President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE this week gave Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ House Democrats must insist that Robert Mueller testifies publicly Why Mueller may be fighting a public hearing on Capitol Hill MORE new authorities to examine and possibly release classified material related to the Justice Department’s inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation.

The move is widely perceived as an effort by Trump to ramp up his administration’s probe of surveillance directed at members of his 2016 campaign. The president and his allies have suggested that federal agents biased against him improperly initiated the investigation into Russia’s election interference.

ADVERTISEMENT

Barr said last month he would examine the “genesis and conduct” of the Russia probe, adding that he believed the Trump campaign was “spied” on and wanted to ensure it was “adequately predicated.” Those remarks drew fire from Democrats, who accused him of advancing a conspiracy theory.

Here are five things you need to know about Trump’s new direction.

Sweeping powers for Barr

On Thursday evening, Trump instructed top intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsDaniel (Dan) Ray CoatsFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump declassification move unnerves Democrats Hillicon Valley: Facebook co-founder calls for breaking up company | Facebook pushes back | Experts study 2020 candidates to offset ‘deepfake’ threat | FCC votes to block China Mobile | Groups, lawmakers accuse Amazon of violating children’s privacy MORE and CIA Director Gina HaspelGina Cheri HaspelFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Key Republican ‘convinced’ Iran threats are credible Bolton held unexpected meeting on Iran with top intel, military advisers at CIA: report MORE, to “quickly and fully” cooperate with Barr’s investigation into “surveillance activities” during the 2016 election.

Barr was also given the authority to unilaterally declassify materials related to the investigation, allowing him to “direct” intelligence officials to declassify them. Such documents usually go through an interagency process to determine what can be declassified and released publicly, and the agency where the intelligence originated has to sign off on the final declassification.

The White House memo sent to intelligence agencies on Thursday said Barr should, “to the extent he deems it practicable,” consult with intelligence officials before declassifying certain materials.

The move affords Barr considerable new powers to view and potentially release highly classified material gathered by the FBI and CIA in the course of the Russia investigation.

ADVERTISEMENT

“As far as I know, it is unprecedented for the president to delegate his authority to declassify to somebody who is not the original classifier,” said Steven Cash, an ex-CIA officer and former chief counsel to Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Senate Democrats to House: Tamp down the impeachment talk Feinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report MORE (D-Calif.).

“He’s now in the chain of command with respect to classification between the president and Coats or Haspel or whoever’s information it is,” added Cash, who is now an attorney specializing in national security law at the law firm Day Pitney.

Trump’s move also reflects the growing trust he has in Barr, who has earned praise from the president as a result of his handling of special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump orders more troops to Mideast amid Iran tensions Trump: Democrats just want Mueller to testify for a ‘do-over’ Graham: Mueller investigation a ‘political rectal exam’ MORE’s report and decision to open up an inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation.

The new declassification powers are limited to materials related to Barr’s inquiry into the Russia probe. The memo released Thursday states that the powers will terminate when Barr leaves his post and will not extend to the next attorney general.

Potential for conflict with intelligence community

Trump is no stranger to conflict with U.S. intelligence agencies, and former officials say his latest move could put the intelligence chiefs in a difficult position.

While it’s not unusual for the intelligence community to cooperate with law enforcement investigations, some former officials say it will become problematic if Trump is seen as using the agencies to go after his political enemies.

John Sipher, a retired member of the CIA’s clandestine service, said it could create problems for Haspel and others if the president looks to “scapegoat” officials who collected intelligence that formed the basis for the Russia investigation.

“Hopefully, Barr and people in the national security structure of Justice go about this in a standard way. They can get the information they need,” Sipher said. “If he himself is trying to get specific information to be used by the president for political purposes, then he’s really being irresponsible.”

Some also say that even the threat of declassifying materials could chill existing intelligence sources and make it difficult to cultivate new ones going forward. Foreign partners may also be wary of sending intelligence to the U.S. if they think it could ultimately be made public.

It is unclear to what extent the intelligence agencies were consulted before Thursday’s announcement.

Coats said in a statement Friday afternoon he would provide Barr with the “appropriate information” in his review. He also expressed confidence the attorney general would work with the intelligence community “in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly-sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk.”

An FBI spokesperson declined to comment, and a CIA spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Barr’s use of the term “spying” has already put him at odds with FBI Director Christopher Wray, who told lawmakers during testimony earlier this month that he wouldn’t use that term to describe lawful FBI investigations. Wray also said he had no evidence “personally” that FBI agents illegally surveilled the Trump campaign.

At the same time, Wray described Barr’s review as appropriate and said he had been in “fairly close contact” with the attorney general to assist him.

Democratic fury meets Republican praise

Democrats, already critical of Barr’s handling of Mueller’s findings, have accused Trump and the attorney general of attempting to politicize the nation’s intelligence apparatus. Some suggested the administration may be looking to selectively release classified material to shape a false narrative.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump declassification move unnerves Democrats Trump appeals order siding with House Democrats bank subpoenas MORE (D-Calif.) described Trump’s order in a statement Friday as a “corrupt escalation of the President’s intention, with the assistance of the Attorney General, to weaponize and politicize the nation’s intelligence and law enforcement entities.”

Schiff added that his committee will “conduct vigorous oversight of any steps to selectively reveal and distort classified information, abuse the declassification process, and place at risk sources and methods, thereby weakening our safety and security.”

Trump’s Republican allies have long clamored for an investigation of the Russia probe, pointing to text messages exchanged by FBI agents criticizing Trump before the election.

Some have also scrutinized the FBI’s use of information from Christopher Steele — author of the unverified Trump-Russia dossier — in a warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, alleging the bureau did not properly disclose the researcher’s Democratic link.

“Outstanding—President Trump authorizing the Attorney General to declassify documents related to surveillance during the 2016 election,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump declassification move unnerves Democrats Conservative blocks House passage of disaster relief bill MORE (R-N.C.), a close ally of Trump, wrote on Twitter. “Americans are going to learn the truth about what occurred at their Justice Department.”

Other key Republicans, such as Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard BurrRichard Mauze BurrFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe The Hill’s Morning Report — After contentious week, Trump heads for Japan Trump Jr. slams Republican committee chairman: ‘Too weak to stand up to the Democrats’ MORE (R-N.C.), have not publicly weighed in on the move. A Burr spokesperson declined to comment on Friday.

Trump’s calls to ‘investigate the investigators’ get louder

Thursday’s developments illustrate Trump’s calls to “investigate the investigators” — a message he has used to counter an onslaught of investigations from Democrats following the release of Mueller’s report.

Trump has accused FBI officials involved in the original Russia probe — former FBI Director James ComeyJames Brien ComeyFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump orders intel agencies to cooperate with Barr probe into ‘spying’ on 2016 campaign Attorney General Barr puts former intel bosses on notice MORE, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump accuses Hillary Clinton of ‘destroying the lives’ of his campaign staffers The Mueller report concludes it was not needed MORE and others — of engaging in “treason.”

On Friday, Trump denied he was seeking “payback” following Mueller’s two-year investigation, which did not result in conspiracy charges against members of his campaign but nevertheless ensnared some of his allies. Mueller’s final report contained embarrassing details about Trump’s attempts to seize control of the investigation but ultimately failed to reach a judgment on whether the president obstructed justice.

Trump described the Russia investigation as “an attempted coup or an attempted takedown of the President of the United States” in remarks to reporters on Friday.

“I don’t care about payback,” Trump said. “I think it’s very important for our country to find out what happened.”

More shoes to drop

Trump’s recent move all but guarantees his administration will release certain materials from the early stages of the Russia investigation.

Trump has long said he would declassify and release sensitive documents, including the application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil Page, a highly redacted version of which the Justice Department made public last summer under pressure from Republicans.

Trump last fall backed off swiftly releasing the Russia documents after the Justice Department — then headed by Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsTrump’s nastiest break-ups: A look at the president’s most fiery feuds Five takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Amash: Some of Trump’s actions ‘were inherently corrupt’ MORE — and U.S. allies raised objections.

Trump told reporters on Friday he is leaving what to release up to Barr.

“I declassified, I guess, potentially, millions of pages of documents. I don’t know what it is. I have no idea. But I want to be transparent,” Trump said. “We have documents now that I have declassified for the purpose of the attorney general. He can then show them to the public, do whatever he wants to do with them.”

Barr has tapped John DurhamJohn DurhamFive takeaways from Barr’s new powers in ‘spying’ probe Trump orders intel agencies to cooperate with Barr probe into ‘spying’ on 2016 campaign Attorney General Barr puts former intel bosses on notice MORE, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to spearhead the review. Meanwhile, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is conducting a parallel inquiry into the FBI’s application for the Page warrant. That probe is expected to wrap up no later than June, and it’s likely Horowitz will soon after release a report on his findings.

Click Here:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper pressed a Facebook executive Friday over the company’s decision to not remove a video on the platform that was altered to make it appear that Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi uses Trump to her advantage Fake Pelosi video sparks fears for campaigns Trump goes scorched earth against impeachment talk MORE (D-Calif.) was slurring her words in a news conference.

During an interview on his show, Cooper questioned Facebook’s head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, over why the video, which has been viewed more than 2 million times, has not been deleted.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Facebook has repeatedly told Congress and the American people that you’re serious about fighting disinformation and fake news, yet this doctored video that I think your own fact-checkers acknowledge is doctored of Speaker Pelosi remains on your platform,” Cooper told Bicker. “Why?”

“Anybody who is seeing this video in news feed, anyone who is going to share it to somebody else, anybody who has shared it in the past, they are being alerted that this video is false,” Bickert responded.

“We work with internationally certified fact-checking organizations that are independent from Facebook, and we think these are the right organizations to be making decisions about whether something is true or false,” she continued. “As soon as we get a rating from them that content is false, then we dramatically reduce the distribution of that content.”

Cooper then pressed Bickert over whether Facebook had entered the “news business,” questioning whether the company could be trusted to operate and make money by being a place for viewers to turn during major news events.

“I understand it’s a big business to get into of trying to figure out what’s true or not, but you’re making money by being in the news business. If you can’t do it well, shouldn’t you just get out of the news business?” Cooper asked.

“We aren’t in the news business. We’re in the social media business,” Bickert countered.

“Well, you are in the news business,” Cooper fired back. “The reason you’re sharing news is because you make money from it. It keeps people watching you and more involved in your site, which I get, and that’s fair. But if you’re in the news business, which you are, you’ve got to do it right and this is false information you are spreading.”

Facebook’s defense of its protocol for removing fake content and accounts from the platform comes as the company was the target of widespread criticism this week after it said it would not remove the doctored video of Pelosi.

A Facebook official said Friday that removing the video would violate the company’s policy on free expression, taking a similar line as Twitter, which also elected to keep the video up.

YouTube staffers removed all traces of the doctored video this week from its own platform after the clips were flagged by reporters.

The Facebook page behind the video’s original posting, “Politics WatchDog,” has pushed back against claims that it was spreading fake news.

“Just for the record we never claimed that Speaker Pelosi was drunk. We can’t control what the people in the comments think. It’s a free country,” the page’s administrator wrote.

A Pelosi aide told The Washington Post, which reported on altered videos of the Democratic leader, that her office was “not going to comment on this sexist trash.”

Click Here:

Democratic presidential candidates are seizing on the intensifying abortion debate by calling for an end to a 43-year ban on the use of federal funds for abortions.

Twenty-one of the 24 Democrats running for president say they support repealing the so-called Hyde amendment, which has prevented public health programs like Medicaid from paying for abortions, in most cases, since 1976. 

“I think the Hyde Amendment should be repealed and that we actually need to make sure that women, regardless of their income level, have a basic right to reproductive care,” Sen. Kirsten GillibrandKirsten Elizabeth GillibrandTrump defense pick expected to face tense confirmation 2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding Gillibrand seizes on abortion debate to jump-start campaign MORE (D-N.Y.) told MSNBC this past week. “It’s about our humanity and our basic civil rights.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The support from candidates come as more states pass laws blocking women from getting abortions after certain points in a pregnancy, part of a legal strategy by conservatives to increase the odds of the Supreme Court revisiting Roe v. Wade.

In response, some White House hopefuls, including Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony Booker2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding Gillibrand seizes on abortion debate to jump-start campaign 2020 hopeful John Delaney unveils T climate plan MORE (D-N.J.), Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenTrump defense pick expected to face tense confirmation 2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding Gillibrand seizes on abortion debate to jump-start campaign MORE (D-Mass.) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas.), have released their plans to protect abortion access that call for an end to the Hyde amendment.

“We’ll do away with the Hyde amendment, so that ensures that regardless of your income or your ZIP Code you are able to access a safe, legal abortion,” O’Rourke said during a CNN town hall this past week.

The movement to end the decades-old federal ban, led in large part by women of color and abortion-rights groups, has gained prominence in recent years.

The 2016 Democratic National Committee (DNC) platform was the first time the party made repealing the Hyde amendment a priority, and former Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham Clinton2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding Hillary Clinton slams Trump for spreading ‘sexist trash’ about Pelosi Gillibrand seizes on abortion debate to jump-start campaign MORE and Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersJames Carville: Biden represents ‘stability’ not ‘generational change’ Ocasio-Cortez, progressives trash ‘antisemitic’ Politico illustration of Bernie Sanders 2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding MORE (I-Vt.) were the first Democratic presidential candidates to make the issue part of their campaigns. 

But this time around candidates are putting the issue front and center in response to efforts to restrict abortion access at the state level. They are also drawing attention to how such bans disproportionately affect low-income women of color.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I have not seen this much support before, which is really amazing and fascinating to see,” said Jamila Taylor, director of women’s health and rights at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington that supports ending the Hyde amendment.

“To me, these candidates recognize that not only do we need to protect abortion rights, we also need to ensure that women have access to abortion care and abortion coverage through their health insurance,” she said. 

Of the party’s 24 candidates, only three have not commented on the Hyde amendment or have not signed on to legislation that would repeal it: Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi Gabbard2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding CNN’s O’Rourke town hall finishes behind Fox News, MSNBC Progressive Democrat says Trump victory shed light on divide between Silicon Valley, rural US MORE (D-Hawaii), former Rep. John DelaneyJohn Kevin Delaney2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding Overnight Energy: Democrats ask if EPA chief misled on vehicle emissions | Dem senators want NBC debate focused on climate change | 2020 hopeful John Delaney unveils T climate plan 2020 hopeful John Delaney unveils T climate plan MORE (D-Md.) and best-selling spiritual author Marianne WilliamsonMarianne Williamson2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding DNC boss says candidates to be involved in debate lottery Biden retains large lead over Sanders, other 2020 Dems in new Hill-HarrisX poll MORE.

Even former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenJames Carville: Biden represents ‘stability’ not ‘generational change’ Trump’s misspelling of Biden’s name trends on Twitter Trump says ‘I have confidence’ after past North Korea missile tests MORE, who supported the Hyde amendment while serving in Congress, told an American Civil Liberties Union volunteer that he now wants to end it.

“It can’t stay,” he said.

Because the Hyde amendment has been attached to government spending bills every year since 1976, eliminating it would require congressional support.

The policy has survived so long because government funding of abortion is a nonstarter for Republicans, as well as some Democrats, both on and off Capitol Hill.

Former President Obama waffled on the issue. He included the Hyde amendment in all of his budget requests to Congress, and inserted a similar version of it in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

But the Democratic Party has changed since then.

In addition to the DNC changing its platform in 2016, this year 126 House Democrats signed on to a bill introduced in March that would permanently eliminate the Hyde amendment.

But while many Democrats want to repeal the amendment, Republicans want to make it permanent.

A measure sponsored by Sen. Roger WickerRoger Frederick Wicker2020 Democrats target federal ban on abortion funding Data privacy: Consumers want it, businesses need it — it’s time our government delivers it Hillicon Valley: Assange hit with 17 more charges | Facebook removes record 2.2B fake profiles | Senate passes anti-robocall bill | Senators offer bill to help companies remove Huawei equipment MORE (R-Miss.) known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, failed in the Senate in January but would have written the Hyde amendment into federal law so that it doesn’t need to be renewed each year.

Passing the legislation remains a priority for congressional Republicans, anti-abortion groups and President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE, a position that in many ways helps keep the issue on the front burner for Democrats hoping to challenge Trump next year.

In the meantime, opponents of the ban say the debate is shining a light on how the policy mostly hurts poor women of color who rely on Medicaid for health care.

“It’s really important that we’re starting to bring that conversation out to the forefront and to really explain that there is no real ‘choice’ if so many people can’t access abortion,” said Lindsay Rodriguez, communications director for the National Network of Abortion Funds, which has long pushed for a repeal of the Hyde amendment.

“It’s really unjust to tell people that the folks that have the least amount of financial resources or who are getting their benefits through the government are unable to access this one type of health care.”

Click Here:

Sen. Joni ErnstJoni Kay ErnstSenate defense bill would make military sexual harassment standalone crime Congress, White House near deal on spending, debt limit Trump mulling visit to ethanol refinery later this month: report MORE (R-Iowa) on Sunday urged President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE to be “careful” in his reported plans to pardon a number of military servicemen who were accused of war crimes.

Ernst told CNN’s Dana BashDana BashCNN’s O’Rourke town hall finishes behind Fox News, MSNBC CNN announces four more town halls featuring 2020 Dems Beto O’Rourke to appear in CNN town hall MORE on “State of the Union” that she doesn’t “know the details” of the prosecution for Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher or others but urged the president to “be very careful” in making a determination on pardons.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I’ll just be upfront and say I don’t know the details of what went through the prosecution in that particular case,” she said. “But I would say if our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, if they are accused and found guilty of war crimes, we need to be very careful in that because It is not OK to perpetrate war crimes.”

The New York Times reported last week that Trump is seeking to pardon Gallagher, who was charged with a number of war crimes, including stabbing and murdering a wounded person and firing at unarmed civilians in Iraq.

The president is also reportedly looking at the case of a group of Marines who were charged with urinating on a dead Taliban member.

Ernst, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Sunday that service members need to “understand” that “we operate under a code of ethics” and said Trump should be “very careful” in determining whether to issue pardons.

“I would just advise the president to be very careful, scrutinize each case individually, and if it’s warranted, grant a pardon,” she said. “If it is not, and someone has committed a war crime, then a sentence should be served.”

Click Here:

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said that he is “shocked” by comments from a German official warning the country’s Jews against wearing their kippahs in public.

“The statement of the German government’s anti-Semitism commissioner that it would be preferable for Jews not wear a kippah in Germany out of fear for their safety, shocked me deeply,” Rivlin said in a statement, according to the Associated Press.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We will never submit, will never lower our gaze and will never react to anti-Semitism with defeatism — and expect and demand our allies act in the same way,” he added.

Felix Klein, Germany’s commissioner on anti-Semitism, was quoted in a Saturday Yahoo News report saying that due to rising anti-Semitism in the country, he “cannot advise Jews” to wear the religious caps “everywhere all the time in Germany.” 

Klein pointed to a “lifting of inhibitions and the uncouthness which is on the rise in society” as contributing to a 10 percent rise in anti-Semitic incidents in 2018, including a 60 percent increase in physical attacks.

Jewish leaders in Germany have called on the government to do more to protect the country’s Jews.

According to the AP, Klein defended his statement to German outlet dpa, saying he intended to be “provocative.”

“[I] wanted to initiate a debate about the safety of the Jewish community in our country,” he told the outlet. “Of course I believe that there must not be no-go areas anywhere in Germany for Jews or members of other minorities.”

Click Here:

A fake video of House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi uses Trump to her advantage Fake Pelosi video sparks fears for campaigns Trump goes scorched earth against impeachment talk MORE (D-Calif.) posted to Facebook on Thursday that was edited to make her appear drunk is underscoring a quickly evolving danger for 2020 campaigns.

One cycle after Russia’s interference in the election through hacks and fake posts on social media wreaked havoc, presidential candidates now have to worry about videos doctored by artificial intelligence technologies that can make candidates say things they didn’t say or look completely different.

The video of Pelosi posted to Facebook didn’t use such advanced technologies.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was slowed down to make Pelosi appear unwell or potentially drunk, and it still succeeded in fooling many people — at least judged by comment boards.

The video had been viewed more than 2.5 million times as of Friday afternoon. Facebook is refusing to remove the clip, saying it doesn’t violate platform guidelines, though it is not recommending the video in its news feed.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE waded into the controversy, tweeting a clip from Fox Business Network that compiled every time Pelosi stumbled over her words during a recent press conference. The clip included a Fox News commentator saying Pelosi appeared “worn down.”

Coupled with remarks by Trump, it at least appeared the president was trying to use the fake video to his advantage to build a narrative that the Speaker “had lost it,” in Trump’s words. But Trump denied knowing about the fake video.

The fake Pelosi video points to a danger that experts have been offering increasing warnings about.

Fabrice Pothier, a senior advisor for the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity, said foreign actors could use fake videos “to sow distrust and decredibilise their opponents.”

Pothier said the Pelosi video is essentially a cheap one, and more advanced fakes are coming.

“We are still at a rudimentary stage — the Pelosi video is a basic alteration of an authentic video — but at this pace, it is only a matter of time before fully synthetic video and audio files — deepfakes — generated by algorithm rather than with video editing tools contaminate our information sphere,” Pothier said.

John Villasenor, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the use of such videos in campaigns is “inevitable.”

“Unfortunately, deepfakes are going to be a part of the political landscape in the 2020 campaign and beyond,” Villasenor said. “It’s an inevitable next step in the information manipulation that we saw in the 2016 campaign.”

It’s unclear if the Pelosi video will have that much of an impact.

But Charlotte Stanton, the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Silicon Valley office, warned a similar video — timed just right — could have a calamitous effect on an election.

“Can you imagine if an altered video like this of a presidential candidate surfaced a day before the election?” she told The Hill.

She said many campaigns would not be ready to fight back at a fake video and that even if they were, it could quickly become too late.

“By the time the campaign has caught a fake, the fake will have circulated across social media,” she said, arguing it was up to Facebook and other social media platforms to better police their content.

YouTube did say it would take down any altered videos involving Speaker Pelosi and that the fake video accumulating views violated its policies.

Click Here:

Facebook said it would flag the Pelosi video as potentially fake news but would not remove it.

“In this particular case, this video would be eligible for fact-checking from one of our third-party fact-checking partners,” a Facebook spokesperson told The Hill on Friday. “We did enqueue this to fact-checkers for review and as of yesterday evening, one of our fact-checking partners reviewed the video and rated it ‘False,’ so we are now heavily reducing its distribution in News Feed and showing additional context from this fact-checker in the form of a “Related Articles” unit in News Feed where it still appears.”

Sen. Brian SchatzBrian Emanuel SchatzFake Pelosi video sparks fears for campaigns Overnight Energy: Democrats ask if EPA chief misled on vehicle emissions | Dem senators want NBC debate focused on climate change | 2020 hopeful John Delaney unveils T climate plan Democratic senators want NBC primary debate to focus on climate change MORE (D-Hawaii) criticized Facebook’s response, tweeting on Friday that “Facebook is very responsive to my office when I want to talk about federal legislation and suddenly get marbles in their mouths when we ask them about dealing with a fake video. It’s not that they cannot solve this; it’s that they refuse to do what is necessary.”

Deepfake videos have caught the attention of lawmakers at both the federal and state level. This week, the Texas House of Representatives passed legislation that would criminalize creating a deepfake video with the intent to “injure a candidate or influence the result of an election.” The Texas Senate already passed this bill in April, and it now awaits the governor’s signature.

At the federal level, Sen. Ben SasseBenjamin (Ben) Eric SasseFake Pelosi video sparks fears for campaigns Senate GOP votes to permanently ban earmarks The Hill’s Morning Report – White House, Congress: Urgency of now around budget MORE (R-Neb.) introduced a bill at the end of the last Congress that would penalize a person who created or distributed “fraudulent audiovisual records.” A spokesperson for Sasse did not respond to request for comment when asked if he planned to reintroduce the bill this Congress.

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you don’t already, be sure to sign up for our newsletter with this LINK.

Welcome! Follow the cyber team, Olivia Beavers (@olivia_beavers) and Maggie Miller (@magmill95), and the tech team, Harper Neidig (@hneidig) and Emily Birnbaum (@birnbaum_e).

 

A SIGN OF MORE TO COME? TRUMP SHARES EDITED PELOSI VIDEO: President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE on Friday said he was unfamiliar with doctored videos of Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi uses Trump to her advantage Fake Pelosi video sparks fears for campaigns Trump goes scorched earth against impeachment talk MORE (D-Calif.) being shared on social media.

“I don’t know about the videos. I can tell you that — what I’m here is to help the country,” Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for Japan.

Trump’s comments came one day after he retweeted a video from Fox Business Network that, while not doctored, had been selectively edited to combine clips of the California Democrat tripping over her words in a press conference.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feud gets personal: Trump and Pelosi have been locked in a bitter war of words this week, exchanging insults and barbs in an intensifying feud that included the president walking out of a meeting at the White House. Read more here.

Also going viral across the internet: The Washington Post reported that other videos altered to make Pelosi appear to be drunkenly slurring her words have spread on social media at a rapid rate — clips that were circulating the same day Trump shared the unfavorably edited clip of Pelosi.

Facebook won’t take video down: Facebook on Friday said it is not planning to remove the doctored video Pelosi.

The video, which has reached millions of viewers, has been altered to make it seem as though Pelosi is sick or drunk, and it has accrued thousands of comments from viewers who seemingly do not realize it has been manipulated. Multiple right-wing groups and online personalities have been pushing the video across a broad swath of online platforms.

The video can still be found all over Facebook and Twitter. One version on the Facebook page “Politics Watch Dog” had received 2.4 million views, over 47,000 shares and over 26,000 comments by Friday afternoon.

Read more on Facebook here.

 

CONTROVERSY OVER LATEST ASSANGE CHARGES: Whistleblower Chelsea ManningChelsea Elizabeth ManningHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality Julian Assange indictment endangers press freedom Washington Post, New York Times editors blast Assange indictment MORE condemned the announcement of 17 new charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian AssangeJulian Paul AssangeHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality Julian Assange indictment endangers press freedom Washington Post, New York Times editors blast Assange indictment MORE, saying they indicated the law would be used as a “sword” against freedom of the press.

“I continue to accept full and sole responsibility for those disclosures in 2010,” Manning said in a statement Thursday evening. “It’s telling that the government appears to have already obtained this indictment before my contempt hearing last week. This administration describes the press as the opposition party and an enemy of the people.”

“Today, they use the law as a sword, and have shown their willingness to bring the full power of the state against the very institution intended to shield us from such excesses.”

Read more here.

Why this case is important to reporters: Executive editors from top newspapers including The Washington Post and The New York Times voiced alarm over the Trump administration charging Assange under the Espionage Act, with Post executive editor Marty Baron arguing the decision “undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment.”

“Dating as far back as the Pentagon Papers case and beyond, journalists have been receiving and reporting on information that the government deemed classified. Wrongdoing and abuse of power were exposed,” Baron told The Daily Beast.

“With the new indictment of Julian Assange, the government is advancing a legal argument that places such important work in jeopardy and undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment.”

Read more here.

These top media executives aren’t alone: Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality Manning: Additional Assange charges are feds using the law ‘as a sword’ Overnight Health Care — Presented by PCMA — Senators unveil sweeping bipartisan health care package | House lawmakers float Medicare pricing reforms | Dems offer bill to guarantee abortion access MORE (D-Ore.) expressed concerns Thursday about Espionage Act charges against Assange, warning of a potential chilling effect on the First Amendment.

“This is not about Julian Assange. This is about the use of the Espionage Act to charge a recipient and publisher of classified information,” Wyden said in a statement. “I am extremely concerned about the precedent this may set and potential dangers to the work of journalists and the First Amendment.”

Read more here.

 

CUT FROM TWITTER: Twitter on Thursday permanently banned anti-Trump brothers Brian and Ed Krassenstein, stating the brothers had violated the site’s terms of service by “operating multiple fake accounts” and “purchasing account interactions.”

The Trump antagonists had large followings and were considered “resistance” figures to President Trump on the prominent social media platform. Ed Krassenstein had amassed more than 900,000 followers before the ban, while Brian Krassenstein had nearly 700,000 followers.

The ban was first reported in the Daily Beast.

“The Twitter Rules apply to everyone,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement provided to The Hill. “Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.”

The Krassensteins wrote in a response on their blog that they never engaged in the actions Twitter says they did in violating the site’s terms of service.

“This is 100% false, and if Twitter believes they have evidence to prove otherwise, we ask and encourage them to release these details to the media,” they add.

The Krassensteins admitted to operating other accounts but claimed they were used to monitor threats against themselves.

Read more on the ban here.

 

WORKING ACROSS THE AISLE: More than 40 House Democrats are seeking to establish a bipartisan working group to address net neutrality, saying the Democratic effort to reinstate the Obama-era rules is dead on arrival in the Senate.

The 47 Democrats backing the effort voted for the Save the Internet Act, which passed the House by a 232-190 vote mostly along party lines last month. But now they’re looking to sit down with Republicans in order to work up “bipartisan, bicameral legislation that can be signed into law.”

Click Here:

“We recognize that this legislation is unlikely to become law, or pass through the Senate, in its current form,” they wrote in a letter to top Democrats. “If that proves true, consumers will be left without enforceable net neutrality protections while partisan conflict continues. We believe this result is unacceptable and unnecessary.”

Committee hits back: A spokesperson for the House Energy and Commerce Committee told The Hill in a statement: “There is already a working group established; it’s called the Energy and Commerce Committee.”

Working group proponents respond: Rep. Scott PetersScott H. PetersHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality House Democrats seek bipartisan working group on net neutrality Pro-business Dem group sees boost in fundraising MORE (D-Calif.), who is leading the working group effort alongside Rep. Josh GottheimerJoshua (Josh) GottheimerHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality House Democrats seek bipartisan working group on net neutrality Republicans attempt to amend retirement savings bill to include anti-BDS language MORE, said in a statement to The Hill: “Of course I intend to continue to work with my colleagues on the Committee. The bottom line is that this complex problem requires a bipartisan solution.”

Net neutrality advocates push back: The effort to create a bipartisan working group has already elicited aggressive pushback from net neutrality advocates, who say it seems like an effort to water down any pro-net neutrality legislation.

“Zero net neutrality advocacy groups support the creation of such a working group – the only purpose of this letter is to amplify the cable industry’s narrative and build support for their end goal, which is to pass weak, loophole-filled legislation that claims to save net neutrality while permanently undermining it,” digital rights group Fight for the Future wrote in a Medium post this week.

The group accused many of the Democrats who have signed on to the proposal of having a “track record of siding with big cable interests over their constituents,” encouraging critics of the effort to call those lawmakers and press them to reject the group.

The letter from Democrats does not lay out specific issues they would be willing to compromise on.

Read more on the working group here here.

 

CRYPTO-BOOK? Facebook founder and CEO Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergHillicon Valley: Facebook won’t remove doctored Pelosi video | Trump denies knowledge of fake Pelosi videos | Controversy over new Assange charges | House Democrats seek bipartisan group on net neutrality On The Money: Conservative blocks disaster relief bill | Trade high on agenda as Trump heads to Japan | Boeing reportedly faces SEC probe over 737 Max | Study finds CEO pay rising twice as fast as worker pay Zuckerberg met with Winklevoss twins about Facebook developing cryptocurrency: report MORE met with Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss recently as his company considers launching its own cryptocurrency.

The Financial Times reported Thursday that Zuckerberg met with the Winklevoss twins and executives with Coinbase, a popular online cryptocurrency exchange, as the company considers partnering with the company and others such as Gemini, the exchange founded by the Winklevoss brothers.

Zuckerberg’s past legal conflict with the twins was one of the defining plot points of “The Social Network,” the Academy Award-winning movie based on Zuckerberg’s rise to power as Facebook’s founder. The two brothers claimed in legal proceedings to have come up with the original idea for Facebook while students at Harvard with Zuckerberg.

Spokespeople for both Coinbase and Gemini declined to comment to the Financial Times on discussions with Facebook.

Read more here.

 

AN OP-ED TO CHEW ON: The world will be freer, safer by smashing firewalls of closed societies.

 

A LIGHTER CLICK: Every single email.

 

NOTABLE LINKS FROM AROUND THE WEB:

U.S. and China tech have played nice for decades. Now, a fork in the road. (NBC News)

Facebook privacy settlement delayed by FTC split. (The Wall Street Journal)

Equifax just became the first company to have its outlook downgraded for a cyberattack. (CNBC)

First American Financial Corp. leaked hundreds of millions of title insurance records. (Krebs on Security)

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to pause a pair of lower court rulings ordering that Ohio and Michigan redraw their district maps ahead of the 2020 election.

The justices’ ruling, issued in several unsigned orders, mean that the states don’t have to immediately start redrawing the maps, after the lower courts found that current district maps constituted a partisan gerrymander.

ADVERTISEMENT

A federal court struck down Michigan’s district maps as unconstitutional in April. Another federal court ruled similarly just a week later in regard to Ohio’s congressional districts.

The order comes as the Supreme Court is poised to issue rulings in the coming weeks in a pair of partisan gerrymandering cases.

The justices heard arguments earlier this year concerning congressional districts in Maryland and North Carolina. 

North Carolina Democrats argue that Republicans drew the state’s congressional district in favor of the GOP. Meanwhile, Republicans in Maryland claim that Democrats reworked a district to eliminate a GOP congressional seat.

The high court has struggled in the past to determine exactly what constitutes a partisan gerrymander, noting that drawing districts is a highly political process.

But the justices’ upcoming ruling, expected to come by the end of June, gives them the opportunity to create a test to determine whether a district map is unconstitutional.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Thursday said that it could be up to a year before Boeing’s 737 Max jets are cleared once again for commercial flights.

At a press conference, FAA chief Daniel Elwell said that his agency could take up to a year to recertify the jets after Boeing pushed out a software update addressing sensor issues believed to be at fault behind two deadly crashes involving the jets in six months’ time.

ADVERTISEMENT

“If you said October I wouldn’t even say that, only because we haven’t finished determining exactly what the training requirements will be,” Elwell said, according to the BBC.

“If it takes a year to find everything we need to give us the confidence to lift the [grounding] order so be it,” he added.

His comments came as representatives from dozens of nations met in Fort Worth, Texas, to discuss aviation regulations around the globe including the grounding of the 737 Max jet line.

Elwell told reporters that he hoped Thursday’s meetings would restore confidence in the FAA among regulators around the world.

“If there is a crisis in confidence, we hope this will help to show the world that the world still talks together about aviation safety issues,” said Elwell, according to Bloomberg.

Boeing announced earlier this month that a software update for its 737 Max jets would be rolled out free of charge alongside training for pilots to address issues leading to the plane’s grounding by every aviation agency in the world.

“With safety as our clear priority, we have completed all of the engineering test flights for the software update and are preparing for the final certification flight,” CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in early May.

“We’re committed to providing the FAA and global regulators all the information they need, and to getting it right. We’re making clear and steady progress and are confident that the 737 Max with updated MCAS software will be one of the safest airplanes ever to fly,” he added at the time.

Click Here:

President TrumpDonald John TrumpPapadopoulos on AG’s new powers: ‘Trump is now on the offense’ Pelosi uses Trump to her advantage Mike Pence delivers West Point commencement address MORE appeared to rib an executive from Toyota on Saturday during a dinner on his first day in Japan for a state visit.

In his opening remarks before a dinner with Japanese officials and business figures at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Tokyo, Trump pointed to Akio Toyoda, president of Toyota Motor Corp., and referred to him as “the boss.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Where’s Toyota?” Trump asked the room, according to Bloomberg News.

“There’s nothing like the boss,” he added after the crowd acknowledged Toyoda. “I thought that was you.”

Toyoda’s company issued a rare rebuke of Trump earlier this month after he declared that some auto sector imports were a threat to national security.

The car manufacturer slammed the remark, saying it was in essence a declaration that Japanese investments in the U.S. auto industry were “not welcomed” and that “the contributions from each of our employees across America are not valued.”

During his remarks Saturday, the president discussed business deals that Japanese companies, including Toyota, were announcing with U.S. companies.

Other automaker executives invited to Saturday’s dinner included chiefs from Nissan Motor Co., Honda Motor Co., Mazda Motor Corp. and Subaru Corp. 

Click Here:

Trump pointed to a $1 billion deal announced last month involving Toyota and Japan’s SoftBank with U.S. ride-hailing company Uber to develop self-driving cars.

“Self-driving cars are becoming a bigger and bigger thing. It’s the future. You say it’s the future, I’m OK with it,” Trump said to laughs.

“It seems very strange when you look over and there’s no one behind the car going 60 mph. When you say it, I’m good with it,” he quipped.

The president went on to tout the value of increased cooperation between Japanese businesses and U.S. companies.

“If you join in seizing the incredible opportunities now before us in terms of investing to the United States, I think you’re going to see tremendous return on your investments,” Trump predicted. “I think right now we probably have the best relationship with Japan we’ve ever had.”

His remarks came at the start of a four-day trip to Japan, where Trump will meet with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and take part in a number of ceremonial activities as well as play golf and attend a sumo championship game.

Trump is the first state guest to visit Japan since the country’s new emperor was crowned earlier this month. While the trip is expected to be largely ceremonial in nature, Trump and Abe are expected to discuss both North Korea and the possibility of a bilateral trade deal during the visit.