumers&rsquo; equal access to internet content.

&ldquo;The FCC will no longer be in the business of micromanaging business models and preemptively prohibiting services and applications and products that could be pro-competitive,&rdquo; Pai said in an interview, adding that the Obama administration had sought to pick winners and losers.

&ldquo;We should simply set rules of the road that let companies of all kinds in every sector compete and let consumers decide who wins and loses,&rdquo; Pai added.

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said Pai&rsquo;s proposal &ldquo;hands broadband providers the power to decide what voices to amplify, which sites we can visit, what connections we can make, and what communities we create. It throttles access, stalls opportunity, and censors content.&rdquo;

Tom Wheeler, who headed the FCC under Obama and advocated for the net neutrality rules, called the planned repeal &ldquo;a shameful sham and sellout. Even for this FCC and its leadership, this proposal raises hypocrisy to new heights.&rdquo;

AT&amp;T, Comcast, and Verizon have said that repealing the rules could lead to billions of dollars in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility that a future presidential administration could regulate internet pricing.

Comcast said no matter what the FCC decided it would &ldquo;not block, throttle or discriminate against lawful content.&rdquo; AT&amp;T said all major companies have publicly agreed to honor net neutrality and a company &ldquo;that is so foolish as to seek to engage in gatekeeping will be quickly and decisively called out.&rdquo;

HEAVY COSTS

Verizon said it believed the FCC &ldquo;will reinstate a framework that protects consumers&rsquo; access to the open internet, without forcing them to bear the heavy costs from unnecessary regulation.&rdquo;

The planned repeal represents the latest example of a legacy achievement of Obama being erased since Trump took office in January.

Trump has abandoned international trade deals, the landmark Paris climate accord and environmental protections, taken aim at the Iran nuclear accord and closer relations with Cuba, and sought repeal Obama&rsquo;s signature healthcare law.

The Internet Association, representing major technology firms including Alphabet and Facebook, said Pai&rsquo;s proposal &ldquo;represents the end of net neutrality as we know it and defies the will of millions of Americans.&rdquo;

Pai&rsquo;s proposal would require internet service providers to disclose whether they allow blocking or slowing down of consumer web access or permit so-called internet fast lanes to facilitate a practice called paid prioritization of charging for certain content. Such disclosure will make it easier for another agency, the Federal Trade Commission, to act against internet service providers that fail to disclose such conduct to consumers, Pai said.

A U.S. appeals court last year upheld the legality of the net neutrality regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit led by telecommunications industry trade association US Telecom.

The group praised Pai&rsquo;s decision to remove &ldquo;antiquated, restrictive regulations&rdquo; to &ldquo;pave the way for broadband network investment, expansion and upgrades.&rdquo;

The FCC&rsquo;s repeal is certain to draw a legal challenge from advocates of net neutrality.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said he has been investigating for six months who provided significant numbers of fake public comments to the FCC in its review of net neutrality rules, corrupting the process.

Nancy Pelosi, the top U.S. House of Representatives Democrat, said the FCC move would hurt consumers and chill competition, saying the agency &ldquo;has launched an all-out assault on the entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition at the heart of the internet.&rdquo;

Pai said he had not shared his plans on the rollback with the White House in advance or been directed to undo net neutrality by White House officials.

Pai&rsquo;s proposal would give the FCC significantly less authority to oversee the web. The FCC granted initial approval to Pai&rsquo;s plan in May, but had left open many key questions including whether to retain any legal requirements limiting internet providers&rsquo; conduct.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the regulatory agency will vote at a December 14 meeting on his plan to rescind the so-called net neutrality rules, which intended to ensure a free and open internet to all and barred broadband providers from blocking access to content or charging consumers

The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission unveiled plans on Tuesday to scrap landmark 2015 rules intended to ensure a free and open internet, moving to give broadband service providers sweeping power over what content consumers can access. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump in January, said the regulatory agency will vote at a December 14 meeting on his plan to rescind the so-called net neutrality rules championed by Democratic former President Barack Obama that treated internet service providers like public utilities. Pai said the action would remove heavy-handed internet regulations. Critics said it would let internet service providers give preferential treatment to some sites and apps and allow them to favor their own digital content. The Obama-era rules, aimed at giving consumers equal access to web content, barred broadband providers from blocking or slowing down access to content or charging consumers more for certain content. The FCC action was a clear victory for big internet service providers such as AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp, and Verizon Communications Inc, which favored a repeal. Companies including Google parent Alphabet Inc, Facebook Inc, online shopping company Amazon and video streaming service Netflix Inc had urged Pai not to rescind the rules. With three Republican and two Democratic commissioners, the FCC is all but certain to approve the repeal. Trump, a Republican, expressed his opposition to net neutrality in 2014 before the regulations were even implemented, calling it a “power grab” by Obama. Pai said his proposal would prevent state and local governments from creating their own net neutrality rules because internet service is “inherently an interstate service.” The preemption is most likely to handcuff Democratic-governed states and localities that could have considered their own plans to protect consumers’ equal access to internet content. “The FCC will no longer be in the business of micromanaging business models and preemptively prohibiting services and applications and products that could be pro-competitive,” Pai said in an interview, adding that the Obama administration had sought to pick winners and losers. “We should simply set rules of the road that let companies of all kinds in every sector compete and let consumers decide who wins and loses,” Pai added. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said Pai’s proposal “hands broadband providers the power to decide what voices to amplify, which sites we can visit, what connections we can make, and what communities we create. It throttles access, stalls opportunity, and censors content.” Tom Wheeler, who headed the FCC under Obama and advocated for the net neutrality rules, called the planned repeal “a shameful sham and sellout. Even for this FCC and its leadership, this proposal raises hypocrisy to new heights.” AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have said that repealing the rules could lead to billions of dollars in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility that a future presidential administration could regulate internet pricing. Comcast said no matter what the FCC decided it would “not block, throttle or discriminate against lawful content.” AT&T said all major companies have publicly agreed to honor net neutrality and a company “that is so foolish as to seek to engage in gatekeeping will be quickly and decisively called out.” HEAVY COSTS Verizon said it believed the FCC “will reinstate a framework that protects consumers’ access to the open internet, without forcing them to bear the heavy costs from unnecessary regulation.” The planned repeal represents the latest example of a legacy achievement of Obama being erased since Trump took office in January. Trump has abandoned international trade deals, the landmark Paris climate accord and environmental protections, taken aim at the Iran nuclear accord and closer relations with Cuba, and sought repeal Obama’s signature healthcare law. The Internet Association, representing major technology firms including Alphabet and Facebook, said Pai’s proposal “represents the end of net neutrality as we know it and defies the will of millions of Americans.” Pai’s proposal would require internet service providers to disclose whether they allow blocking or slowing down of consumer web access or permit so-called internet fast lanes to facilitate a practice called paid prioritization of charging for certain content. Such disclosure will make it easier for another agency, the Federal Trade Commission, to act against internet service providers that fail to disclose such conduct to consumers, Pai said. A U.S. appeals court last year upheld the legality of the net neutrality regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit led by telecommunications industry trade association US Telecom. The group praised Pai’s decision to remove “antiquated, restrictive regulations” to “pave the way for broadband network investment, expansion and upgrades.” The FCC’s repeal is certain to draw a legal challenge from advocates of net neutrality. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said he has been investigating for six months who provided significant numbers of fake public comments to the FCC in its review of net neutrality rules, corrupting the process. Nancy Pelosi, the top U.S. House of Representatives Democrat, said the FCC move would hurt consumers and chill competition, saying the agency “has launched an all-out assault on the entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition at the heart of the internet.” Pai said he had not shared his plans on the rollback with the White House in advance or been directed to undo net neutrality by White House officials. Pai’s proposal would give the FCC significantly less authority to oversee the web. The FCC granted initial approval to Pai’s plan in May, but had left open many key questions including whether to retain any legal requirements limiting internet providers’ conduct.

US FCC chief plans to dump Obama-era 'net neutrality' policy

Former US President Barack Obama was summoned for jury duty on Wednesday -- he went -- but the Chicago court dismissed him soon after.&nbsp;

Obama was the only potential juror to arrive by motorcade, with tight security.&nbsp;

Several news media and court staff tried to get a picture with him.

&quot;He gorgeous!&quot; one court clerk exclaimed upon spotting the former president, the Chicago Tribune reported.&nbsp;

Potential juror Kelly Bulik told the newspaper she felt like a &quot;piece of melting butter&quot; as she shook his hand.

&quot;Thanks everybody for serving on the jury. Or, at least being willing to,&quot; Obama said. Apparently&nbsp;everybody laughed.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/photos/a-sneak-peek-into-obamas-presidency-539#photo-28352" target="_blank">A sneak-peek into Obama&#39;s presidency</a>

Obama is not the first former US president to be summoned for jury duty, AFP reported.&nbsp;

George W Bush was also summoned in 2015 but like Obama,&nbsp;he too was dismissed.

Oprah Winfrey though served as a juror on a three-day murder trial ending in a conviction in 2004, again in Chicago.&nbsp;

Jury duty&nbsp;is not really thought of as something desirable in the US. 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

'He gorgeous!' one court clerk exclaimed upon spotting the former president

Former US President Barack Obama was summoned for jury duty on Wednesday -- he went -- but the Chicago court dismissed him soon after. Obama was the only potential juror to arrive by motorcade, with tight security. Several news media and court staff tried to get a picture with him. "He gorgeous!" one court clerk exclaimed upon spotting the former president, the Chicago Tribune reported. Potential juror Kelly Bulik told the newspaper she felt like a "piece of melting butter" as she shook his hand. "Thanks everybody for serving on the jury. Or, at least being willing to," Obama said. Apparently everybody laughed. Also read: A sneak-peek into Obama's presidency Obama is not the first former US president to be summoned for jury duty, AFP reported. George W Bush was also summoned in 2015 but like Obama, he too was dismissed. Oprah Winfrey though served as a juror on a three-day murder trial ending in a conviction in 2004, again in Chicago. Jury duty is not really thought of as something desirable in the US.

Barack Obama appears for jury duty but court says no thanks

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump said he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are working very closely on a number of Republican initiatives, including tax reform, and described their relationship as closer than ever, despite his own public barbs after the Senate failed to move on healthcare reform.

&quot;We have we have been working together long and hard. We think we&#39;re in good shape for the budget, we hope,&quot; Trump said in a White House appearance with McConnell on Monday (October 16).

Trump also said that he believes Havana is responsible for a series of incidents that Washington thinks hurt at least 22 U.S. diplomats over a period of months in Cuba, prompting Washington to scale back its presence there.

He said he would write and call the families of American soldiers killed in Niger and said he was told former President Barack Obama &quot;sometimes didn&#39;t.&quot;

Asked whether Obama called families of fallen soldiers, Trump said,&quot;I don&#39;t know if he did. No, no, no. I was, I was told that he didn&#39;t often. And a lot of presidents don&#39;t they write letters. I do. Excuse me, Peter. I do a combination of both. Sometimes it&#39;s a very difficult thing to do. But I do a combination of both.

President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes and maybe sometimes he didn&#39;t, I don&#39;t know, that&#39;s what I was told. All I can do, all I can do is ask my generals.

Other&nbsp;presidents did not call. They&#39;d write letters and some presidents didn&#39;t do anything. But I like I like the combination of I like, when I can, the combination of a call and also a letter.&quot; 
 
Trump also bashed his former Democratic campaign rival Hillary Clinton&#39;s recent statement that players kneeling during the National Anthem were &quot;not against our anthem or flag.&quot; Trump said it was that sort of &quot;thinking&quot; that lost her the presidential race.

 
&nbsp;

Trump also bashed his former Democratic campaign rival Hillary Clinton's recent statement that players kneeling during the National Anthem were 'not against our anthem or flag'

US President Donald Trump said he and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are working very closely on a number of Republican initiatives, including tax reform, and described their relationship as closer than ever, despite his own public barbs after the Senate failed to move on healthcare reform. "We have we have been working together long and hard. We think we're in good shape for the budget, we hope," Trump said in a White House appearance with McConnell on Monday (October 16). Trump also said that he believes Havana is responsible for a series of incidents that Washington thinks hurt at least 22 U.S. diplomats over a period of months in Cuba, prompting Washington to scale back its presence there. He said he would write and call the families of American soldiers killed in Niger and said he was told former President Barack Obama "sometimes didn't." Asked whether Obama called families of fallen soldiers, Trump said,"I don't know if he did. No, no, no. I was, I was told that he didn't often. And a lot of presidents don't they write letters. I do. Excuse me, Peter. I do a combination of both. Sometimes it's a very difficult thing to do. But I do a combination of both. President Obama, I think, probably did sometimes and maybe sometimes he didn't, I don't know, that's what I was told. All I can do, all I can do is ask my generals. Other presidents did not call. They'd write letters and some presidents didn't do anything. But I like I like the combination of I like, when I can, the combination of a call and also a letter." Trump also bashed his former Democratic campaign rival Hillary Clinton's recent statement that players kneeling during the National Anthem were "not against our anthem or flag." Trump said it was that sort of "thinking" that lost her the presidential race.

Obama often did not call families of fallen soldiers: Trump

Former US President&nbsp;Barack Obama&nbsp;personally urged Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to counter the rise of fake news on the social network during a meeting held shortly after last year&#39;s election, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

The encounter reportedly took place on the sidelines of a meeting of global leaders in Lima, Peru on November 19, two months before Trump&#39;s inauguration and days after Zuckerberg had dismissed as &quot;crazy&quot; the idea that misleading stories driven by Russian operatives had made a major impact on the outcome of the vote.

&quot;Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem posed by fake news. But he told&nbsp;Obama&nbsp;that those messages weren&#39;t widespread on Facebook and that there was no easy remedy,&quot; the newspaper said, quoting people it said had knowledge of the exchange.

The report comes days after Facebook announced it would be handing over to Congress advertisements it discovered were bought by Russia-linked fake accounts, aimed at inflaming political tensions ahead of and following the election.

The Kremlin has denied any involvement.

Zuckerberg had acknowledged the problem posed by fake news, the report in Washington Post said

Former US President Barack Obama personally urged Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to counter the rise of fake news on the social network during a meeting held shortly after last year's election, the Washington Post reported Sunday. The encounter reportedly took place on the sidelines of a meeting of global leaders in Lima, Peru on November 19, two months before Trump's inauguration and days after Zuckerberg had dismissed as "crazy" the idea that misleading stories driven by Russian operatives had made a major impact on the outcome of the vote. "Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem posed by fake news. But he told Obama that those messages weren't widespread on Facebook and that there was no easy remedy," the newspaper said, quoting people it said had knowledge of the exchange. The report comes days after Facebook announced it would be handing over to Congress advertisements it discovered were bought by Russia-linked fake accounts, aimed at inflaming political tensions ahead of and following the election. The Kremlin has denied any involvement.

Obama warned Zuckerberg over fake news: Report

As Facebook faces intense fake news scrutiny after disclosing the details about the presence of Russian political ads worth $100,000 on its platform during the 2016 US presidential election, it was none other than former President Barack Obama who had warned CEO Mark Zuckerberg about fake news on Facebook. 
 
According to a report in The Washington Post late on Sunday, in November last year, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;Unless Facebook and the government did more to address the threat, Obama warned, it would only get worse in the next presidential race,&quot; the report added.&nbsp; 
 
However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem posed by fake news but &quot;told Obama that those messages weren`t widespread on Facebook and that there was no easy remedy&quot;. 
 
Now, after an extensive legal and policy review, the social media giant has announced it would now share those 3,000 Russian ads with Congressional investigators. 
 
Facebook announced it had found more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the US between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with a Russian entity known as the Internet Research Agency. 
 
Facebook earlier handed over the details to American Special Counsel Robert Mueller that included copies of the ads and details about the accounts that bought them and the targeting criteria they used.

Zuckerberg, who returned after taking parental leave after his second daughter was born, said in a post last week that he deeply cares about the democratic process and protecting its integrity.&nbsp; 
 
Zuckerberg said &quot;We will continue our investigation into what happened on Facebook in this election. We may find more, and if we do, we will continue to work with the government&quot;. 
 
The Facebook CEO noted that the social media company has already provided information regarding this issue with the special counsel and have also briefed Congress about it. 
 
He stressed the company would now make political advertising more transparent. When someone buys political ads on TV or other media, they are required by law to disclose who paid for them.&nbsp; 
 
The company would strengthen the ad review process for political ads. Facebook would now increase investment in security and specifically election integrity.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;In the next year, we will more than double the team working on election integrity. In total, we`ll add more than 250 people across all our teams focused on security and safety for our community,&quot; Zuckerberg said.

According to a report in The Washington Post late on Sunday, in November last year, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously.?

As Facebook faces intense fake news scrutiny after disclosing the details about the presence of Russian political ads worth $100,000 on its platform during the 2016 US presidential election, it was none other than former President Barack Obama who had warned CEO Mark Zuckerberg about fake news on Facebook. According to a report in The Washington Post late on Sunday, in November last year, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously. "Unless Facebook and the government did more to address the threat, Obama warned, it would only get worse in the next presidential race," the report added. However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem posed by fake news but "told Obama that those messages weren`t widespread on Facebook and that there was no easy remedy". Now, after an extensive legal and policy review, the social media giant has announced it would now share those 3,000 Russian ads with Congressional investigators. Facebook announced it had found more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the US between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with a Russian entity known as the Internet Research Agency. Facebook earlier handed over the details to American Special Counsel Robert Mueller that included copies of the ads and details about the accounts that bought them and the targeting criteria they used. Zuckerberg, who returned after taking parental leave after his second daughter was born, said in a post last week that he deeply cares about the democratic process and protecting its integrity. Zuckerberg said "We will continue our investigation into what happened on Facebook in this election. We may find more, and if we do, we will continue to work with the government". The Facebook CEO noted that the social media company has already provided information regarding this issue with the special counsel and have also briefed Congress about it. He stressed the company would now make political advertising more transparent. When someone buys political ads on TV or other media, they are required by law to disclose who paid for them. The company would strengthen the ad review process for political ads. Facebook would now increase investment in security and specifically election integrity. "In the next year, we will more than double the team working on election integrity. In total, we`ll add more than 250 people across all our teams focused on security and safety for our community," Zuckerberg said.

Obama personally warned Zuckerberg over fake news

US Senator&nbsp;John&nbsp;McCain said on Friday he opposes the latest Republican bill to dismantle Obamacare, dealing the measure what could be a fatal blow given the party&#39;s slim Senate majority.

With several other Republicans still undecided on the measure, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier this week he intended to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote next week, though he did not promise to do so.

A vote would set the stage for another dramatic Capitol Hill decision on the 2010 law that brought health insurance to millions of Americans and became former Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s signature domestic achievement.

For seven years, Republicans have hammered Obamacare as an unwarranted government intrusion into American healthcare. President Donald Trump made repealing Obamacare one of his top campaign promises in 2016. Democrats have fiercely defended it.

The announcement by McCain, a Republican who has often been at odds with Trump and who cast a crucial &quot;no&quot; vote in July that helped defeat an earlier Republican repeal bill, had the potential to up-end McConnell&#39;s plans. McConnell&#39;s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

At a rally in Alabama, Trump said McCain&#39;s decision was &quot;totally unexpected, terrible.&quot; Despite the setback, Trump said: &quot;We still have a chance. We&#39;re going to do it eventually.&quot;

Republicans have only a narrow Senate majority and cannot afford to lose many votes on the bill. They are also on a tight timetable.

McConnell has been trying to schedule a vote on the bill by Sept. 30, the last day on which the bill could pass with only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. A vote taken any later than that would have to garner at least 60 votes for passage.

Weeks after the humiliating defeat in July, when the Obamacare repeal fight seemed to be over, the current bill was introduced by Republican&nbsp;Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain&#39;s, and seemed to gain momentum.

McCain says details on impact needed

But McCain on Friday laid out his opposition in a statement: &quot;I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal.&quot; He said he took no pleasure in announcing his opposition and noted that the bill&#39;s authors &quot;are my dear friends.&quot;

McCain complained about the rushed process Republicans&nbsp;used to push the bill forward. He said he would consider supporting a bill like it if it had emerged from extensive hearings, debate and amendment. &quot;But that has not been the case,&quot; he said.

McCain, who cast his &quot;no&quot; vote in July just days after being diagnosed with an aggressive brain cancer, said he could not support the bill without knowing how much it would cost, how it would affect insurance premiums and &quot;how many people will be helped or hurt by it,&quot; information that will not be available until the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides a full assessment at the end of September.

The Graham-Cassidy bill would take the federal money spent on the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, as well as subsidies to help Americans buy private insurance and divvy it up to the states in block grants. Advocates say that would give states more discretion to manage their own healthcare schemes.

Although the CBO has not yet fully assessed the bill&#39;s effects, independent analyses indicate it would fundamentally redistribute federal healthcare money, generally with Republican-leaning states benefiting and Democratic-leaning states losing, largely because a majority of the states that opted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare were Democratic-leaning.

A Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll said Americans prefer Obamacare to the Graham-Cassidy alternative by 56 per cent to 33 per cent.

Graham said in a statement he was not giving up. &quot;We press on,&quot; he said.

Shares of health insurers turned up after McCain announced his oppositions. Centene ended 1.6 per cent higher while Humana closed up 0.2 per cent, reversing earlier losses.

Winners and Losers among states

State-by-state impacts from Graham-Cassidy would vary, the Axios news website reported on Friday, citing a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the unit of the Department&nbsp;of Health and Human Services that oversees Medicaid and the Obamacare program.

The CMS study found that by 2026, Alaska would lose 38 per cent of its federal funding for insurance subsidies and Medicaid; Arizona would lose 9 per cent; Maine would gain 44 per cent; Ohio would lose 18 per cent; and West Virginia would lose 23 per cent, Axios reported.

These states are home to Republican&nbsp;senators who are under pressure on healthcare. Both of Alaska&#39;s Republican&nbsp;senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, are still on the fence over Graham-Cassidy.

The CMS had no immediate comment on the Axios report.

Besides McCain, Kentucky&#39;s Rand Paul is the only other Republican&nbsp;senator&nbsp;who has publicly said he opposes the bill.

Maine&#39;s Susan Collins said she was leaning against the bill, the Portland Press-Herald newspaper reported on Friday. Kansas&#39; Jerry Moran is also undecided.

No Democrats support the bill.

To pass Graham-Cassidy, the Republicans need at least 50 votes in the 100-seat Senate, which they control 52-48, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a potential tie-breaking vote.

The insurance industry, hospitals, medical advocacy groups such as the American Medical Association, American Heart Association and American Cancer Society, the AARP advocacy group for the elderly and consumer activists oppose the bill.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, estimated the bill would cause more than 30 million people to lose insurance.

Weeks after the humiliating defeat in July, when the Obamacare repeal fight seemed to be over, the current bill was introduced by Republican?Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain's, and seemed to gain momentum

US Senator John McCain said on Friday he opposes the latest Republican bill to dismantle Obamacare, dealing the measure what could be a fatal blow given the party's slim Senate majority. With several other Republicans still undecided on the measure, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier this week he intended to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote next week, though he did not promise to do so. A vote would set the stage for another dramatic Capitol Hill decision on the 2010 law that brought health insurance to millions of Americans and became former Democratic President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement. For seven years, Republicans have hammered Obamacare as an unwarranted government intrusion into American healthcare. President Donald Trump made repealing Obamacare one of his top campaign promises in 2016. Democrats have fiercely defended it. The announcement by McCain, a Republican who has often been at odds with Trump and who cast a crucial "no" vote in July that helped defeat an earlier Republican repeal bill, had the potential to up-end McConnell's plans. McConnell's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. At a rally in Alabama, Trump said McCain's decision was "totally unexpected, terrible." Despite the setback, Trump said: "We still have a chance. We're going to do it eventually." Republicans have only a narrow Senate majority and cannot afford to lose many votes on the bill. They are also on a tight timetable. McConnell has been trying to schedule a vote on the bill by Sept. 30, the last day on which the bill could pass with only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. A vote taken any later than that would have to garner at least 60 votes for passage. Weeks after the humiliating defeat in July, when the Obamacare repeal fight seemed to be over, the current bill was introduced by Republican Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain's, and seemed to gain momentum. McCain says details on impact needed But McCain on Friday laid out his opposition in a statement: "I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal." He said he took no pleasure in announcing his opposition and noted that the bill's authors "are my dear friends." McCain complained about the rushed process Republicans used to push the bill forward. He said he would consider supporting a bill like it if it had emerged from extensive hearings, debate and amendment. "But that has not been the case," he said. McCain, who cast his "no" vote in July just days after being diagnosed with an aggressive brain cancer, said he could not support the bill without knowing how much it would cost, how it would affect insurance premiums and "how many people will be helped or hurt by it," information that will not be available until the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides a full assessment at the end of September. The Graham-Cassidy bill would take the federal money spent on the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, as well as subsidies to help Americans buy private insurance and divvy it up to the states in block grants. Advocates say that would give states more discretion to manage their own healthcare schemes. Although the CBO has not yet fully assessed the bill's effects, independent analyses indicate it would fundamentally redistribute federal healthcare money, generally with Republican-leaning states benefiting and Democratic-leaning states losing, largely because a majority of the states that opted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare were Democratic-leaning. A Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll said Americans prefer Obamacare to the Graham-Cassidy alternative by 56 per cent to 33 per cent. Graham said in a statement he was not giving up. "We press on," he said. Shares of health insurers turned up after McCain announced his oppositions. Centene ended 1.6 per cent higher while Humana closed up 0.2 per cent, reversing earlier losses. Winners and Losers among states State-by-state impacts from Graham-Cassidy would vary, the Axios news website reported on Friday, citing a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the unit of the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees Medicaid and the Obamacare program. The CMS study found that by 2026, Alaska would lose 38 per cent of its federal funding for insurance subsidies and Medicaid; Arizona would lose 9 per cent; Maine would gain 44 per cent; Ohio would lose 18 per cent; and West Virginia would lose 23 per cent, Axios reported. These states are home to Republican senators who are under pressure on healthcare. Both of Alaska's Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, are still on the fence over Graham-Cassidy. The CMS had no immediate comment on the Axios report. Besides McCain, Kentucky's Rand Paul is the only other Republican senator who has publicly said he opposes the bill. Maine's Susan Collins said she was leaning against the bill, the Portland Press-Herald newspaper reported on Friday. Kansas' Jerry Moran is also undecided. No Democrats support the bill. To pass Graham-Cassidy, the Republicans need at least 50 votes in the 100-seat Senate, which they control 52-48, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a potential tie-breaking vote. The insurance industry, hospitals, medical advocacy groups such as the American Medical Association, American Heart Association and American Cancer Society, the AARP advocacy group for the elderly and consumer activists oppose the bill. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, estimated the bill would cause more than 30 million people to lose insurance.

US Senator McCain opposes Obamacare repeal bill in possible fatal blow

The US Justice Department has confirmed there is no evidence to back up President Donald Trump&#39;s claim that his predecessor Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the 2016 election campaign.

&quot;Both FBI and NSD (National Security Division) confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets,&quot; the department said in a court filing dated Friday that came about in response to a freedom of information request by American Oversight, a government watchdog.&nbsp;

The NSD is a division of the Department of Justice.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>&#39;How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!&#39; Trump had tweeted on March 4</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text='How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!' Trump had tweeted on March 4" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The FBI had previously shot down the claims, that were made as controversy over alleged links between Trump&#39;s campaign team and Russia intensified earlier this year.

&quot;Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my &quot;wires tapped&quot; in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!&quot; Trump tweeted on March 4.

&quot;How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!&quot; he added.

He also repeated the claim during a White House press conference with Angela Merkel later that month.

Trump&#39;s former spokesman Sean Spicer also defended the claim and cited a Fox News report which alleged that Britain&#39;s GCHQ spy agency did the wiretapping for Obama.

National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers strongly rebutted the suggestion, telling a congressional hearing in March: &quot;That would be expressly against the construct of the Five Eyes agreement that&#39;s been in place for decades.&quot; He was referring to the intelligence alliance grouping Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.&nbsp;

Reacting to the findings, Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight, said: &quot;The FBI and Department of Justice have now sided with former Director Comey and confirmed in writing that President Trump lied when he tweeted that former President Obama &#39;wiretapped&#39; him at Trump Tower.&nbsp;

&quot;This filing confirms that even Trump&#39;s own Department of Justice does not believe he has credibility on a key element of the Russia investigation.&quot;

Trump is facing multiple investigations into alleged collusion with Russia, including one led by special prosecutor Robert Mueller who was appointed following Trump&#39;s sacking of former FBI director James Comey.

Russian President Vladimir Putin&#39;s spokesman on Wednesday confirmed that the Kremlin last year received an email from a lawyer working for Donald Trump about building a Trump Tower skyscraper in Moscow, despite assertions by the then candidate that he had no current business ties to the country.

During his successful presidential campaign, Trump praised Putin as a strong leader and called for a reset in relations with Moscow, but ties have since deteriorated sharply, with the US imposing fresh sanctions on Russia and both countries ordering each other to scale back their number of diplomats.

'Both FBI and NSD (National Security Division) confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets,' the department said in a court filing

The US Justice Department has confirmed there is no evidence to back up President Donald Trump's claim that his predecessor Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the 2016 election campaign. "Both FBI and NSD (National Security Division) confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the department said in a court filing dated Friday that came about in response to a freedom of information request by American Oversight, a government watchdog. The NSD is a division of the Department of Justice. 'How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!' Trump had tweeted on March 4 × The FBI had previously shot down the claims, that were made as controversy over alleged links between Trump's campaign team and Russia intensified earlier this year. "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" Trump tweeted on March 4. "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!" he added. He also repeated the claim during a White House press conference with Angela Merkel later that month. Trump's former spokesman Sean Spicer also defended the claim and cited a Fox News report which alleged that Britain's GCHQ spy agency did the wiretapping for Obama. National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers strongly rebutted the suggestion, telling a congressional hearing in March: "That would be expressly against the construct of the Five Eyes agreement that's been in place for decades." He was referring to the intelligence alliance grouping Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Reacting to the findings, Austin Evers, executive director of American Oversight, said: "The FBI and Department of Justice have now sided with former Director Comey and confirmed in writing that President Trump lied when he tweeted that former President Obama 'wiretapped' him at Trump Tower. "This filing confirms that even Trump's own Department of Justice does not believe he has credibility on a key element of the Russia investigation." Trump is facing multiple investigations into alleged collusion with Russia, including one led by special prosecutor Robert Mueller who was appointed following Trump's sacking of former FBI director James Comey. Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman on Wednesday confirmed that the Kremlin last year received an email from a lawyer working for Donald Trump about building a Trump Tower skyscraper in Moscow, despite assertions by the then candidate that he had no current business ties to the country. During his successful presidential campaign, Trump praised Putin as a strong leader and called for a reset in relations with Moscow, but ties have since deteriorated sharply, with the US imposing fresh sanctions on Russia and both countries ordering each other to scale back their number of diplomats.

No evidence Obama wiretapped Trump Tower: US Justice Dept

By -&nbsp;<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ronald-r-krebs-386820">Ronald R. Krebs</a>&nbsp;and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robert-ralston-391554">Robert Ralston</a>

Six months have passed since Donald Trump entered the Oval Office.

His administration remains <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/help-wanted-why-republicans-wont-work-for-the-trump-administration/2017/06/17/61e3d33e-506a-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?utm_term=.2025795c2578">deeply understaffed</a>. His legislative agenda is stymied. He has been <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/28/trumps-executive-orders-are-mostly-theater-215081">active in issuing executive orders</a>, but many are toothless, others are only in the early stages of undoing Obama policies and some are tied up in the courts. So far, Trump&rsquo;s leadership has mostly been defined by his rhetoric.

And his rhetoric, <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/what-language-experts-find-so-strange-about-donald-trump-2f067c20156e/">the conventional wisdom</a> holds, <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/inauguration-2017/analysis-contrast-between-obama-trump-unprecedented-n708456">could not be more different from his predecessor&rsquo;s</a>.

Barack Obama was, as president, eloquent. His language was sophisticated. He spoke in measured tones and advanced informed, reasoned dialogue.

Donald Trump is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/13/donald-trumps-rhetoric-how-being-inarticulate-is-seen-as-authentic">inarticulate and brusque</a>. His language is <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-121340">simplistic</a>. He dishes out invective. He shows <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/?tid=a_inl&amp;utm_term=.32c29849b1a0">so little regard for the facts</a> that some say he&rsquo;s the exemplar of a &ldquo;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-unbearable-stench-of-trumps-bs/2016/08/04/aa5d2798-5a6e-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?utm_term=.b6d1ff833645">bullshit artist</a>.&rdquo; And he promotes a dialogue of the deaf.

The differences between Trump&rsquo;s and Obama&rsquo;s rhetorical styles seem stark. Yet, when we set aside the presidents&rsquo; speaking styles and looked more carefully at the specific words Trump employed in his first months in office, we were surprised to discover that, in certain ways, these two presidents are remarkably like each other and unlike their predecessors. Here&rsquo;s what we found &ndash; and why Obama and Trump have more in common than you would think.

How we did our research

Our analysis is based on Trump&rsquo;s more substantial speeches &ndash; which we somewhat arbitrarily define as those longer than 500 words &ndash; which were directed primarily at domestic audiences. We scraped from the website of the <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/">American Presidency Project</a> all of Trump&rsquo;s campaign speeches and presidential addresses through July 1 that met these criteria. We ended up with 74 campaign speeches, representing more than 230,000 words, and 56 presidential addresses, which included more than 122,000 words. We compared these bodies of speech to each other and to a separate database of post-war presidential speech that one of us had collected, using these same criteria, for <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/international-relations-and-international-organisations/narrative-and-making-us-national-security?format=PB#crJovch3AZvu6GKd.97">a recently published book</a>.

We ran these speeches through a specialized computerized content analysis program called <a href="http://www.dictionsoftware.com/">Diction</a>. Diction contains 33 separate dictionaries tailored to political speech. It searches texts for the words contained in the designated dictionaries and then calculates the number of words from each dictionary that would be present in a typical 500-word sample.

Obama and Trump vs. everyone else

On two key dimensions, Obama and Trump look similar &ndash; and stand in marked contrast to all other presidents.

First, their rhetoric is much more self-referential, meaning it uses more first-person pronouns. Obama&rsquo;s rhetoric is 69 per cent more self-referential than the presidential average, and Trump exceeds Obama by another 20 per cent.

Trump employs almost 50 per cent more first-person pronouns than the second most heavily self-referential president after Obama, Gerald Ford. Trump&rsquo;s rhetoric is twice as self-referential as the postwar presidential average.

<iframe class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" frameborder="0" height="400px" id="3lX9O" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3lX9O/5/" style="border: none" width="100%"></iframe>

Second, both Trump and Obama rank very high on measures of &ldquo;tenacity.&rdquo; This dictionary includes a series of words such as &ldquo;must&rdquo; and &ldquo;need&rdquo; that call for action and that &ldquo;<a href="http://www.dictionsoftware.com/download.php?file=wp-content/uploads/2015/07/DICTION-7.1Manual.pdf">connote confidence and totality</a>.&rdquo; Obama&rsquo;s rhetoric is around 45 per cent more tenacious than the presidential average. Trump&rsquo;s rhetoric is a bit more tenacious than even Obama&rsquo;s. They are the only two presidents who substantially exceed the average.

<iframe class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" frameborder="0" height="400px" id="daCou" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/daCou/5/" style="border: none" width="100%"></iframe>

Obama and Trump&rsquo;s rhetoric suggests that the prime mover of government is not separation of powers, political parties or the bureaucracy &ndash; but the will of the president. It&#39;s self-referentialism projects an image of strong leadership and of the president as the central pivot of action. Its tenacity expresses confidence that the president will triumph over the many obstacles in his way.

For all their differences, both Obama and Trump consistently presented themselves as the solution to the nation&rsquo;s problems. Accepting the nomination at the Republican National Convention, <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=117935">Trump assured Americans</a>, &ldquo;Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.&rdquo; He regularly cited his own biography as the reason that Americans should &ldquo;trust&rdquo; him. The irony is that the predecessor who, on this dimension, most resembles Trump is the very one whom Trump cast as an utter failure and weak leader and as his chief foil. Obama too <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2016/12/15/the-self-referential-presidency-of-barack-obama/?utm_term=.6c6681297ce0">regularly invoked his unique personal story</a> as the reason that Americans should place their faith in him. Minus Trump&rsquo;s boastfulness, Obama too portrayed himself as the key agent of national transformation: &ldquo;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/17/AR2009011702690_2.html?tid=a_inl&amp;sid=ST2009011703024">I&rsquo;m the one who brings change. It is my vision. It is my agenda</a>,&rdquo; he told The Washington Post in January 2009. He saw other government officials as just &ldquo;good mechanics.&rdquo;

Yearning for a strong leader

The computerized content analysis of presidential rhetoric sets out a pattern, it does not explain it. However, we believe it likely that Obama and Trump adopted the same rhetorical tack for the same reason: Audiences across the political spectrum have craved a strong leader who will overcome Washington&rsquo;s paralysis and address the nation&rsquo;s challenges.

Especially since 9/11, <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/22/key-facts-partisanship/">American politics has grown more partisan</a> and polarized, even as <a href="https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/publications/culture-war-myth-polarized-america-3rd-edition">Americans&rsquo; values</a> <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115909">have converged</a>. That <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/america-really-is-more-divided-than-ever/2016/07/17/fbfebee6-49d8-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html?utm_term=.37a37dac7de8">partisan divide</a> has produced gridlock in the halls of power, and Congress has become a site of minority party obstruction. As a result, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/163031/gridlock-top-reason-americans-critical-congress.aspx">Americans have become frustrated</a> <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx">with Congress</a>, and <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx">their trust in government has plummeted</a>. They have increasingly looked to the president to seize the initiative, conquer Washington&rsquo;s dysfunction and <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9781107083134">persuade Congress to act</a>.

In 2007, &ldquo;<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/27085/wanted-next-president-honesty-strong-leadership.aspx">honesty</a>&rdquo; mattered most to Americans in selecting the nation&rsquo;s next president, with &ldquo;leadership/strength&rdquo; a distant second. In 2012, American voters said that &ldquo;<a href="https://morningconsult.com/2016/11/08/voters-want-strong-leader-anything-else-exit-poll-shows/">shares my values</a>&rdquo; was their top consideration in electing a president. By 2016, having a president who was a &ldquo;strong leader&rdquo; had easily taken the top spot, across voters of all parties, and was twice as important to them as it had been four years before.

Obama and Trump&rsquo;s self-referential and tenacious rhetoric &ndash; one might even call it authoritarian &ndash; seems designed to satisfy that demand for strong leadership centered in the presidency. It is not accidental that their rhetoric, <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7U5Wc80jx5leUhYRXFYemlWc3c">as the linked charts show</a>, also reflects a continued, long-term decline in &ldquo;cooperative&rdquo; and &ldquo;accomplishment&rdquo; language, as collaboration across party lines has been rare and as there have been few achievements. Ironically, &ldquo;satisfaction&rdquo; rhetoric has experienced a corresponding rise &ndash; perhaps because there has been less to celebrate and therefore more reason for presidents to proclaim that all is well.

Of course, some of this may be Donald Trump&rsquo;s inimitable rhetorical style. The figures above reveal that Trump&nbsp;the candidate was somewhat less self-referential and less tenacious than Trump the president has been. Perhaps he was simply restraining himself during the campaign. Once ensconced in the White House, he could become more himself. Trump the president may be Trump unleashed.

But the data suggest that Trump is also a manifestation &ndash; albeit an extreme manifestation &ndash; of our political age. Obama&rsquo;s self-centered, self-confident but soaring speeches gave way to his successor&rsquo;s self-centered, overconfident and vain tweets. Karl Marx knew what he was talking about: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eighteenth_Brumaire_of_Louis_Napoleon#.22History_repeats_..._first_as_tragedy.2C_then_as_farce.22">History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce</a>.

Nevertheless, we&rsquo;d better get used to authoritarian rhetoric. It appears to be here to stay.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-and-obama-have-one-surprising-thing-in-common-the-words-they-use-81309">original article</a>.

&nbsp;

Obama?s self-centered, self-confident but soaring speeches gave way to his successor?s self-centered, overconfident and vain tweets.

By - Ronald R. Krebs and Robert Ralston Six months have passed since Donald Trump entered the Oval Office. His administration remains deeply understaffed. His legislative agenda is stymied. He has been active in issuing executive orders, but many are toothless, others are only in the early stages of undoing Obama policies and some are tied up in the courts. So far, Trump’s leadership has mostly been defined by his rhetoric. And his rhetoric, the conventional wisdom holds, could not be more different from his predecessor’s. Barack Obama was, as president, eloquent. His language was sophisticated. He spoke in measured tones and advanced informed, reasoned dialogue. Donald Trump is inarticulate and brusque. His language is simplistic. He dishes out invective. He shows so little regard for the facts that some say he’s the exemplar of a “bullshit artist.” And he promotes a dialogue of the deaf. The differences between Trump’s and Obama’s rhetorical styles seem stark. Yet, when we set aside the presidents’ speaking styles and looked more carefully at the specific words Trump employed in his first months in office, we were surprised to discover that, in certain ways, these two presidents are remarkably like each other and unlike their predecessors. Here’s what we found – and why Obama and Trump have more in common than you would think. How we did our research Our analysis is based on Trump’s more substantial speeches – which we somewhat arbitrarily define as those longer than 500 words – which were directed primarily at domestic audiences. We scraped from the website of the American Presidency Project all of Trump’s campaign speeches and presidential addresses through July 1 that met these criteria. We ended up with 74 campaign speeches, representing more than 230,000 words, and 56 presidential addresses, which included more than 122,000 words. We compared these bodies of speech to each other and to a separate database of post-war presidential speech that one of us had collected, using these same criteria, for a recently published book. We ran these speeches through a specialized computerized content analysis program called Diction. Diction contains 33 separate dictionaries tailored to political speech. It searches texts for the words contained in the designated dictionaries and then calculates the number of words from each dictionary that would be present in a typical 500-word sample. Obama and Trump vs. everyone else On two key dimensions, Obama and Trump look similar – and stand in marked contrast to all other presidents. First, their rhetoric is much more self-referential, meaning it uses more first-person pronouns. Obama’s rhetoric is 69 per cent more self-referential than the presidential average, and Trump exceeds Obama by another 20 per cent. Trump employs almost 50 per cent more first-person pronouns than the second most heavily self-referential president after Obama, Gerald Ford. Trump’s rhetoric is twice as self-referential as the postwar presidential average. Second, both Trump and Obama rank very high on measures of “tenacity.” This dictionary includes a series of words such as “must” and “need” that call for action and that “connote confidence and totality.” Obama’s rhetoric is around 45 per cent more tenacious than the presidential average. Trump’s rhetoric is a bit more tenacious than even Obama’s. They are the only two presidents who substantially exceed the average. Obama and Trump’s rhetoric suggests that the prime mover of government is not separation of powers, political parties or the bureaucracy – but the will of the president. It's self-referentialism projects an image of strong leadership and of the president as the central pivot of action. Its tenacity expresses confidence that the president will triumph over the many obstacles in his way. For all their differences, both Obama and Trump consistently presented themselves as the solution to the nation’s problems. Accepting the nomination at the Republican National Convention, Trump assured Americans, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” He regularly cited his own biography as the reason that Americans should “trust” him. The irony is that the predecessor who, on this dimension, most resembles Trump is the very one whom Trump cast as an utter failure and weak leader and as his chief foil. Obama too regularly invoked his unique personal story as the reason that Americans should place their faith in him. Minus Trump’s boastfulness, Obama too portrayed himself as the key agent of national transformation: “I’m the one who brings change. It is my vision. It is my agenda,” he told The Washington Post in January 2009. He saw other government officials as just “good mechanics.” Yearning for a strong leader The computerized content analysis of presidential rhetoric sets out a pattern, it does not explain it. However, we believe it likely that Obama and Trump adopted the same rhetorical tack for the same reason: Audiences across the political spectrum have craved a strong leader who will overcome Washington’s paralysis and address the nation’s challenges. Especially since 9/11, American politics has grown more partisan and polarized, even as Americans’ values have converged. That partisan divide has produced gridlock in the halls of power, and Congress has become a site of minority party obstruction. As a result, Americans have become frustrated with Congress, and their trust in government has plummeted. They have increasingly looked to the president to seize the initiative, conquer Washington’s dysfunction and persuade Congress to act. In 2007, “honesty” mattered most to Americans in selecting the nation’s next president, with “leadership/strength” a distant second. In 2012, American voters said that “shares my values” was their top consideration in electing a president. By 2016, having a president who was a “strong leader” had easily taken the top spot, across voters of all parties, and was twice as important to them as it had been four years before. Obama and Trump’s self-referential and tenacious rhetoric – one might even call it authoritarian – seems designed to satisfy that demand for strong leadership centered in the presidency. It is not accidental that their rhetoric, as the linked charts show, also reflects a continued, long-term decline in “cooperative” and “accomplishment” language, as collaboration across party lines has been rare and as there have been few achievements. Ironically, “satisfaction” rhetoric has experienced a corresponding rise – perhaps because there has been less to celebrate and therefore more reason for presidents to proclaim that all is well. Of course, some of this may be Donald Trump’s inimitable rhetorical style. The figures above reveal that Trump the candidate was somewhat less self-referential and less tenacious than Trump the president has been. Perhaps he was simply restraining himself during the campaign. Once ensconced in the White House, he could become more himself. Trump the president may be Trump unleashed. But the data suggest that Trump is also a manifestation – albeit an extreme manifestation – of our political age. Obama’s self-centered, self-confident but soaring speeches gave way to his successor’s self-centered, overconfident and vain tweets. Karl Marx knew what he was talking about: History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Nevertheless, we’d better get used to authoritarian rhetoric. It appears to be here to stay. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

One surprising thing in common between Trump and Obama

US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been released from prison after serving a seven-year&nbsp;prison term.

Former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, a transgender was jailed for one of the largest leaks of classified documents in US history walked free from a&nbsp;military prison today.

Manning &quot;has been released from the United States Disciplinary Barracks&quot; at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said in a brief statement.&nbsp;

&quot;After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived. I am looking forward to so much!&quot; Manning, whose sentence was commuted by former president Barack Obama,&nbsp;said in a statement via her legal team.

&quot;Whatever is ahead of me, is far more important than the past,&quot; said the 29-year-old, who served seven of a 35-year sentence over one of the largest leaks of classified documents in US history.

&quot;I&#39;m figuring things out right now -- which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
First steps of freedom!! ??<a href="https://t.co/kPPWV5epwa">https://t.co/kPPWV5epwa</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChelseaIsFree?src=hash">#ChelseaIsFree</a> <a href="https://t.co/0R5pXqA1VN">pic.twitter.com/0R5pXqA1VN</a>
&mdash; Chelsea Manning (@xychelsea) <a href="https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/864840675220754436">May 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

In July 2010, Manning, then a male soldier known as Bradley, was arrested over the release of a huge trove of more than 700,000 classified military and diplomatic documents via WikiLeaks.

Without Obama&#39;s parting gift, Manning, who served as an intelligence official in Iraq, would have remained behind bars until 2045, after serving a 35-year sentence.

Supporters of Manning -- who attempted suicide twice last year alone -- said they feared she would not have been able to survive the long sentence. Now, she can complete her transition as a free, openly transgender woman.

&quot;Two more days until the freedom of civilian life,&quot; Manning tweeted Monday. &quot;Now hunting for private #healthcare like millions of Americans.&quot;

Manning, now 29, also went on a hunger strike during her detention to denounce the disciplinary measures to which she was subjected -- including stints in solitary confinement.

&quot;For the first time, I can see a future for myself as Chelsea. I can imagine surviving and living as the person who I am and can finally be in the outside world,&quot; she wrote last week.

Quiet release

Manning&#39;s defense team is intent on protecting her.&nbsp;

The Oklahoma native had a difficult childhood. After her parents&#39; divorce, Manning moved with her mother to Wales, where she repressed her sexuality and was mocked for her effeminate ways.

The military is therefore keen on keeping her release low-key. No press conference is planned and media massing at the military installation may be hard-pressed to even catch a glimpse of Manning.

&quot;To ensure the privacy and security of Inmate Manning, no further information concerning the release will be provided,&quot; US Army spokesman Dave Foster said in a statement.

Manning, of whom few photographs are publicly available, could find refuge at an aunt&#39;s home in the Washington region.

Unwanted fame

Virtually unknown at the time of her arrest, Manning today is a well-known figure around the world.&nbsp;

Labeled a traitor by President Donald Trump, she has gained the support of celebrities and is seen by many Americans as a courageous rights activist who &nbsp;was handed an unfair sentence for revealing civilian deaths caused by US bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She wasn&#39;t able to flee abroad like Edward Snowden, who in 2013 released documents showing that the NSA was sweeping up US citizens&#39; communications metadata.

Ahead of Manning&#39;s release, a group of musicians released a compilation album with all proceeds to go to the former soldier as she starts a new life.

&quot;Hugs for Chelsea,&quot; a digital album available for a $25 donation, features tracks by artists known for their left-wing activism including Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello and Sonic Youth co-founder Thurston Moore.

Trans icon

Manning has also surreptitiously become an icon for transgender activists.

&quot;The first thing Chelsea always says when we talk about her freedom is that she wants to give back to the trans community,&quot; said Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is himself transgender.

Manning was able to start hormonal treatment in prison to begin transitioning toward her female identity. This transition is certain to speed up outside a prison environment Manning said denied her &quot;right to exist.&quot;

While Manning&#39;s sentence was commuted, her conviction remains intact. Manning, who will turn 30 in December, has appealed.&nbsp;

She is also still employed by the army, and retains its insurance coverage.

&quot;Manning is statutorily entitled to medical care while on excess leave in an active duty status, pending final appellate review,&quot; said Foster, the Army spokesman.&nbsp;

(WION with AFP inputs)

&nbsp;

Manning was arrested?in 2010 over the release of more than 700,000 classified military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks

US army whistleblower Chelsea Manning has been released from prison after serving a seven-year prison term. Former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, a transgender was jailed for one of the largest leaks of classified documents in US history walked free from a military prison today. Manning "has been released from the United States Disciplinary Barracks" at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said in a brief statement. "After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived. I am looking forward to so much!" Manning, whose sentence was commuted by former president Barack Obama, said in a statement via her legal team. "Whatever is ahead of me, is far more important than the past," said the 29-year-old, who served seven of a 35-year sentence over one of the largest leaks of classified documents in US history. "I'm figuring things out right now -- which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me." First steps of freedom!! ??https://t.co/kPPWV5epwa#ChelseaIsFree pic.twitter.com/0R5pXqA1VN — Chelsea Manning (@xychelsea) May 17, 2017 × In July 2010, Manning, then a male soldier known as Bradley, was arrested over the release of a huge trove of more than 700,000 classified military and diplomatic documents via WikiLeaks. Without Obama's parting gift, Manning, who served as an intelligence official in Iraq, would have remained behind bars until 2045, after serving a 35-year sentence. Supporters of Manning -- who attempted suicide twice last year alone -- said they feared she would not have been able to survive the long sentence. Now, she can complete her transition as a free, openly transgender woman. "Two more days until the freedom of civilian life," Manning tweeted Monday. "Now hunting for private #healthcare like millions of Americans." Manning, now 29, also went on a hunger strike during her detention to denounce the disciplinary measures to which she was subjected -- including stints in solitary confinement. "For the first time, I can see a future for myself as Chelsea. I can imagine surviving and living as the person who I am and can finally be in the outside world," she wrote last week. Quiet release Manning's defense team is intent on protecting her. The Oklahoma native had a difficult childhood. After her parents' divorce, Manning moved with her mother to Wales, where she repressed her sexuality and was mocked for her effeminate ways. The military is therefore keen on keeping her release low-key. No press conference is planned and media massing at the military installation may be hard-pressed to even catch a glimpse of Manning. "To ensure the privacy and security of Inmate Manning, no further information concerning the release will be provided," US Army spokesman Dave Foster said in a statement. Manning, of whom few photographs are publicly available, could find refuge at an aunt's home in the Washington region. Unwanted fame Virtually unknown at the time of her arrest, Manning today is a well-known figure around the world. Labeled a traitor by President Donald Trump, she has gained the support of celebrities and is seen by many Americans as a courageous rights activist who was handed an unfair sentence for revealing civilian deaths caused by US bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan. She wasn't able to flee abroad like Edward Snowden, who in 2013 released documents showing that the NSA was sweeping up US citizens' communications metadata. Ahead of Manning's release, a group of musicians released a compilation album with all proceeds to go to the former soldier as she starts a new life. "Hugs for Chelsea," a digital album available for a $25 donation, features tracks by artists known for their left-wing activism including Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello and Sonic Youth co-founder Thurston Moore. Trans icon Manning has also surreptitiously become an icon for transgender activists. "The first thing Chelsea always says when we talk about her freedom is that she wants to give back to the trans community," said Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is himself transgender. Manning was able to start hormonal treatment in prison to begin transitioning toward her female identity. This transition is certain to speed up outside a prison environment Manning said denied her "right to exist." While Manning's sentence was commuted, her conviction remains intact. Manning, who will turn 30 in December, has appealed. She is also still employed by the army, and retains its insurance coverage. "Manning is statutorily entitled to medical care while on excess leave in an active duty status, pending final appellate review," said Foster, the Army spokesman. (WION with AFP inputs)

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning released from US prison

Former US &nbsp;President Barack Obama warned then-President-elect Donald Trump not to give the post of national security adviser in his administration to Michael Flynn who was eventually fired in a controversy about ties to Russia, a former Obama aide said.&nbsp;

Obama gave the warning in a one-hour Oval Office meeting with Trump two days after the Republican&#39;s surprise Nov. 8 election win.

The warning, first reported by NBC News, came up during a discussion of White House personnel.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer, responding to the reports, told a news briefing: &quot;It&#39;s true that the president, President Obama, made it known that he wasn&#39;t exactly a fan of General Flynn&#39;s which frankly shouldn&#39;t come as a surprise to anyone, given that General Flynn had worked for President Obama, was an outspoken critic of President Obama&#39;s shortcomings, specifically as it related to his lack of strategy confronting ISIS and other threats.&quot;

An Obama spokesman initially declined to comment.&nbsp;

Flynn has emerged as a central figure in probes into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election and possible collusion between Trump&#39;s campaign and Moscow.

Russia has repeatedly denied any such meddling.&nbsp;

He had been pushed out by Obama in 2014 from his job as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, during the Democratic president&#39;s term in office.

Trump dismissed Flynn after less than a month as his national security adviser.

A former US &nbsp;deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, was appearing at a hearing of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Monday.

She was expected to tell the panel that she had warned the White House counsel after Trump took office that Flynn had not told the truth about conversations he had held with Russia&#39;s ambassador to Washington.

James Clapper, Obama&#39;s former Director of National Intelligence, was testifying to the panel before Yates.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the subcommittee&rsquo;s Republican chairman, said in opening the hearing on Monday that the issue of interference in the election should not be partisan.

&quot;When a foreign party interferes in our election, it doesn&#39;t matter who they targeted. We&#39;re all in the same boat,&quot; Graham told the panel.

Trump fired Yates in late January after she defied the White House and refused to defend travel restrictions targeting seven Muslim-majority countries, a policy that Trump has said would help protect Americans from ISIS, the Islamic State group that has claimed responsibility for attacks in several countries.

Trump fired Flynn, a retired general, in February for failing to disclose talks with Ambassador Sergei Kislyak about US &nbsp;sanctions on Moscow and then misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.&nbsp;

Congressional committees began investigating after US &nbsp;intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump.

The agencies said Russia was behind &quot;fake news&quot; reports that were disseminated on social media.

Trump has also dismissed the allegations, suggesting instead that Obama might have wiretapped Trump Tower in New York or that China may have been behind the cyber attacks.

Trump has provided no evidence and neither scenario has been supported by intelligence agencies.

Hours before Monday&#39;As Senate hearing,Trump insinuated that Yates, an Obama administration appointment, had leaked information on Flynn to the media.

&quot;Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W H Council,&quot; Trump wrote on Twitter, apparently mis-spelling the word counsel.

In another Twitter post, Trump noted that Flynn had been granted top security clearance while working in the Obama administration.&nbsp;

Flynn was fired from the DIA in 2014 for what officials familiar with the issue said was a disruptive management style that included instructing analysts to find intelligence substantiating improbable theories that some subordinates came to call &quot;Flynn facts.&quot;

He also advocated an overhaul of the DIA that ignited resistance from veteran intelligence officials, the officials said.&nbsp;

The Senate Judiciary subcommittee probe is one of three main congressional investigations of Russia and the 2016 US &nbsp;election. The FBI and US &nbsp; intelligence agencies are conducting separate probes.

(Reuters)

Obama gave the warning in a one-hour Oval Office meeting with Trump two days after the Republican's surprise Nov 8 election win

Former US President Barack Obama warned then-President-elect Donald Trump not to give the post of national security adviser in his administration to Michael Flynn who was eventually fired in a controversy about ties to Russia, a former Obama aide said. Obama gave the warning in a one-hour Oval Office meeting with Trump two days after the Republican's surprise Nov. 8 election win. The warning, first reported by NBC News, came up during a discussion of White House personnel. White House spokesman Sean Spicer, responding to the reports, told a news briefing: "It's true that the president, President Obama, made it known that he wasn't exactly a fan of General Flynn's which frankly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, given that General Flynn had worked for President Obama, was an outspoken critic of President Obama's shortcomings, specifically as it related to his lack of strategy confronting ISIS and other threats." An Obama spokesman initially declined to comment. Flynn has emerged as a central figure in probes into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election and possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Moscow. Russia has repeatedly denied any such meddling. He had been pushed out by Obama in 2014 from his job as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, during the Democratic president's term in office. Trump dismissed Flynn after less than a month as his national security adviser. A former US deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, was appearing at a hearing of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Monday. She was expected to tell the panel that she had warned the White House counsel after Trump took office that Flynn had not told the truth about conversations he had held with Russia's ambassador to Washington. James Clapper, Obama's former Director of National Intelligence, was testifying to the panel before Yates. Senator Lindsey Graham, the subcommittee’s Republican chairman, said in opening the hearing on Monday that the issue of interference in the election should not be partisan. "When a foreign party interferes in our election, it doesn't matter who they targeted. We're all in the same boat," Graham told the panel. Trump fired Yates in late January after she defied the White House and refused to defend travel restrictions targeting seven Muslim-majority countries, a policy that Trump has said would help protect Americans from ISIS, the Islamic State group that has claimed responsibility for attacks in several countries. Trump fired Flynn, a retired general, in February for failing to disclose talks with Ambassador Sergei Kislyak about US sanctions on Moscow and then misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations. Congressional committees began investigating after US intelligence agencies concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered hacking of Democratic political groups to try to sway the election toward Trump. The agencies said Russia was behind "fake news" reports that were disseminated on social media. Trump has also dismissed the allegations, suggesting instead that Obama might have wiretapped Trump Tower in New York or that China may have been behind the cyber attacks. Trump has provided no evidence and neither scenario has been supported by intelligence agencies. Hours before Monday'As Senate hearing,Trump insinuated that Yates, an Obama administration appointment, had leaked information on Flynn to the media. "Ask Sally Yates, under oath, if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers soon after she explained it to W H Council," Trump wrote on Twitter, apparently mis-spelling the word counsel. In another Twitter post, Trump noted that Flynn had been granted top security clearance while working in the Obama administration. Flynn was fired from the DIA in 2014 for what officials familiar with the issue said was a disruptive management style that included instructing analysts to find intelligence substantiating improbable theories that some subordinates came to call "Flynn facts." He also advocated an overhaul of the DIA that ignited resistance from veteran intelligence officials, the officials said. The Senate Judiciary subcommittee probe is one of three main congressional investigations of Russia and the 2016 US election. The FBI and US intelligence agencies are conducting separate probes. (Reuters)

Obama warned Trump about Flynn: Ex-Obama aide

The White House was warned in January that Donald Trump&#39;s national security advisor Michael Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail, a top former official told lawmakers Monday, as the issue of the president&#39;s ties to Moscow returned to the spotlight.

Trump hit back by dismissing suggestions that his team colluded with Russia as a &quot;hoax,&quot; and calling the congressional investigations into Russia&#39;s interference in the US election a taxpayer-funded &quot;charade.&quot;

Former acting attorney general Sally Yates, a Barack Obama appointee sacked by Trump early in his presidency, took the stand alongside former director of national intelligence James Clapper during Monday&#39;s hotly-anticipated three-hour hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yates confirmed reports that she had told the White House, six days into Trump&#39;s administration, that Flynn, a former military intelligence chief, had not been honest with Vice President Mike Pence about his discussions with the Russian ambassador to Washington, leaving him vulnerable to leverage from Moscow.

It nevertheless took 18 days before the president, pressed by Pence and others, dismissed the retired army lieutenant general, who had advised him on security issues throughout the 2016 presidential campaign.

&quot;We believed that General Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians,&quot; Yates told the hearing in her first public comments on the scandal which has dogged the opening months of Trump&#39;s presidency.

&quot;This was a problem because not only did we believe that the Russians knew this but that they likely had proof of this information. And that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security advisor essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians.&quot;

Yates, who was fired on January 30 after defying Trump over his contested travel ban, did not say what Flynn discussed with ambassador Sergey Kislyak in a number of December 2016 phone calls, which were secretly monitored by US intelligence.

Pence said in January that Flynn denied those calls involved sanctions placed on Russia by the Obama administration in response to its election meddling.

Obama warned Trump 
Trump has repeatedly branded the issue of Russian interference &quot;fake news&quot; despite the US intelligence community&#39;s conclusion that President Vladimir Putin himself was behind the meddling.

In a series of tweets Monday evening, Trump doubled down on that stance.

&quot;The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?&quot; fumed one post, while in a second the president targeted Yates -- claiming she had &quot;said nothing but old news!&quot; after earlier assailing her for allegedly leaking classified information.

Known as a tough and independent prosecutor, Yates has been a target of Trump&#39;s ire since her refusal in January to support his controversial immigration ban on nationals from several Muslim-majority nations -- for which he fired her.

Yates&#39; comments came after former Obama officials revealed that the outgoing president himself firmly warned Trump against naming Flynn as national security advisor, just two days after the November 8 election.

Obama had cautioned against Flynn, whom he fired in 2014 as head of the defense intelligence agency, due to his poor record in administration and personnel management.

In separate testimony Monday, Clapper called Russia&#39;s interference in last year&#39;s election &quot;a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundations of our democratic political system.&quot;

&quot;I believe they&#39;re now emboldened to continue such activities in the future, both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely,&quot; he said.

The dual testimony by Yates and Clapper returned the spotlight to the simmering controversy over Russia&#39;s meddling in last year&#39;s US election.&nbsp;

Probes by several congressional committees into Russian election meddling have been bogged down for weeks amid accusations by Democrats that Republicans have stalled progress to protect the White House.

(AFP)

Flynn, the former national security adviser, was asked to go after just 23 days in the job

The White House was warned in January that Donald Trump's national security advisor Michael Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail, a top former official told lawmakers Monday, as the issue of the president's ties to Moscow returned to the spotlight. Trump hit back by dismissing suggestions that his team colluded with Russia as a "hoax," and calling the congressional investigations into Russia's interference in the US election a taxpayer-funded "charade." Former acting attorney general Sally Yates, a Barack Obama appointee sacked by Trump early in his presidency, took the stand alongside former director of national intelligence James Clapper during Monday's hotly-anticipated three-hour hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yates confirmed reports that she had told the White House, six days into Trump's administration, that Flynn, a former military intelligence chief, had not been honest with Vice President Mike Pence about his discussions with the Russian ambassador to Washington, leaving him vulnerable to leverage from Moscow. It nevertheless took 18 days before the president, pressed by Pence and others, dismissed the retired army lieutenant general, who had advised him on security issues throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. "We believed that General Flynn was compromised with respect to the Russians," Yates told the hearing in her first public comments on the scandal which has dogged the opening months of Trump's presidency. "This was a problem because not only did we believe that the Russians knew this but that they likely had proof of this information. And that created a compromise situation, a situation where the national security advisor essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians." Yates, who was fired on January 30 after defying Trump over his contested travel ban, did not say what Flynn discussed with ambassador Sergey Kislyak in a number of December 2016 phone calls, which were secretly monitored by US intelligence. Pence said in January that Flynn denied those calls involved sanctions placed on Russia by the Obama administration in response to its election meddling. Obama warned Trump Trump has repeatedly branded the issue of Russian interference "fake news" despite the US intelligence community's conclusion that President Vladimir Putin himself was behind the meddling. In a series of tweets Monday evening, Trump doubled down on that stance. "The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?" fumed one post, while in a second the president targeted Yates -- claiming she had "said nothing but old news!" after earlier assailing her for allegedly leaking classified information. Known as a tough and independent prosecutor, Yates has been a target of Trump's ire since her refusal in January to support his controversial immigration ban on nationals from several Muslim-majority nations -- for which he fired her. Yates' comments came after former Obama officials revealed that the outgoing president himself firmly warned Trump against naming Flynn as national security advisor, just two days after the November 8 election. Obama had cautioned against Flynn, whom he fired in 2014 as head of the defense intelligence agency, due to his poor record in administration and personnel management. In separate testimony Monday, Clapper called Russia's interference in last year's election "a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundations of our democratic political system." "I believe they're now emboldened to continue such activities in the future, both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely," he said. The dual testimony by Yates and Clapper returned the spotlight to the simmering controversy over Russia's meddling in last year's US election. Probes by several congressional committees into Russian election meddling have been bogged down for weeks amid accusations by Democrats that Republicans have stalled progress to protect the White House. (AFP)

White House was warned about Flynn in January: Yates

Six years ago, in these days, a US Navy SEAL team entered a compound in Abbottabad and killed Osama bin Laden, the sheik of terror. It was the end of an evil legend, and a military action destined to become a movie and to find its place on many bookshelves. &nbsp;

Many thought it was also the beginning of the end for al-Qaeda, the slow death of a snake whose head had finally been chopped off.&nbsp;Wrong assumption.&nbsp;

Undeniably, the loss of such an iconic figure had hit al-Qaeda hard, it weakened an already weak organisation which was on its back foot and struggling to find new funds and ways of action. His immediate successor Ayman al-Zawahiri did not - and still does not - match his predecessor&#39;s military and strategic stature.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>By the time of his killing, Osama bin Laden was probably not the organisation&#39;s pillar anymore.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=By the time of his killing, Osama bin Laden was probably not the organisation's pillar anymore." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

By the time of his killing, Osama bin Laden was probably not the organisation&#39;s pillar anymore. He was chased, isolated and incapable of giving a new ideological lifeline to the organisation he had created years back. Osama&#39;s killing was more of a symbolic move, an act of revenge which well served the propaganda purposes of the then US president Barack Obama.&nbsp;

Al-Zawahiri struggled to win the fighters&#39; hearts and minds. Several intelligence reports claimed that at the time of his appointment, Zawahiri was not unanimously loved, especially from al-Qaeda&#39;s regional branches in the Arabic peninsula.&nbsp;

The birth of the Islamic State and its military successes - something that bin Laden never achieved &ndash; posed a major challenge to al-Qaeda&#39;s leadership in Sunni terrorism. The IS conquered land, cities, oil fields, making the long-awaited dream of a caliphate seemingly closer than ever than ever. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph, refused to pledge allegiance to al-Qaeda and chose the path of independence. The IS victories and propaganda attracted many fighters from all over the world. Al-Qaeda lost the first place, but did not disappear. &nbsp;

The Syrian conflict turned out to be a blessing for bin Laden&#39;s brainchild; the organisation had the chance to renew its energies through its regional branch, the former Jabhat al Nusra front, now known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. Thousands of Syrian and foreign fighters from all over the world&nbsp;- even from the Maldives - answered al-Qaeda&#39;s call for jihad and moved to Syria to swell al Nusra&#39;s ranks, making it a major player in the diversified anti-Assad galaxy. A player, which six years after the beginning of the Syrian war is still significantly on the ground. In April 2016, al Nusra&#39;s leader announced their decision to severe their ties with al-Qaeda, but this was probably a strategy to whitewash their reputation and partially overcome mistrust among the local population.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Syrian conflict turned out to be a blessing for bin Laden&#39;s brainchild; the organisation had the chance to renew its energies through its regional branch</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Syrian conflict turned out to be a blessing for bin Laden's brainchild; the organisation had the chance to renew its energies through its regional branch" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

Even if they are two separate entities, the IS and al Qaeda - or their regional affiliates - are not two competing organisations on the ideological and religious level. They are a product of more than two decades of Sunni extremism, terribly wrong US foreign policy choices and considerable Saudi funds.&nbsp;

Al-Qaeda&nbsp;today&nbsp;might not be as strong as it was under bin Laden, but six years after his killing&nbsp; the&nbsp;organisation&nbsp;is still alive and kicking. This&nbsp;marks&nbsp;yet another&nbsp;abysmal&nbsp;failure of the so called &#39;war on terror&#39;, which has killed more people than the terrorism it&nbsp;was&nbsp;meant to fight.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Al Qaeda&nbsp;plays a significant role in many parts of the world. Other than in the &#39;traditional&#39; Afghanistan/Pakistan region, &nbsp;Al Qaeda has a presence in Libya, Syria, Yemen and, most importantly, it has recently united under its banner the main &nbsp;local&nbsp;terrorist&nbsp;organisations&nbsp;active in northwest Africa.&nbsp;&nbsp;

In March 2017,&nbsp;the Sahel G5 summit decided to form an international anti-terror force focusing on Africa and comprising the armies of Mali, Chad,&nbsp;Burkina Faso,&nbsp;Niger&nbsp;and&nbsp;Mauritania.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The&nbsp;main&nbsp;terrorist&nbsp;organisations&nbsp;active in the&nbsp;Sahel&nbsp;area, for instance, Al&nbsp;Qaeda&nbsp;in the Islamic&nbsp; Maghreb,&nbsp;Ansar&nbsp;Eddine,&nbsp;Katiba&nbsp;Macina&nbsp;and&nbsp;al-Mourabitoun have released a video in which they&nbsp;pledged&nbsp;allegiance to al-Qaeda&nbsp;and informed to have now united under its banners.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>As long as Islamist terrorism continues to be treated mainly as a military problem, it will be very difficult to eradicate it.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=As long as Islamist terrorism continues to be treated mainly as a military problem, it will be very difficult to eradicate it." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&nbsp;

As long as Islamist terrorism continues to be treated mainly as a military problem, it will be very difficult to eradicate it.&nbsp;The battle lies in schools, madrasas, mosques, parliaments and among&nbsp;societies.&nbsp;Sunni extremism derives ideological lifeline from&nbsp;islamophobia and racist policies.&nbsp;The more the narrative of a &#39;clash of&nbsp;civilisations&#39;&nbsp;is part of the world public discourse, the less the military efforts will turn out to be effective.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Jihadi terrorist&nbsp;organisations have proved to&nbsp;survive their leaders, showing&nbsp;a remarkable capability to reinvent themselves and&nbsp;to quickly adapt to evolving contexts and to differentiate their terrains of action.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Men, money, territories are not their pillars.&nbsp;It is the&nbsp;solid theological approach to governance as well as&nbsp;the capability to give to their followers a scope and a code of life based on&nbsp;war&nbsp;which keep Jihadi organisations&nbsp;alive.

&nbsp;

Osama's killing was more of a symbolic move, an act of revenge which well served the propaganda purposes of the then US president Barack Obama

Six years ago, in these days, a US Navy SEAL team entered a compound in Abbottabad and killed Osama bin Laden, the sheik of terror. It was the end of an evil legend, and a military action destined to become a movie and to find its place on many bookshelves. Many thought it was also the beginning of the end for al-Qaeda, the slow death of a snake whose head had finally been chopped off. Wrong assumption. Undeniably, the loss of such an iconic figure had hit al-Qaeda hard, it weakened an already weak organisation which was on its back foot and struggling to find new funds and ways of action. His immediate successor Ayman al-Zawahiri did not - and still does not - match his predecessor's military and strategic stature. By the time of his killing, Osama bin Laden was probably not the organisation's pillar anymore. × By the time of his killing, Osama bin Laden was probably not the organisation's pillar anymore. He was chased, isolated and incapable of giving a new ideological lifeline to the organisation he had created years back. Osama's killing was more of a symbolic move, an act of revenge which well served the propaganda purposes of the then US president Barack Obama. Al-Zawahiri struggled to win the fighters' hearts and minds. Several intelligence reports claimed that at the time of his appointment, Zawahiri was not unanimously loved, especially from al-Qaeda's regional branches in the Arabic peninsula. The birth of the Islamic State and its military successes - something that bin Laden never achieved – posed a major challenge to al-Qaeda's leadership in Sunni terrorism. The IS conquered land, cities, oil fields, making the long-awaited dream of a caliphate seemingly closer than ever than ever. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph, refused to pledge allegiance to al-Qaeda and chose the path of independence. The IS victories and propaganda attracted many fighters from all over the world. Al-Qaeda lost the first place, but did not disappear. The Syrian conflict turned out to be a blessing for bin Laden's brainchild; the organisation had the chance to renew its energies through its regional branch, the former Jabhat al Nusra front, now known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. Thousands of Syrian and foreign fighters from all over the world - even from the Maldives - answered al-Qaeda's call for jihad and moved to Syria to swell al Nusra's ranks, making it a major player in the diversified anti-Assad galaxy. A player, which six years after the beginning of the Syrian war is still significantly on the ground. In April 2016, al Nusra's leader announced their decision to severe their ties with al-Qaeda, but this was probably a strategy to whitewash their reputation and partially overcome mistrust among the local population. The Syrian conflict turned out to be a blessing for bin Laden's brainchild; the organisation had the chance to renew its energies through its regional branch × Even if they are two separate entities, the IS and al Qaeda - or their regional affiliates - are not two competing organisations on the ideological and religious level. They are a product of more than two decades of Sunni extremism, terribly wrong US foreign policy choices and considerable Saudi funds. Al-Qaeda today might not be as strong as it was under bin Laden, but six years after his killing the organisation is still alive and kicking. This marks yet another abysmal failure of the so called 'war on terror', which has killed more people than the terrorism it was meant to fight. Al Qaeda plays a significant role in many parts of the world. Other than in the 'traditional' Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Al Qaeda has a presence in Libya, Syria, Yemen and, most importantly, it has recently united under its banner the main local terrorist organisations active in northwest Africa. In March 2017, the Sahel G5 summit decided to form an international anti-terror force focusing on Africa and comprising the armies of Mali, Chad, Burkina Faso, Niger and Mauritania. The main terrorist organisations active in the Sahel area, for instance, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar Eddine, Katiba Macina and al-Mourabitoun have released a video in which they pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and informed to have now united under its banners. As long as Islamist terrorism continues to be treated mainly as a military problem, it will be very difficult to eradicate it. × As long as Islamist terrorism continues to be treated mainly as a military problem, it will be very difficult to eradicate it. The battle lies in schools, madrasas, mosques, parliaments and among societies. Sunni extremism derives ideological lifeline from islamophobia and racist policies. The more the narrative of a 'clash of civilisations' is part of the world public discourse, the less the military efforts will turn out to be effective. Jihadi terrorist organisations have proved to survive their leaders, showing a remarkable capability to reinvent themselves and to quickly adapt to evolving contexts and to differentiate their terrains of action. Men, money, territories are not their pillars. It is the solid theological approach to governance as well as the capability to give to their followers a scope and a code of life based on war which keep Jihadi organisations alive.

Islamic terrorism did not end with the killing of Osama bin Laden

While his supporters love Donald Trump for his allegedly blunt and&nbsp;no-nonsense speech, President Trump&nbsp;changes&nbsp;his public positions a lot. This is&nbsp;true about US&nbsp;military intervention&nbsp;in Syria.&nbsp;As a result, it&#39;s impossible to know what the US is poised to do in response to the horrific news that Assad has again attacked his people with chemical gas.

Today, Trump blames President Obama for not enforcing his own &quot;red line&quot;.&nbsp;In 2013--Obama had said that the county would intervene militarily in Syria in the event of a chemical attack against the civilian population. Then, when there was just such an attack, Obama balked. Instead, Obama&nbsp;made a <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/05/obama-was-right-to-abandon-red-line-on-syria-s-chemical-weapons.html" target="_blank">deal </a>between he and Putin, to have Assad admit he did in fact have&nbsp;chemical weapons, and to have them inspected and seized.&nbsp;But there was no military intervention in August and September 2013.&nbsp;

Whether you think the US should or should not have intervened in August 2013, it&#39;s reasonable to think Obama&nbsp;looked weak for backing down against Assad from his own ultimatum.&nbsp;

But in 2013, Trump also made at least 10 statements via Twitter between June 15 and September 9<a href="https://www.axios.com/trumps-2013-tweets-on-syria-tell-a-different-story-2344840197.html" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a>clearly and uniformly opposing any US&nbsp;military intervention in Syria. Here is a sample:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375577511473983488">September 5, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

While this Tweet&nbsp;carries some hostility towards Obama (Trump never misses an opportunity to blame Obama),&nbsp;both men&nbsp;agreed&nbsp;that the US Army should not have entered Syria.

Yet here is the&nbsp;White House statement in response to the latest chemical attack in Syria:

Today&#39;s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration&#39;s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a &quot;red line&quot; against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack.

What does this mean? Criticising Obama for issuing an&nbsp;ultimatum he didn&#39;t live up to is fair, but Trump appears to be&nbsp;blaming Obama&nbsp;for &quot;then d[oing] nothing&quot;. This suggests that Trump believes now that Obama should have intervened then in Syria.

If so, this is Trump reversing his prior position. Now he is the president, not a guy on Twitter, and his precise position matters.&nbsp;

In trying to glean what his position is, the statement says the attack &quot;cannot be ignored&quot;, but does not say what the response will be.&nbsp;So what will the US do now under&nbsp;Trump?

On one hand, Trump&#39;s &quot;America First&quot; policy clearly opposes&nbsp;US&nbsp;militarily intervention. Either they will anyway, in opposition to both President Trump&#39;s previous stance and his current foreign policy. Or, like Obama, he will not.

There is one major&nbsp;difference between Trump and Obama though: Recently, both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have made statements saying they could imagine a Syria&nbsp;with&nbsp;Bashar al-Assad in power after the war. This is in stark contrast to Obama, and pretty much every other country.

Except Russia, who has &quot;provided the military might behind Assad&#39;s grip on the country, which plunged into civil war six years ago,&quot; as&nbsp;<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/middleeast/syria-idlib-chemical-attack/" target="_blank">CNN </a>has it.&nbsp;

Yesterday Russia <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-trump-russia-blames-obama-red-line-for-syria-chemical-attack-at-un-security-council-meeting-14218" target="_blank">mirrored </a>Trump,&nbsp;saying that&nbsp;former US President Barack Obama&#39;s threat of military action if a &quot;red line&quot; was crossed and chemical weapons were used in Syria had provoked such attacks. This overlap in policy and in speech between the two countries should strike all as jarring and demanding explanation. After all, Trump is&nbsp;currently under FBI investigation for his and his administration&#39;s links to Russia.

But ignoring the Trump-Russia angle for now,&nbsp;it&#39;s not clear why Trump&#39;s White House&nbsp;could envision a Syria led by Assad after the latter killed hundreds, if not thousands, with&nbsp;Sarin gas in 2013, but is in another league of outrage after Assad&#39;s most recent chemical attack.

Trump has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-gas-attack-donald-trump-nikki-haley-assad" target="_blank">said</a>, &quot;My attitude towards Syria and Assad has changed very much...You&#39;re now talking about a whole different level.&quot; Why is it on a &quot;whole different level&quot;, when Assad has done the exact same thing in 2013, but killing even more people? Why did this chemical attack cross &quot;many, many lines&quot;, but not the first?

Ultimately, those trying to judge Trump by his words will run into the infuriating fact&nbsp;that&nbsp;they&nbsp;cannot--his words change too much and too often.&nbsp;Even Trump&#39;s own administration&nbsp;advises people not&nbsp;to take the words of the president literally, but, instead, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848" target="_blank">symbolically</a>. As if&nbsp;the president is not a man, but a poem.

Those inclined to take Trump&nbsp;at his word, who believe him when he says&nbsp;the US is genuinely opposed to military intervention the way &quot;America First&quot; suggests, must explain Trump&#39;s&nbsp;call to increase US military spending by $50 billion and&nbsp;the US ramping up its&nbsp;attacks in Yemen.

It&#39;s early in his presidency, but given his reversals on Syria, and the outlandish and baseless accusations and statements he has made elsewhere, the only way to learn what Donald Trump&nbsp;will actually do next is to wait.

But he cannot keep blaming Barack Obama forever.&nbsp;

(WION)

In 2013 Trump opposed Syrian intervention. Then he ran a campaign opposing military intervention. Today he blames Obama for not doing enough

While his supporters love Donald Trump for his allegedly blunt and no-nonsense speech, President Trump changes his public positions a lot. This is true about US military intervention in Syria. As a result, it's impossible to know what the US is poised to do in response to the horrific news that Assad has again attacked his people with chemical gas. Today, Trump blames President Obama for not enforcing his own "red line". In 2013--Obama had said that the county would intervene militarily in Syria in the event of a chemical attack against the civilian population. Then, when there was just such an attack, Obama balked. Instead, Obama made a deal between he and Putin, to have Assad admit he did in fact have chemical weapons, and to have them inspected and seized. But there was no military intervention in August and September 2013. Whether you think the US should or should not have intervened in August 2013, it's reasonable to think Obama looked weak for backing down against Assad from his own ultimatum. But in 2013, Trump also made at least 10 statements via Twitter between June 15 and September 9 clearly and uniformly opposing any US military intervention in Syria. Here is a sample: The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013 × While this Tweet carries some hostility towards Obama (Trump never misses an opportunity to blame Obama), both men agreed that the US Army should not have entered Syria. Yet here is the White House statement in response to the latest chemical attack in Syria: Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a "red line" against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack. What does this mean? Criticising Obama for issuing an ultimatum he didn't live up to is fair, but Trump appears to be blaming Obama for "then d[oing] nothing". This suggests that Trump believes now that Obama should have intervened then in Syria. If so, this is Trump reversing his prior position. Now he is the president, not a guy on Twitter, and his precise position matters. In trying to glean what his position is, the statement says the attack "cannot be ignored", but does not say what the response will be. So what will the US do now under Trump? On one hand, Trump's "America First" policy clearly opposes US militarily intervention. Either they will anyway, in opposition to both President Trump's previous stance and his current foreign policy. Or, like Obama, he will not. There is one major difference between Trump and Obama though: Recently, both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have made statements saying they could imagine a Syria with Bashar al-Assad in power after the war. This is in stark contrast to Obama, and pretty much every other country. Except Russia, who has "provided the military might behind Assad's grip on the country, which plunged into civil war six years ago," as CNN has it. Yesterday Russia mirrored Trump, saying that former US President Barack Obama's threat of military action if a "red line" was crossed and chemical weapons were used in Syria had provoked such attacks. This overlap in policy and in speech between the two countries should strike all as jarring and demanding explanation. After all, Trump is currently under FBI investigation for his and his administration's links to Russia. But ignoring the Trump-Russia angle for now, it's not clear why Trump's White House could envision a Syria led by Assad after the latter killed hundreds, if not thousands, with Sarin gas in 2013, but is in another league of outrage after Assad's most recent chemical attack. Trump has said, "My attitude towards Syria and Assad has changed very much...You're now talking about a whole different level." Why is it on a "whole different level", when Assad has done the exact same thing in 2013, but killing even more people? Why did this chemical attack cross "many, many lines", but not the first? Ultimately, those trying to judge Trump by his words will run into the infuriating fact that they cannot--his words change too much and too often. Even Trump's own administration advises people not to take the words of the president literally, but, instead, symbolically. As if the president is not a man, but a poem. Those inclined to take Trump at his word, who believe him when he says the US is genuinely opposed to military intervention the way "America First" suggests, must explain Trump's call to increase US military spending by $50 billion and the US ramping up its attacks in Yemen. It's early in his presidency, but given his reversals on Syria, and the outlandish and baseless accusations and statements he has made elsewhere, the only way to learn what Donald Trump will actually do next is to wait. But he cannot keep blaming Barack Obama forever. (WION)

Trump's flip-flop on Syria

The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday they saw no evidence to support President Donald Trump&#39;s claim that the Obama administration tapped his phones during the 2016 presidential campaign.

&quot;Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016,&quot; Republican Chairman Richard Burr and Senator Mark Warner, the committee&#39;s Democratic vice chairman, said in a statement.

Trump stands by allegations: White House

The White House, meanwhile, maintained that Trump stood by his allegation that Obama ordered Trump Tower to be wiretapped during the 2016 campaign.

&quot;He stands by it,&quot; White House spokesman Sean Spicer said at a daily briefing.

Trump, a Republican, made the accusation in a series of early morning posts on Twitter on March 4, six weeks after he took over the presidency from Democrat Barack Obama and amid rising scrutiny of his campaign&#39;s ties to Russia.

The top Republican in Congress, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, on Thursday added his voice to those rejecting Trump&#39;s contention.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016,&#39; Republican Chairman Richard Burr and Senator Mark Warner, the committee&#39;s Democratic vice chairman, said in a statement</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016,' Republican Chairman Richard Burr and Senator Mark Warner, the committee's Democratic vice chairman, said in a statement" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;The point is, the intelligence committees in their continuing, widening, ongoing investigation of all things Russia, got to the bottom - at least so far - with respect to our intelligence community that - that no such wiretap existed,&quot; Ryan told reporters.

Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him during the late stages of the campaign, but provided no evidence. Obama said through a spokesman that it was &quot;simply false.&quot;

&quot;How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!,&quot; Trump wrote.

At least four congressional committees added the startling accusation in their investigations of possible Russian meddling in the election campaign and Russian ties to Trump and his associates.

On Wednesday, House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a Republican, and top Democrat Adam Schiff told reporters they had seen no evidence that Trump Tower was tapped and said they would ask Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey about the issue during a public hearing on Monday.

Ryan told reporters he received the same intelligence briefing as Nunes and Schiff.

Trump appeared to back away from his accusation of wiretapping in a Fox News interview on Wednesday night.

&quot;But wiretap covers a lot of different things. I think you&rsquo;re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks,&quot; Trump said. 
 
(Reuters)

The White House said Trump continued to stand by his allegation that Obama ordered the tapping of phones at Trump Tower

The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee said on Thursday they saw no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that the Obama administration tapped his phones during the 2016 presidential campaign. "Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016," Republican Chairman Richard Burr and Senator Mark Warner, the committee's Democratic vice chairman, said in a statement. Trump stands by allegations: White House The White House, meanwhile, maintained that Trump stood by his allegation that Obama ordered Trump Tower to be wiretapped during the 2016 campaign. "He stands by it," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said at a daily briefing. Trump, a Republican, made the accusation in a series of early morning posts on Twitter on March 4, six weeks after he took over the presidency from Democrat Barack Obama and amid rising scrutiny of his campaign's ties to Russia. The top Republican in Congress, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, on Thursday added his voice to those rejecting Trump's contention. Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016,' Republican Chairman Richard Burr and Senator Mark Warner, the committee's Democratic vice chairman, said in a statement × "The point is, the intelligence committees in their continuing, widening, ongoing investigation of all things Russia, got to the bottom - at least so far - with respect to our intelligence community that - that no such wiretap existed," Ryan told reporters. Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him during the late stages of the campaign, but provided no evidence. Obama said through a spokesman that it was "simply false." "How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!," Trump wrote. At least four congressional committees added the startling accusation in their investigations of possible Russian meddling in the election campaign and Russian ties to Trump and his associates. On Wednesday, House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a Republican, and top Democrat Adam Schiff told reporters they had seen no evidence that Trump Tower was tapped and said they would ask Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey about the issue during a public hearing on Monday. Ryan told reporters he received the same intelligence briefing as Nunes and Schiff. Trump appeared to back away from his accusation of wiretapping in a Fox News interview on Wednesday night. "But wiretap covers a lot of different things. I think you’re going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks," Trump said. (Reuters)

Obama did not tap Trump's phone: Senate panel

United States President Donald Trump&#39;s explosive claim on Twitter that Barack Obama wiretapped his phone during last year&#39;s election campaign will be probed by a Congressional committee.

The chairman of the&nbsp;House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Devin Nunes, said they will investigate &quot;whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party&#39;s campaign officials or surrogates&quot;. Nunes, however, stopped short of directly mentioning Trump&#39;s claims about the alleged Obama bugging.

The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html?hp&amp;action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;clickSource=story-heading&amp;module=first-column-region&amp;region=top-news&amp;WT.nav=top-news&amp;_r=0" target="_blank">New York Times</a> reports that FBI Director James Comey has this weekend asked the justice department to reject in public Trump&#39;s assertion, that Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump&#39;s phone. Comey argued that the highly charged claim is false, and must be corrected.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been examining Russian interference in last year&#39;s US presidential election as well as Russia&#39;s cyber-activity, which has been viewed by many as a key reason for the withering of Hillary Clinton&#39;s presidential push.

The Committee&#39;s decision comes hours after the Donald Trump administration urged the Congress to follow up on the president&#39;s tweets, which without providing any evidence, accused Obama of tapping his phone.

On Saturday, Trump had tweeted: &quot;How low has President Obama gone to tapp &nbsp;my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!&quot;

Trump&#39;s insinuation was based on a report that came out in right-wing media organisation Breitbart News, which was until recently run by his chief advisor Steve Bannon.

Scrambling to contain the potential fallout, Trump&#39;s team requested the Congress to probe into what his spokesman Sarah Sanders said would be&nbsp;the &quot;greatest abuse of power and overreach that has ever occurred in the executive branch&quot;.

But Obama, through his spokesman, has denied ordering any surveillance on Trump.

US presidents cannot legally order such wiretaps, which require the approval of a federal judge and reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Obama&#39;s director of national intelligence James Clapper told NBC there was &quot;no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time as a candidate or against his campaign&quot;.

Trump&#39;s latest incendiary statement comes at a time when his fledgling presidency has been rocked by a series of scandals linking his team members with Russian officials.

Amid this and several other revelations of Trump aides holding meetings with Russian officials, the White House has denied allegations of collusion.

US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin approved a campaign to meddle in last November&#39;s presidential election in a bid to tilt it in Trump&#39;s favor.

Former CIA director Leon Panetta accused Trump of diversionary tactics.

&quot;They are trying to obfuscate and trying to cover up. They are trying to somehow raise other issues,&quot; he told CBS. &quot;In the end, it is going to be the truth that will determine what is involved here, and not Tweets, but the truth.&quot;

(WION with inputs from AFP)

Trump's accusation of Obama ordering a surveillance on him has been viewed by some as a diversion from his Russia links scandal

United States President Donald Trump's explosive claim on Twitter that Barack Obama wiretapped his phone during last year's election campaign will be probed by a Congressional committee. The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Devin Nunes, said they will investigate "whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates". Nunes, however, stopped short of directly mentioning Trump's claims about the alleged Obama bugging. The New York Times reports that FBI Director James Comey has this weekend asked the justice department to reject in public Trump's assertion, that Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump's phone. Comey argued that the highly charged claim is false, and must be corrected. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been examining Russian interference in last year's US presidential election as well as Russia's cyber-activity, which has been viewed by many as a key reason for the withering of Hillary Clinton's presidential push. The Committee's decision comes hours after the Donald Trump administration urged the Congress to follow up on the president's tweets, which without providing any evidence, accused Obama of tapping his phone. On Saturday, Trump had tweeted: "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!" Trump's insinuation was based on a report that came out in right-wing media organisation Breitbart News, which was until recently run by his chief advisor Steve Bannon. Scrambling to contain the potential fallout, Trump's team requested the Congress to probe into what his spokesman Sarah Sanders said would be the "greatest abuse of power and overreach that has ever occurred in the executive branch". But Obama, through his spokesman, has denied ordering any surveillance on Trump. US presidents cannot legally order such wiretaps, which require the approval of a federal judge and reasonable grounds for suspicion. Obama's director of national intelligence James Clapper told NBC there was "no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time as a candidate or against his campaign". Trump's latest incendiary statement comes at a time when his fledgling presidency has been rocked by a series of scandals linking his team members with Russian officials. Amid this and several other revelations of Trump aides holding meetings with Russian officials, the White House has denied allegations of collusion. US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin approved a campaign to meddle in last November's presidential election in a bid to tilt it in Trump's favor. Former CIA director Leon Panetta accused Trump of diversionary tactics. "They are trying to obfuscate and trying to cover up. They are trying to somehow raise other issues," he told CBS. "In the end, it is going to be the truth that will determine what is involved here, and not Tweets, but the truth." (WION with inputs from AFP)

US Congressional body to probe Trump's wire-tap claim against Obama

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping him in October during the late stages of the presidential election campaign, but offered no evidence to support the allegation.

Representatives of Obama have denied the accusations.

Obama&#39;s spokesman Kevin Lewis said: &quot;A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any&nbsp;independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.&quot;&nbsp;

He added, &quot;As part of that practice,&nbsp;neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US&nbsp;citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.&quot;

&quot;How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!,&quot; Trump said in a series of Tweets on his Twitter account early on Saturday. &quot;I&#39;d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!&quot;

Presidents don&#39;t&nbsp;order&nbsp;wiretaps. As Ben Rhodes, President Obama&#39;s former speechwriter and policy adviser, Tweeted: &quot;No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.&quot;

On Saturday, Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News that Trump &quot;is not credible when it comes to talking about Russia&quot;. Swalwell downplayed Trump&#39;s allegation. &quot;I think this is just the president up early doing his routine tweeting,&quot; he said. &quot;Presidents don&#39;t wiretap anyone. These are pursued by the Department of Justice in accordance with the FBI and signed off by a judge.&quot;

And actually, it&#39;s perfectly legal for Trump to be wiretapped,&nbsp;and Trump claiming to have just learned about it&nbsp;now is&nbsp;dubious, considering&nbsp;it&#39;s been&nbsp;known publicly for months that&nbsp;the FBI is investigating him and his connections to Russia. Louise Mensch at <a href="https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/" target="_blank">Heat Street</a> broke the news on November 7, 2016: &quot;Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of &#39;US persons&#39;&nbsp;in Donald Trump&#39;s campaign with ties to Russia.&quot;

Under US&nbsp;law, a federal court would have to have found probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an &quot;agent of a foreign power&quot; in order to approve a warrant authorising electronic surveillance of Trump Tower.

In one of the Tweets, Trump said the alleged wiretapping took place in his Trump Tower office and apartment building in New York, but there was &quot;nothing found&quot;.

Trump&#39;s administration has come under pressure from Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional investigations into contacts between some members of his campaign team and Russian officials during his campaign.

Obama imposed sanctions on Russia and ordered Russian diplomats to leave the United States in December over the country&#39;s involvement in hacking political parties in the November&nbsp;8 US&nbsp;presidential election.

Several conservative news outlets and commentators have made similar allegations about Trump being wiretapped during the campaign in recent days, without offering any evidence.

Trump&#39;s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned in February after revelations that he had discussed US&nbsp;sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office.

Flynn had promised Vice President Mike Pence he had not discussed US&nbsp;sanctions with the Russians, but transcripts of intercepted communications, described by US&nbsp;officials, showed that the subject had come up in conversations between him and the Russian ambassador.

Trump has often used his Twitter account to attack rivals and for years led a campaign alleging that Obama was not born in the United States. He later retracted the allegation.

Obama&#39;s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters. The White House also did not respond to a request to elaborate on Trump&#39;s accusations.

Trump is &quot;having meetings, making phone calls and hitting balls&quot; at his golf course in West Palm Beach, according to a Trump spokeswoman.

(WION with inputs from Reuters)

Obama's spokesperson has denied the accusation, saying the former president never ordered surveillance on any US citizen

US President Donald Trump on Saturday accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping him in October during the late stages of the presidential election campaign, but offered no evidence to support the allegation. Representatives of Obama have denied the accusations. Obama's spokesman Kevin Lewis said: "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice." He added, "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false." "How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!," Trump said in a series of Tweets on his Twitter account early on Saturday. "I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!" Presidents don't order wiretaps. As Ben Rhodes, President Obama's former speechwriter and policy adviser, Tweeted: "No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you." On Saturday, Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News that Trump "is not credible when it comes to talking about Russia". Swalwell downplayed Trump's allegation. "I think this is just the president up early doing his routine tweeting," he said. "Presidents don't wiretap anyone. These are pursued by the Department of Justice in accordance with the FBI and signed off by a judge." And actually, it's perfectly legal for Trump to be wiretapped, and Trump claiming to have just learned about it now is dubious, considering it's been known publicly for months that the FBI is investigating him and his connections to Russia. Louise Mensch at Heat Street broke the news on November 7, 2016: "Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of 'US persons' in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia." Under US law, a federal court would have to have found probable cause that the target of the surveillance is an "agent of a foreign power" in order to approve a warrant authorising electronic surveillance of Trump Tower. In one of the Tweets, Trump said the alleged wiretapping took place in his Trump Tower office and apartment building in New York, but there was "nothing found". Trump's administration has come under pressure from Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional investigations into contacts between some members of his campaign team and Russian officials during his campaign. Obama imposed sanctions on Russia and ordered Russian diplomats to leave the United States in December over the country's involvement in hacking political parties in the November 8 US presidential election. Several conservative news outlets and commentators have made similar allegations about Trump being wiretapped during the campaign in recent days, without offering any evidence. Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned in February after revelations that he had discussed US sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office. Flynn had promised Vice President Mike Pence he had not discussed US sanctions with the Russians, but transcripts of intercepted communications, described by US officials, showed that the subject had come up in conversations between him and the Russian ambassador. Trump has often used his Twitter account to attack rivals and for years led a campaign alleging that Obama was not born in the United States. He later retracted the allegation. Obama's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters. The White House also did not respond to a request to elaborate on Trump's accusations. Trump is "having meetings, making phone calls and hitting balls" at his golf course in West Palm Beach, according to a Trump spokeswoman. (WION with inputs from Reuters)

Donald Trump, without evidence, says Obama wiretapped him during campaign

US President Donald Trump has accused his predecessor Barack Obama of being responsible for the leaks within the present US&nbsp;administration.

Quoting Trump&#39;s interview to Fox News, CNN reported the President fully blaming Obama for the leaks.

&quot;It turns out his organisation seems to do a lot of these organising to some of the protests that these Republicans are seeing around the country against you. Do you believe President Obama is behind it and if he is, is that a violation of the so-called unsaid presidents&#39;&nbsp;code?&quot; Trump was asked.

&quot;No, I think he is behind it. I also think it is politics, that&#39;s the way it is. You never know what&#39;s exactly happening behind the scenes. You know, you&#39;re probably right or possibly right, but you never know,&quot; Trump said in the interview.

Reiterating that Obama&#39;s &quot;people&quot;&nbsp;were definitely behind the leak, Trump stated that some of the leaks are really serious as they are related to national security.

However, Trump did not offer any evidence for his claim in the clip released by Fox Monday night.

Earlier this month, Trump told Fox News that reports of his calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were caused by leaks from &quot;Obama people&quot;.

Trump&#39;s administration has claimed to have been plagued by leaks within his administration to the media.&nbsp;

(ANI)&nbsp;

Trump said Obama's people were definitely behind the leak and protests around the country. However, he provided no evidence for his claim

US President Donald Trump has accused his predecessor Barack Obama of being responsible for the leaks within the present US administration. Quoting Trump's interview to Fox News, CNN reported the President fully blaming Obama for the leaks. "It turns out his organisation seems to do a lot of these organising to some of the protests that these Republicans are seeing around the country against you. Do you believe President Obama is behind it and if he is, is that a violation of the so-called unsaid presidents' code?" Trump was asked. "No, I think he is behind it. I also think it is politics, that's the way it is. You never know what's exactly happening behind the scenes. You know, you're probably right or possibly right, but you never know," Trump said in the interview. Reiterating that Obama's "people" were definitely behind the leak, Trump stated that some of the leaks are really serious as they are related to national security. However, Trump did not offer any evidence for his claim in the clip released by Fox Monday night. Earlier this month, Trump told Fox News that reports of his calls with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were caused by leaks from "Obama people". Trump's administration has claimed to have been plagued by leaks within his administration to the media. (ANI)

Trump accuses Obama of leaks within present US administration

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EaF6NntP45o"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
President Donald Trump&#39;s administration on Thursday reinstated the use of private prisons for federal inmates, saying commercial prison operators are needed for the correctional system&#39;s &quot;future needs&quot; (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

President Donald Trump&#39;s administration on Thursday reinstated the use of private prisons for federal inmates, saying commercial prison operators are needed for the correctional system&#39;s &quot;future needs&quot;.

Trump&#39;s new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, officially rescinded the Barack Obama administration&#39;s move last August to phase out the management of prisons by private companies, which Obama&#39;s justice department had said proved to be inadequate, more dangerous and not cheaper than government-run prisons.

Sessions said in an order that the move last year had reversed a longstanding policy at the Federal Bureau of Prisons to have private companies involved, &quot;and impaired the bureau&#39;s ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system&quot;.

The Obama move had only affected a small portion of the US prison system: 13 privately run prisons housing just over 22,000 people, or about 11 per cent of the federal prison population. Most are foreign nationals, mainly Mexicans incarcerated for immigration violations.

The Trump government has promised a crackdown on crime and illegal immigration, suggesting the prisons bureau could require greater holding capacity in a short time.

The 13 prisons are run by three companies: CoreCivic (known until recently as Corrections Corporation of America), GEO Group and Management and Training Corporation.

According to the International Business Times, <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/trump-private-prisons-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-overturns-obama-administration-2497015" target="_blank">GEO Group</a>, one of the largest companies behind for-profit prisons, donated at least $100,000 to a Super PAC in support of Donald Trump, who appointed Sessions. More, GEO Group faced a complain frmo the Campaign Legal Center back in November over allegedly violating a Federal Election Commission rule which prevents government contractors from contributing to politicial campaigns.&nbsp;

The announcement gave a strong after-hours boost to the stock of the two listed firms. Core Civic jumped 3.2 per cent, while GEO Group added 1.0 per cent.

The move was expected and both companies&#39;&nbsp;stocks had already risen sharply after Trump&#39;s election victory on November 8.

(With inputs from AFP)

Jeff Sessions said commercial prison operators are needed for the correctional system's 'future needs'

President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday reinstated the use of private prisons for federal inmates, saying commercial prison operators are needed for the correctional system's "future needs" (WION) × President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday reinstated the use of private prisons for federal inmates, saying commercial prison operators are needed for the correctional system's "future needs". Trump's new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, officially rescinded the Barack Obama administration's move last August to phase out the management of prisons by private companies, which Obama's justice department had said proved to be inadequate, more dangerous and not cheaper than government-run prisons. Sessions said in an order that the move last year had reversed a longstanding policy at the Federal Bureau of Prisons to have private companies involved, "and impaired the bureau's ability to meet the future needs of the federal correctional system". The Obama move had only affected a small portion of the US prison system: 13 privately run prisons housing just over 22,000 people, or about 11 per cent of the federal prison population. Most are foreign nationals, mainly Mexicans incarcerated for immigration violations. The Trump government has promised a crackdown on crime and illegal immigration, suggesting the prisons bureau could require greater holding capacity in a short time. The 13 prisons are run by three companies: CoreCivic (known until recently as Corrections Corporation of America), GEO Group and Management and Training Corporation. According to the International Business Times, GEO Group, one of the largest companies behind for-profit prisons, donated at least $100,000 to a Super PAC in support of Donald Trump, who appointed Sessions. More, GEO Group faced a complain frmo the Campaign Legal Center back in November over allegedly violating a Federal Election Commission rule which prevents government contractors from contributing to politicial campaigns. The announcement gave a strong after-hours boost to the stock of the two listed firms. Core Civic jumped 3.2 per cent, while GEO Group added 1.0 per cent. The move was expected and both companies' stocks had already risen sharply after Trump's election victory on November 8. (With inputs from AFP)

Trump rescinds Obama ban on private prisons

Obama's initiative had instructed public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms matching their chosen gender identity

President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday revoked landmark guidance issued to public schools in defence of transgender student rights, reversing course on a signature initiative of former Democratic President Barack Obama. Obama instructed public schools in May 2016 to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms matching their chosen gender identity, threatening to withhold federal funding if they should force transgender children to use bathrooms against their will. The Obama guidelines had already been put on hold by a federal judge, but the Trump administration went ahead and withdrew them. The Justice and Education departments will continue to study the legal issues involved, according to the new, superseding guidance that will be sent to public schools across the country. Reversing the Obama guidelines stands to inflame passions in the latest conflict in America between believers in traditional values and social progressives, and is likely to prompt more of the street protests that followed Trump's November 8 election. While Trump takes away #transgender students' rights, this is what a Canadian elementary school bathroom looks like: pic.twitter.com/W8sZK6KedT — Joshua Ostroff (@joshuaostroff) February 23, 2017 × A couple hundred people gathered in front of the White House to protest the Republican president's action, waving rainbow flags and chanting: "No hate, no fear, trans students are welcome here." The rainbow flag is the symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the White House was pressed to act now because of the pending US Supreme Court case, GG versus Gloucester County School Board. That case pits a Virginia transgender boy, Gavin Grimm, against officials who want to deny him use of the boys' room at his high school. Although the Justice Department is not a party in the case, it typically would want to make its views heard. The Trump administration action on Wednesday also withdrew an Education Department letter in support of Grimm's case. The federal law in question, known as Title IX, bans sex discrimination in education. But it remains unsettled whether Title IX protections extend to a person's gender identity. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the Obama guidelines "did not contain sufficient legal analysis or explain how the interpretation was consistent with the language of Title IX". He also said Congress, state legislatures and local governments were better-placed to address the issues than the executive branch. "The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment," Sessions said. The courts are likely to have the final say over whether Title IX covers transgender students. The Supreme Court could pass on that question in the Virginia case and allow lower courts to weigh in, or go ahead and decide what the law means. (Reuters)

Trump revokes Obama's signature transgender bathroom rules

By Anchal Vohra

Iran, Russia and Turkey, the sponsors of peace talks between Syrian rebels and Damascus, agreed on Tuesday to a fragile three-week cessation of hostilities in Syria. The announcement comes after two days of peace talks in the Kazakh capital, Astana.

In a joint statement, the three countries said there was no military solution to the Syrian conflict.

It was not clear whether the Syrian government or the opposition backed the communique. Earlier, a rebel spokesman said &quot;no agreements&quot; would be signed.

The &quot;trilateral mechanism&quot; was agreed between Russia and Iran, which back Mr Assad&#39;s government, and Turkey, which supports the opposition.

It would &quot;observe and ensure full compliance with the ceasefire, prevent any provocation and determine all modalities&quot;, the statement said.

Earlier, however, the Guardian reported that rebel officials objected to Iran having a role because of its support of militia groups, which they accuse of repeatedly violating the cessation of hostilities.

Government negotiator Bashar Jaafari had accused rebel groups of violating the truce and defending &quot;war crimes&quot; by the allied jihadist group Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which is excluded from the ceasefire along with so-called Islamic State (IS).

The talks in Astana were the first where the opposition delegation was formed exclusively of representatives of armed groups.

Rebel spokesman Yahya al-Aridi had earlier said that his delegation would also push for the lifting of government sieges of opposition-held areas and &quot;goodwill gestures&quot;, including the release of political detainees and aid deliveries.

He added that it was hoped the meeting would &quot;contribute&quot; to the UN-brokered negotiations on a political settlement that are due to resume in Geneva next month.

The negotiations in Geneva broke down last April with little progress having been made.

More than 300,000 people have been killed and 11 million others displaced since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011.

(WION)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Former US military intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning questioned Barack Obama's legacy after he commuted her sentence last week

By Anchal Vohra Iran, Russia and Turkey, the sponsors of peace talks between Syrian rebels and Damascus, agreed on Tuesday to a fragile three-week cessation of hostilities in Syria. The announcement comes after two days of peace talks in the Kazakh capital, Astana. In a joint statement, the three countries said there was no military solution to the Syrian conflict. It was not clear whether the Syrian government or the opposition backed the communique. Earlier, a rebel spokesman said "no agreements" would be signed. The "trilateral mechanism" was agreed between Russia and Iran, which back Mr Assad's government, and Turkey, which supports the opposition. It would "observe and ensure full compliance with the ceasefire, prevent any provocation and determine all modalities", the statement said. Earlier, however, the Guardian reported that rebel officials objected to Iran having a role because of its support of militia groups, which they accuse of repeatedly violating the cessation of hostilities. Government negotiator Bashar Jaafari had accused rebel groups of violating the truce and defending "war crimes" by the allied jihadist group Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which is excluded from the ceasefire along with so-called Islamic State (IS). The talks in Astana were the first where the opposition delegation was formed exclusively of representatives of armed groups. Rebel spokesman Yahya al-Aridi had earlier said that his delegation would also push for the lifting of government sieges of opposition-held areas and "goodwill gestures", including the release of political detainees and aid deliveries. He added that it was hoped the meeting would "contribute" to the UN-brokered negotiations on a political settlement that are due to resume in Geneva next month. The negotiations in Geneva broke down last April with little progress having been made. More than 300,000 people have been killed and 11 million others displaced since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011. (WION)

Ungrateful traitor Chelsea Manning, tweets Trump

With Manoj Kewalramani

In a matter of days, President-elect Donald Trump will take office as the 45th President of the United States. 
&nbsp; 
Immigration is at the top of the Trump administration&rsquo;s agenda. Post victory,<a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration"> Trump&rsquo;s vision</a> on immigration&nbsp;reads, &quot;Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first&quot;. 
&nbsp; 
Reports say that there are 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. Trump has scaled back his promise to deport them all, but says he still plans to deport between<a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/donald-trumps-mass-deportations-would-cost-billions-and-take-years-to-process/"> two to three million</a>.

 
The Obama Era 
&nbsp; 
While many have&nbsp;seen&nbsp;this as a radical departure from the past,&nbsp;if one analyses the numbers&nbsp;it is clear that the Barack Obama administration has not really been soft when it comes to dealing with migrants. 
&nbsp; 
Data from the US Department of Homeland Security shows that a record high number of removals were carried out during the eight years of Obama&#39;s presidency. 
&nbsp;

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="226" id="datawrapper-chart-jwBBV" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jwBBV/2/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["jwBBV"]={},window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].embedDeltas={"100":304,"200":252,"300":252,"400":226,"500":226,"600":226,"700":226,"800":226,"900":226,"1000":226},window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-jwBBV"),window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("jwBBV"==b)window.datawrapper["jwBBV"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

As per the numbers, more than 2.7 million immigrants were deported from the United States between 2009 and 2015. The maximum number of deportations during the Obama presidency took place in 2013. 
&nbsp;

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="340" id="datawrapper-chart-fDUSj" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fDUSj/1/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["fDUSj"]={},window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].embedDeltas={"100":418,"200":392,"300":366,"400":340,"500":340,"600":340,"700":340,"800":340,"900":340,"1000":340},window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-fDUSj"),window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("fDUSj"==b)window.datawrapper["fDUSj"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

However, the data also shows that there has been a sharp decline in deportations of criminals and non-criminals during the last few years of the Obama administration. 
&nbsp; 
The number of non-criminal deportations dropped by 22 per cent&nbsp;in 2015, while deportations post criminal convictions fell by 17 per cent. Most of these deportations were to countries in North America, followed by countries in South America and Asia. 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

What about South Asians? 
&nbsp; 
Focussing specifically on South Asia, under Obama, criminal and non-criminal deportations to six South Asian countries, excluding the Maldives, dropped drastically when compared to the Bush administration. 
&nbsp;

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="300" id="datawrapper-chart-9Wjcd" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9Wjcd/1/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"]={},window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].embedDeltas={"100":404,"200":352,"300":326,"400":326,"500":300,"600":300,"700":300,"800":300,"900":300,"1000":300},window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-9Wjcd"),window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("9Wjcd"==b)window.datawrapper["9Wjcd"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

From 2009 to 2015, the US deported 7,496 people around South Asia. In contrast, during the Bush era, a total of 11,554 South Asians were deported. 
&nbsp; 
During the Bush era, the number of deportations spiked in 2005, hitting the highest level in 2006. On the other hand, the Obama administration recorded high number of deportations at the beginning of his term. 
&nbsp; 
That number has dropped significantly towards the end of his tenure. While the number of criminal deportations remained consistent, the number of non-criminal deportation halved.

 
How Obama differs from Trump? 
&nbsp; 
A report by the Pew<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/16/u-s-immigrant-deportations-fall-to-lowest-level-since-2007/"> Research Center</a>&nbsp;says that the sharp decline in numbers could have been due to a change in the deportation <a href="http://(https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/dhs-releases-end-fiscal-year-2015-statistics">enforcement priorities</a>&nbsp;by the administration. This change has led to a shift, focusing &quot;exclusively on only those who have been convicted of a crime; those deemed a threat to public safety; and those who have recently crossed the border&quot;. 
&nbsp; 
Further, a report by the <a href="http://cis.org/Immigration-Enforcement-Deportations-Decline-2016">Center of Immigration Studies</a>&nbsp;claims that the immigrations office has eased enforcement, thereby putting less people on the path to deportation. 
&nbsp; 
Those are priorities that are likely to change under a Trump presidency. Reports suggest that Trump is expected to target not just those considered a security threat or threat to public safety, but also those who have either arrived in the US illegally or have overstayed their visas. 
&nbsp; 
Trump&rsquo;s statements about deporting anyone who has entered the US illegally hint at a possible re-look at Obama&rsquo;s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which was brought into force to protect young immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children. 
&nbsp; 
There are also concerns that the new president could tinker with the rules, such as redefining what constitutes a criminal act, in order to make it easier to deport people, while arguing that the administration was focussed on deporting those with criminal records. However, with the recent protests on the streets and by legislators, pushing through these changes is not likely to be an easy process. 
 
Watch: 
 
&nbsp;

<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kfnhyNc7aq8" width="770"></iframe></center>

(WION) 
&nbsp;

While many worry about Donald Trump, Obama removed more immigrants than any American president in US history

With Manoj Kewalramani In a matter of days, President-elect Donald Trump will take office as the 45th President of the United States. Immigration is at the top of the Trump administration’s agenda. Post victory, Trump’s vision on immigration reads, "Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first". Reports say that there are 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. Trump has scaled back his promise to deport them all, but says he still plans to deport between two to three million. The Obama Era While many have seen this as a radical departure from the past, if one analyses the numbers it is clear that the Barack Obama administration has not really been soft when it comes to dealing with migrants. Data from the US Department of Homeland Security shows that a record high number of removals were carried out during the eight years of Obama's presidency. As per the numbers, more than 2.7 million immigrants were deported from the United States between 2009 and 2015. The maximum number of deportations during the Obama presidency took place in 2013. However, the data also shows that there has been a sharp decline in deportations of criminals and non-criminals during the last few years of the Obama administration. The number of non-criminal deportations dropped by 22 per cent in 2015, while deportations post criminal convictions fell by 17 per cent. Most of these deportations were to countries in North America, followed by countries in South America and Asia. What about South Asians? Focussing specifically on South Asia, under Obama, criminal and non-criminal deportations to six South Asian countries, excluding the Maldives, dropped drastically when compared to the Bush administration. From 2009 to 2015, the US deported 7,496 people around South Asia. In contrast, during the Bush era, a total of 11,554 South Asians were deported. During the Bush era, the number of deportations spiked in 2005, hitting the highest level in 2006. On the other hand, the Obama administration recorded high number of deportations at the beginning of his term. That number has dropped significantly towards the end of his tenure. While the number of criminal deportations remained consistent, the number of non-criminal deportation halved. How Obama differs from Trump? A report by the Pew Research Center says that the sharp decline in numbers could have been due to a change in the deportation enforcement priorities by the administration. This change has led to a shift, focusing "exclusively on only those who have been convicted of a crime; those deemed a threat to public safety; and those who have recently crossed the border". Further, a report by the Center of Immigration Studies claims that the immigrations office has eased enforcement, thereby putting less people on the path to deportation. Those are priorities that are likely to change under a Trump presidency. Reports suggest that Trump is expected to target not just those considered a security threat or threat to public safety, but also those who have either arrived in the US illegally or have overstayed their visas. Trump’s statements about deporting anyone who has entered the US illegally hint at a possible re-look at Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which was brought into force to protect young immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children. There are also concerns that the new president could tinker with the rules, such as redefining what constitutes a criminal act, in order to make it easier to deport people, while arguing that the administration was focussed on deporting those with criminal records. However, with the recent protests on the streets and by legislators, pushing through these changes is not likely to be an easy process. Watch: (WION)

Trump and Obama: Surprisingly similar on deportation

obama

Obama, News on Obama, stories on Obama, articles on Obama, Obama stories at Wion, Obama news, Obama latest news