The Senate Armed Services Committee is looking to block the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey and cut Ankara from its partnership in the program if the NATO ally continues with its plan to buy a Russian missile defense system.

The committee’s draft $750 billion fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — advanced Wednesday and unveiled on Thursday — would prohibit the sale of the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 Lightning II to Ankara should it buy Russia’s S-400 surface-to-air missile defense system.

The bill’s language, led by Sen. Jeanne ShaheenCynthia (Jeanne) Jeanne ShaheenTrump, Europe increasingly at odds on Iran Foreign Relations senators demand Iran briefing The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Pass USMCA Coalition – After GOP infighting, Trump Jr. agrees to testify again MORE (D-N.H.), dictates that the sale could only move ahead should the Defense secretary and secretary of State confirm that Turkey has not accepted the Russian system and will not buy it in the future.

ADVERTISEMENT

The bill would also pull Turkey from the list of countries that have jointly built the F-35.

A senior committee aide told reporters on Thursday that the language to prevent the sale is “very strong,” and would not allow the administration to bypass the authority should it be signed into law.

Click Here:

“I don’t know what more the committee could have done,” the aide said.

“As long as President Erdogan continues to move ahead with plans to acquire the S-400 Russian air defense system, any transfer of F-35 aircraft, equipment or supplies must be off the table,” Shaheen said in a statement.

“This measure has broad bipartisan support because both Democrats and Republicans understand the clear threats posed by introducing F-35s into airspace that will be closely monitored and controlled by the Russians through the S-400 system,” she said.

Ankara in recent months has doubled down on its plan to buy the S-400, which U.S. officials fear will allow Moscow to gather information on the F-35 should Washington allow Turkey to take delivery of the advanced fighter jet. The United States has been pressuring Turkey to buy the U.S.-made Patriot system instead.

Talks between the two sides, however, have not gone well, and last month the Pentagon suspended deliveries and activities related to Turkey’s participation in the F-35 program.

The Senate’s defense bill also authorizes 94 F-35s for the U.S. military, 16 more than the administration requested, according to the bill’s summary. That is broken down into 60 F-35As for the Air Force, 12 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps and 22 F-35Cs for the Navy. 

In addition, the bill would approve spending on eight F-15X fighter jets. 

Updated: 5:17 p.m.

Michael CohenMichael Dean CohenAvenatti indicted for allegedly defrauding Stormy Daniels The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump blows up meeting after Pelosi ‘cover up’ remarks Unsealed Mueller docs reveal new details of Cohen probe MORE, a former personal attorney for President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE, challenged the president’s current lawyer to testify before Congress about negotiations with Russians before the 2016 election about building a Trump Tower in Moscow. 

The remarks come days after the House Intelligence Committee released transcripts of private interviews with Cohen in which he testified that Trump’s lawyer Jay SekulowJay Alan SekulowCohen says Trump attorney told him to say Trump Tower talks ended earlier than they did Cohen told lawmakers that Trump lawyer Sekulow instructed him to lie about Moscow tower project: report House Intel to probe whether lawyers for Trump family interfered in investigation MORE encouraged him to lie to Congress in 2017 about the duration of the discussions.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Michael testified truthfully before Congressional committees when he said it was Mr. Trump’s attorney, Jay Sekulow, who suggested to Michael the false date of January 31, 2016 as the cut-off date for any Russian discussions on Moscow Trump Tower during the campaign. Mr. Sekulow made a public statement casting doubt on Michael’s veracity on this point,” Lanny Davis, Cohen’s attorney, said in a press release.

“So, on behalf of Michael, I ask Mr. Sekulow, respectfully: will you testify, as Michael did, before Congress to state your contradiction of Michael’s memory?”

Cohen, who is serving a three-year prison sentence on a slew of charges, told lawmakers on the Intelligence panel in February that Sekulow encouraged him to say the Trump Tower Moscow discussions ended in January 2016 when in fact they extended beyond the Iowa caucuses in June of that year. He also said he believed Sekulow knew the negotiations went on after January.

“To the best of my recollection, yes,” Cohen said when asked if he recalled speaking with Sekulow about the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations continuing into June 2016.

Cohen added in a March interview that he believed that Sekulow was the one who proposed January 2016 as the end date for the discussions.

The transcripts’ release came a week after it was announced that the House Intelligence Committee has been investigating if Trump’s attorneys, including Sekulow, helped obstruct its Russia probe by editing or shaping Cohen’s false testimony.

Click Here:

Davis also said Cohen would make himself available to Congress for further testimony.

“Michael wishes to make it clear that he continues to be available to Congress and prosecutors to tell the truth about Mr. Trump. He is willing to be interviewed at the Facility or, if permitted under appropriate supervision, in Washington, DC,” Davis said. “Michael believes his testimony and corroborating documents establish that Mr. Trump committed obstruction of justice before, during, and after the presidential campaign.” 

Sekulow’s legal team hit back at Cohen earlier this week, saying that congressional committees should not believe his testimony.

“Michael Cohen’s alleged statements are more of the same from him and confirm the observations of prosecutors in the Southern District of New York that Cohen’s ‘instinct to blame others is strong,’” Sekulow’s lawyers said in a statement. 

“That this or any Committee would rely on the word of Michael Cohen for any purpose — much less to try and pierce the attorney-client privilege and discover confidential communications of four respected lawyers — defies logic, well-established law and common sense.”

Though the Trump Tower Moscow project was never built, it has emerged as a key point of scrutiny for Democrats who noted that Trump’s associates were negotiating with Russians well into the 2016 presidential race.

The United Kingdom is preparing to invest 22 million pounds, the equivalent of almost $28 million, to open new cyber operation centers.

British Defense Secretary Penny Mordaunt is set to make the announcement during a conference in London at the U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre.  

“It’s time to pay more than lip service to cyber,” she is expected to say. “We must convince our adversaries their advances simply aren’t worth the cost.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here:

The cybersecurity centers will provide the British Army with 24/7 information and analyses on cyber threats and will also aim to give both the British military and allies intelligence on emerging threats. The centers have not yet been built, which will begin early next year, with operations to start in the early 2020s.

“Cyber enemies think they can act with impunity. We must show them they can’t,” Mordaunt is set to say. “That we are ready to respond at a time and place of our choosing in any domain, not just the virtual world.”

British Maj. Gen. Tom Copinger-Symes expressed his support for the creation of the new cyber centers, saying in a statement that “these new cyber centres will allow the Army and Defense to transform the way we use data, at speed, so that we can compete with our adversaries in a way fit for the 21st Century.”

Copinger-Symes added that “combining artificial intelligence with our military analysts will help us better understand threats and exploit opportunities, in turn enabling us to get the truth out much more rapidly, quashing the noise of disinformation from our enemies.”

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt spoke at the same conference in London on Thursday, emphasizing the global nature of cyber attacks, and urging members of NATO to work together to deter attacks on election systems.

“We cannot afford to wait until one of our adversaries succeeds in changing the result of an election,” Hunt said. “We must be crystal clear that any cyber operations designed to manipulate another country’s electoral system and alter the result would breach international law — and justify a proportionate response.”

Hunt touched on the European Union’s decision last week to adopt new sanctions against actors who commit cyberattacks against EU member states. These sanctions allow for travel bans and asset freezes on these actors. Hunt emphasized the need to take action to deter cyber attacks.

“Deciding to do nothing would be an important decision in itself — and the consequences could be escalatory,” Hunt said.

Happy Thursday and welcome to Overnight Defense. I’m Ellen Mitchell, and here’s your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. CLICK HERE to subscribe to the newsletter.

 

THE TOPLINE: The Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee has rejected President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill’s Morning Report – Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE‘s plan to place nearly $100 billion in a war fund in an effort to avoid budget caps, the panel announced Thursday.

But the committee’s $750 billion fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), advanced in a 25-2 closed-door vote Wednesday, does support another controversial Trump budget maneuver: backfilling the military construction money that will be used to build a border wall.

“In an increasingly dangerous world, Congress must show strong, decisive leadership to preserve peace through strength and protect freedom-loving Americans,” Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeOvernight Defense — Presented by Huntington Ingalls Industries — Trump nominates Shanahan as Pentagon chief | House panel advances bill to block military funds for border wall | Trump defends Bolton despite differences Trump nominates Shanahan as Pentagon chief Iran, Venezuela puts spotlight on Trump adviser John Bolton MORE (R-Okla.) said in a statement. “This year’s National Defense Authorization Act keeps us on the course started last year–continuing implementation of the National Defense Strategy, restoring our combat advantage and supporting our warfighters.”

ADVERTISEMENT

How it shakes out: The $750 billion total is in line the Trump administration’s Pentagon budget request for fiscal 2020 but breaks with the administration in how it’s allocated.

The administration had requested $164 billion for a war fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account. The OCO is not subject to budget caps, and the administration hoped to use the account to raise defense spending without having to reach a deal to raise nondefense spending as well.

But lawmakers in both parties rejected that as a gimmick that doesn’t provide the military the budget stability it needs.

As such, the committee’s NDAA would authorize $75.9 billion for OCO, according to the summary released Thursday. In the base budget, there would be $642.5 billion for the Pentagon and $23.2 billion for national security programs within the Department of Energy.

What else: The administration also requested $3.6 billion to replace money Trump plans to take from the military construction account as part of his national emergency declaration to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Additionally, the administration requested an extra $3.6 billion for additional construction on the southern border.

The committee’s NDAA includes the requested $3.6 billion to replenish the military construction account, according to the summary. But it does not include the additional $3.6 billion for further construction, a senior committee aide said.

Reed, who opposes using military money on the wall, predicted the issue will continue to be a fight as the bill advances to the Senate floor.

“I anticipate there will be continued efforts on the floor to redirect these funds to their authorized uses,” Reed said.

Disaster recovery and jets: The bill also includes $3.31 billion for disaster recovery at Navy, Air Force and Army National Guard installations in Nebraska, North Carolina and Florida, the summary says.

The $750 billion would also go toward a slew of hardware, including $10 billion for 94 F-35 fighter jets, 16 more than the administration requested, according to the summary.

The bill would also authorize $948 million for eight F-15X aircraft, or $162 million less than the administration requested, the summary said.

Click Here:

 

SHANAHAN CONFIRMS US MAY SEND MORE TROOPS TO MIDDLE EAST: Acting Defense Secretary Patrick ShanahanPatrick Michael ShanahanFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report Pentagon approves DHS request to build tents to house 7,500 migrants at southern border Overnight Defense: Iran worries dominate foreign policy talk | Pentagon reportedly to send WH plans for 10K troops in Mideast | Democrats warn Trump may push through Saudi arms sale | Lawmakers blast new Pentagon policy on sharing info MORE on Thursday acknowledged that the growing tensions with Iran “may involve sending additional troops” to the region.

Shanahan’s comments marked the first public confirmation that the Trump administration is considering sending additional U.S. forces to curtail what it claims is “troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran.

“What we’re looking at is: Are there things we can do to enhance force protection in the Middle East? … It may involve sending additional troops,” Shanahan told Pentagon reporters prior to meeting with Vietnam’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister.

What the administration has already done: The Pentagon has already deployed a carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East.

Shanahan denies reports: News reports emerged this week that Shanahan on Thursday was set to present the White House with a request to deploy 10,000 troops to the Middle East. An earlier report said that the U.S. could send upwards of 120,000 additional troops.

Shanahan denied those reports.

“I got up this morning and read that we were sending 10,000 troops to the Middle East and then I read about, more recently, there’s 5,000. … There is no 10,000 and there is no 5,000. That’s not accurate,” he said.

A planned briefing: Shanahan added that he and other security officials are “going to give the president an update on the security situation in Iran.” He also stressed that any additional military movement would be for deterrence purposes.

“This is not about war. We have a mission there in the Middle East: freedom of navigation, counterterrorism in Syria and Iraq, defeating al Qaeda in Yemen, and the security of Israel and Jordan.”

In contact: Shanahan said that he is in regular contact with U.S. Central Command head Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie and will be meeting with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford as well as speaking to head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Scott Miller, on the situation.

The new comments come as Shanahan and Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report Pentagon to present White House with plans to deploy up to 10K troops to Middle East: report Senate panel rejects requiring Congress sign off before Iran strike MORE on Tuesday briefed lawmakers on intelligence detailing recent actions by Iran. The Trump defense chief asserted after the briefings that U.S. efforts to deter Iran in the region have worked.

Shanahan said Thursday that should “things change, then my plan will be to update Congress because they’ve certainly been very clear to ‘keep us current.'”

 

BACK TO THE SENATE DEFENSE BILL: The Senate Armed Services Committee’s defense bill also dealt with several other hot button initiatives, including President Trump’s plan to create a Space Force.

The fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), advanced Wednesday, would authorize $72.4 million to create Space Force as a branch of the military under the purview of the Department of the Air Force.

Though the bill would create Space Force, it does make several changes to the administration’s proposal in an effort to address concerns about issues such as overhead.

The inclusion of Space Force in the Senate’s annual defense policy bill comes as a surprise after a hearing in which members on both sides of the aisle expressed deep skepticism on the need for a new military branch dedicated to space.

But senior committee aides told reporters Thursday that the committee decided to move forward on the proposal after the hearing identified three areas Space Force was seeking to address: acquisition, space as a war fighting domain and consolidating disparate government agencies.

On military sexual assault: The bill also includes numerous reforms to policies surrounding military sexual assault and harassment, including making sexual harassment a stand-alone offense in the military’s criminal justice system. 

A senior committee aide told reporters the bill asks the Pentagon to launch several studies, including taking “a harder look at alternative systems for preventing sexual assault, what have we done that can work and what can we do going forward.” 

“We are tackling the issue from every angle we can,” the aide added.

The bill includes provisions to help prevent and deal with sexual assault, including new training requirements and rules regarding victim support.

The bill would also mandate the development of a plan to create a Department of Defense-wide data management system to better share and track information on criminal cases. 

On the F-35 and Turkey: The Senate’s legislation would also block the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey and cut Ankara from its partnership in the program if the NATO ally continues with its plan to buy a Russian missile defense system.

The draft bill would prohibit the sale of the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 Lightning II to Ankara should it buy Russia’s S-400 surface-to-air missile defense system.

The bill’s language, led by Sen. Jeanne ShaheenCynthia (Jeanne) Jeanne ShaheenTrump, Europe increasingly at odds on Iran Foreign Relations senators demand Iran briefing The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Pass USMCA Coalition – After GOP infighting, Trump Jr. agrees to testify again MORE (D-N.H.), dictates that the sale could only move ahead should the Defense secretary and secretary of State confirm that Turkey has not accepted the Russian system and will not buy it in the future.

The bill would also pull Turkey from the list of countries that have jointly built the F-35.

A senior committee aide told reporters on Thursday that the language to prevent the sale is “very strong,” and would not allow the administration to bypass the authority should it be signed into law.

 

KAINE PLANS AMENDMENT TO RESTRICT MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN: Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineOvernight Defense: Iran worries dominate foreign policy talk | Pentagon reportedly to send WH plans for 10K troops in Mideast | Democrats warn Trump may push through Saudi arms sale | Lawmakers blast new Pentagon policy on sharing info Iraq War looms over Trump battle with Iran Senate passes bill to undo tax increase on Gold Star military families MORE (D-Va.) is vowing to push a measure aimed at restricting military action against Iran when the Senate’s defense policy bill comes to a floor vote.

“I frankly think it would be a colossal disaster if the United States were involved in Iran,” Kaine told reporters on a conference call. “I especially believe it would be a disaster if we were to do that with the president’s unilateral say-so with no debate in Congress.”

The amendment: Kaine’s proposed amendment would prevent funding for any military action against Iran except in self-defense or if Congress approves a separate war authorization.

The background: Kaine’s effort follows a failed attempt Wednesday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Democratic Sens. Tom UdallThomas (Tom) Stewart UdallOvernight Defense: Iran worries dominate foreign policy talk | Pentagon reportedly to send WH plans for 10K troops in Mideast | Democrats warn Trump may push through Saudi arms sale | Lawmakers blast new Pentagon policy on sharing info Senate panel rejects requiring Congress sign off before Iran strike Democrats grill Trump Interior chief for saying he hasn’t ‘lost sleep’ over climate change MORE (N.M) and Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyOvernight Defense: Iran worries dominate foreign policy talk | Pentagon reportedly to send WH plans for 10K troops in Mideast | Democrats warn Trump may push through Saudi arms sale | Lawmakers blast new Pentagon policy on sharing info Democrats warn Trump may soon push through Saudi arms sale Senate panel rejects requiring Congress sign off before Iran strike MORE (Conn.) to get an amendment attached to a Syria policy bill that would have prohibited funding for an unauthorized attack on Iran.

Kaine first attempted to get his amendment added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) during the Senate Armed Services Committee’s closed-door consideration of the bill, he told reporters Thursday.

But he ran into jurisdictional issues because the parliamentarian ruled it was the purview of both the Armed Services and Foreign Relations panels. The Republican chairmen in both committees therefore said it couldn’t be taken up in the Armed Services markup, Kaine said.

Kaine then asked for a vote to overrule the chairman and was voted down along party lines, 14-13, he said.

‘Not done with this’: “That we would not be able to discuss all of these issues about potential war with Iran in the Armed Services Committee, it’s like the scene in Dr. Strangelove where the president says no fighting in the war room. Are you kidding, this is exactly the place we should be having this discussion,” Kaine said.

“But I’m not done with this,” he added. “The jurisdictional objections that can be lodged in a committee do not apply when the bill is on the floor, so when the National Defense [Authorization] Act is on the floor, which could be as early as mid-June, I’m going to revisit the amendment.”

Hundreds of amendments are typically filed for the NDAA, but few have gotten votes in recent years because any one senator can object to bringing an amendment up for a vote.

The Democratic attempts to curtail the president’s ability to take military action against Iran come as U.S.-Iranian tensions continue to run exceptionally hot. 

 

ON TAP FOR TOMORROW

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan will deliver the commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy’s commencement ceremony at 10 a.m. at the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium, Annapolis, Md. 

 

ICYMI

— The Hill: Pentagon approves DHS request to build tents to house 7,500 migrants at southern border

— The Hill: Top US commander warns Maduro ‘mafia’ poses threat beyond Venezuela

— The Hill: US Navy sends two more ships through Taiwan Strait amid friction with China

— The Hill: Graham: ‘US must be willing to intervene in Venezuela’

 

Justice Department officials on Thursday announced 17 additional felony charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian AssangeJulian Paul AssangeSweden takes step toward seeking Assange extradition WikiLeaks says Assange papers, manuscripts will be given to US authorities: report Chelsea Manning ordered back to jail after refusing to testify in WikiLeaks probe MORE, a move that was met with near-universal outcry from press freedom groups.

A grand jury in Alexandria, Va., returned the superseding indictment charging Assange with conspiring with former Army intelligence officer Chelsea ManningChelsea Elizabeth ManningSweden takes step toward seeking Assange extradition WikiLeaks says Assange papers, manuscripts will be given to US authorities: report Chelsea Manning ordered back to jail after refusing to testify in WikiLeaks probe MORE to obtain, receive and disclose “national defense information,” in violation of the Espionage Act.

ADVERTISEMENT

He is also charged with publishing a select range of the classified documents that revealed the names of low-level, local sources utilized by the U.S. government, including Afghan and Iraqi nationals, as well as journalists, human rights activists, and religious leaders.

“These alleged actions disclosed our sensitive classified information in a manner that made it available to every terrorist group, hostile foreign intelligence service and opposing military,” said John Demers, the assistant attorney general for DOJ’s national security division.

“Documents relating to these disclosures were even found in the Osama bin Laden compound. This release made our adversaries stronger and more knowledgeable, and the United States less secure.”

The charges against Assange over the publication of those materials set the stage for a debate on whether individuals should be punished for releasing classified materials, and whether such charges could have a chilling effect on publishers who get their hands on top-secret documents.

Demers sought to get ahead of suggestions that the U.S. is charging Assange for publishing information, declaring that the WikiLeaks founder is “no journalist.”

“Some say Julian Assange is a journalist and that he is immune from prosecution for these actions. The department takes seriously the role of journalists in our democracy,” said Demers. “Julian Assange is no journalist.”

But Barry Pollack, an attorney representing Assange in the United States, said in an emailed statement that Assange was charged “under the Espionage Act for encouraging sources to provide him truthful information and for publishing that information.”

“The fig leaf that this is merely about alleged computer hacking has been removed. These unprecedented charges demonstrate the gravity of the threat the criminal prosecution of Julian Assange poses to all journalists in their endeavor to inform the public about actions that have taken by the U.S. government,” Pollack wrote.

WikiLeaks published hundreds of thousands of documents obtained from Manning, including information on Guantanamo Bay detainees, classified State Department cables and Afghanistan and Iraq War combat guidelines.

The organization called the latest charges “madness,” tweeting that superseding indictment marks “the end of national security journalism and the first amendment.”

Press freedom groups almost immediately decried the charges as an attack on the First Amendment, and warned that they set a dangerous precedent for publishers and journalists.

The Committee to Protect Journalists resurfaced on Twitter its past warnings against such charges, including its call to reform the Espionage Act to stop the law from being used to prosecute reporters and whistleblowers.

The ACLU labeled the charges “an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration’s attacks on journalism, and a direct assault on the First Amendment.”

And whistleblower Edward Snowden called the charges a declaration of war by the Justice Department “not on Wikileaks, but on journalism itself.”

The charges will also likely to fuel the current battle to extradite Assange to the United States, a move the WikiLeaks founder is trying to fend off. He was arrested in London earlier this year on a conspiracy charge at the request of U.S. authorities, following his eviction from the Ecuadorian Embassy where he had sought refuge for several years.

Sweden is also seeking to extradite Assange to the country, where he is facing an allegation of rape.

The latest indictment also answers the question of why Manning has been summoned before grand juries investigating WikiLeaks twice this year in the Eastern District of Virginia.

She is currently incarcerated for the second time this year after a judge again ordered her to be held in contempt over her refusal to cooperate.

Manning pleaded guilty in 2013 to leaking classified information, and was sentenced to 35 years – a record sentence for a leaking conviction. Former President Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaBudowsky: 3 big dangers for Democrats HuffPost says president’s golfing trips to Trump properties cost taxpayers over 0 million in travel and security expenses Support for same-sex marriage dips 4 points from 2018 high: Gallup MORE commuted Manning’s sentence in 2017.

The indictment unveiled on Thursday alleges that, starting in 2009 and continuing until Manning’s arrest in 2010, Assange “encouraged Manning to steal classified documents from the United States and unlawfully disclose that information to WikiLeaks.”

The document features conversations between Manning and Assange, including those over classified assessment briefs on Guantanamo Bay detainees that Manning shared with WikiLeaks.

After Manning, then-an Army intelligence analyst, indicated that she didn’t have any more documents to share, Assange replied “curious eyes never run dry in my experience.” That quote was included in a previously unsealed indictment against Assange.

“Assange intended his statement to encourage Manning to continue her theft of classified documents from the United States and to continue the unlawful disclosure of those documents to Assange and WikiLeaks,” the document reads.

Manning later provided Assange with classified documents on rules of engagement for Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as classified State Department cables.

After Manning’s arrest in May 2010, Assange allegedly continued to publish classified documents he received from the analyst, such as reports that “included names of local Afghans and Iraqis who had provided information to U.S. and coalition forces.”

Some of the classified State Department cables also included the names of confidential U.S. sources across the world.

“By publishing these documents without redacting the human sources’ names or other identifying information, Assange created a grave and imminent risk that the innocent people he named would suffer serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention,” the document reads.

The indictment also states that Assange was warned by the State Department that releasing the names of informants could endanger those sources, and while he redacted some of the names, others were still released.

WikiLeaks was also at the center of concerns over Russian interference in the 2016 election, after it published damaging hacked Democratic emails in the run-up to the election. Neither Assange nor WikiLeaks have been charged in relation to the publication of those documents.

 

  

Updated at 6:08 p.m.

In the rag trade we talk about three large categories of wardrobe items: clothing, footwear and accessories. Accessories are items like handbags, scarves, belts, jewellery, watches, hats, gloves, and eyewear. Footwear has its own category and is not lumped together with accessories. 

Accessories can be extremely powerful because they complete a look, often taking it from fine to fabulous. Accessories add personality to your outfit, dress it up or down, incorporate a playful element, add glam, amplify polish, add layering interest, make a statement, or strike up a conversation with a stranger.

More importantly, the right accessory is extremely practical. Winter hats, scarves and gloves insulate. Sun hats prevent sunburn. Sunnies prevent glare. Watches tell the time and more. Belts keep your pants up, and eyewear helps you see.

By all means sport many accessories at once if you have a maximal style, because there are no rules about how many accessories you should sport in one outfit. Gone are the days when it was best to sport one huge accessory at a time and make a statement with it. Sport two, three or more if that’s your preference. More can be more.

If you have a minimal style, less is more. This means you’ll sport few accessories or none at all. Or you can mix it up sporting as many or as few accessories that tickle your fancy on a day.

The accessory styles of my clients run the gamut. Here’s a sampling:

• Client A is maximal and sports it all in one outfit. 
• Client B wears nothing but a wedding ring or Apple watch, and doesn’t even carry a bag.
• Client C wears simple outfits, and lets statement accessories do the talking.
• Client D sticks to a few jewellery pieces and wraps up when it’s cold.
• Client E changes their bag, earrings, necklace and belt daily.
• Client F sticks to one bag a season, but goes to town with her jewellery. 
• Client G makes a statement with scarves and belts.
• Client H wears statement eyewear and big earrings.
• Client I sticks to studs, rings, bracelets and contact lenses.
• Client J wears arm candy and toe rings in the warm months.
• Client K wears real jewellery only.

The accessories you choose are as personal as your style. You might feel like lots of accessories one day, month, season or year, and fewer the next. You might like bracelets one year, and brooches the next. There is no right or wrong accessory, as long as you’re happy with your look.

I adore accessories. I prefer accessories to footwear, and let them do the talking rather than the shoes I’m wearing. I wear accessories to add polish, dressiness, glam, shine, colour and interest to my outfits. Some accessories are extremely practical, and others an adorning necessity. Here’s my accessory strategy in order of importance. I wear #1 to #4 daily.

1. Eyewear

About seventeen years ago, I needed to wear prescription eyewear most of the time because I’m near-sighted. That’s when I decided that my specs would be the most important accessory of my style. I make a statement with them, and buy the very best that I can afford. Most of the time they’ve been non-neutral, and some style of cat’s-eye.

I wear sunnies regularly, but have few pairs because they need prescriptive lenses. Those have always been Modern Retro. At the moment, I have round tortoiseshell Ray-Bans, and a pearlized white vintage pair from 1960. Here’s my eyewear.

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

2. Handbags

I LOVE handbags. They are hands down my favourite accessory. I have 23, love them dearly, and swap them out daily. I prefer them dressy, structured, non-neutral, or white. Not too big, relatively classic, beautifully made, with minimal gold hardware, and with the option of a crossbody strap for travel. I have a large Italian family of Furlas. Here are my wardrobe pets.

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

3. White Pearls

I’m not a jewellery person, but what I have is very focussed, worn daily, real, and custom-made. Two chunky white pearl necklaces, two white pearl bracelets and and pearl wedding ring with gold metal. Occasionally I wear a very special gold and garnet vintage Yorkie brooch from 1961 that was an incredible gift from a client. I don’t wear earrings, although I have two holes in each ear.

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

4. Watch

I wear the same gold watch every day, and on the same wrist as my ring and bracelets. I would love to find another, but haven’t yet found a watch better than the one I have.

5. Scarves

I wear scarves to create colour complements with my bags and shoes, and to keep me warm. You have to wear a scarf in the Netherlands because of the nasty cold wind. In warm weather, I wear a gauzy linen or cotton scarf to keep the blazing hot sun off my neck.

Sale

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

Custom Findby Angie

6. Belts

I used to wear belts a lot more frequently with low and mid-rise jeans and pants. But now that 95% of my pants and jeans are high rise, I seldom wear belts. I’m keeping all of them in case I feel like wearing them again.

Custom Findby Angie

Sale

Custom Findby Angie

Finally, a smile is a great accessory. You can wear it daily, it always fits, and does not date. So are laughter lines, because they are evidence of smiles and laughter, which is good for the soul.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

Over to you. What is your accessory strategy?

The long blazer takes me back to the ‘90s. I wore them then, but it’s not a look I crave today. I am cautious about this length of blazer because the proportions can look off to my eye, especially when you wear flat footwear like I do. I did, though, enjoy a long blazer dressy pants suit because it created an elongating column of colour. You couldn’t see where your leg line stopped because of the low contrast between the jacket and pants. I had a favourite apple green long blazer suit in 1994 that I regularly wore to work. Greg said I looked like a lime milkshake, which made me love that suit even more. I would wear a long blazer in that way today.

I have many clients across a range of body types in long blazers. It’s been more popular than I thought. Almost everyone who wears blazers regularly has refreshed with the trendy long silhouette. Here are four ways to create outfits with long blazers. Choose any colour palette across solids and patterns.

1. Smart Casual

This is the easiest look to pull together. Combine a pair of slim jeans or pants like skinnies or straights with a layering top and statement long blazer. Add shoes that work with the outfit. The pants or jeans can be cropped or full length. The top can be tucked or untucked.

2. Casually Thrown Together

Combine an A-line skirt with a long fluid blazer and layering top. I like how the tight top adds structure to the fluid blazer. Add booties and Bob’s your uncle. Keep the skirt straight if you want to create traditionally flattering proportions.

3. Classically Elegant

Combine a black top with cropped straight pants or jeans in any colour. Top it off with a long black blazer for a twinset effect up top. Add dressy shoes, and you’re in business. Good for corporate settings and dressier occasions.

4. Fashion-Forward Fun

This is by far my favourite of the four because it reminds me of the apple green suit I had in the ‘90s, with white accents and all. You need a non-neutral suit with a long blazer for this rendition, so maybe you’ll get one. I would if the right one came along. White top and footwear add a fashionable and crisp touch. Add jewellery, watch and eyewear as desired.

V-necklines are prolific this season. They are all over tops, knitwear, dresses and jumpsuits. It’s high time fashion made a statement with them because they’ve been scarce at retail for years. I am THRILLED for those who enjoy wearing V-necks. They are visually fabulous on larger busts, shorter necks, shorter waists, broader shoulders and petites. No matter how often I see it, I’m regularly in awe at how magically a V-neckline can minimize the size of the bust and lengthen the neck.

The V-neckline trend might be great for you, but it’s not for me. I have the opposite of the body type that wears V-necks well: a regular bust, regular waist, narrow shoulders and a very long neck. My short hair makes my neck look even longer. The higher the neckline, the better it’s suited to my body type. I can wear a V-neckline when it’s a structured shirt collar with a few of the top buttons left open, because the collar adds coverage to my long neck and shoulder neck point, especially when I pop the collar.

As I’m refreshing my wardrobe for Spring and Summer, I’m rejecting all sorts of potentially fabulous on-trend tops and dresses because their V-necklines are deal-breakers (unless they are shirt collars). The V-neck trend is against me, so it’s on to plan B. Reverting back to classics.

I enjoy modern classics full stop. And many of their necklines work well with my body type. This season I’m back in classic silk and cotton blouses, body-con knit tops, and pullovers with polo collars — all of which I haven’t worn for ages as I favoured more trendy styles. I’m thoroughly enjoying my new classic tops because they’ve changed things up, and layer well under jackets in arctic air conditioning. The collection below shows the exact items I’ve bought to refresh my tops capsule with for Spring & Summer.

The fluid cotton and cashmere crew neck pullovers in the collection are classics I wear every season despite trends. These versions are shorter because that’s how fashion is at the moment. That trendy detail is fine because shorter tops work well with exposed high rises and skirts, both of which I wear and enjoy.

Leopard patterns are classics, which is why we see them every season and throughout the year. The pattern is versatile, and to some as neutral as wearing black, white and grey. Leopard patterns come in any wardrobe item, but today we’re focussing on the leopard skirt and combining it with heels in a neutral outfit. 

Here are four examples to get you started:

1. Hard-Edged Utility

Combine a leopard print skirt with a white top and olive or tan utility jacket. Finish off the look with heeled black sandal booties or boots to create the hard edge. A black bag and belt are optional. The fluidity of the jacket and A-line skirt are what make outfit proportions look fresh and new. Lots of movement.

2. Classic Pretty

This outfit creates traditionally flattering proportions, which is just as fab. Combine a leopard print pencil skirt with a tucked black top and fitted black moto. Choose a blazer if motos aren’t your thing. Finish off the look with red heels and bag. Easy to pull together.

Click Here: bapehoody

3. PlayfulLy Prissy

This version is fashion-forward. Combine a straight or flared leopard skirt with a slogan tee or sweatshirt. Semi-tuck the tee or sweatshirt if it’s too baggy. Finish off the outfit with dainty black heels like sandals or pumps, and throw in a structured bag. A fun juxtaposition of items.

4. Elegantly Pattern Mixed

The last version combines a bombshell bottom half with a relaxed top half. Dressy meets sporty in a sophisticated way. Wear a tight leopard skirt with a tee, and drape a pattered pullover over your shoulders. In this case we have leopard squared. Finish off the look with dressy black heels and bag. Or throw in some red if you dare. Add jewellery, eyewear and watch as desired.

You bat for Team Store if you prefer to shop in brick-and-mortar stores for your wardrobe and style needs. You bat for Team Online if you prefer to shop online. We last ran this poll in 2010, and Team Store won the race. But shopping has changed enormously over the last ten years, so I’m very interested to see what happens this time round. 

The variety, practicality, privacy and convenience of online shopping cannot be beat. There are extended size curves and colours. There are no sales staff if you prefer to bypass them. You can avoid traffic, crowds, bad weather, and public dressing rooms. It’s an ideal way to shop if you’re physically not up to browsing city stores. And it’s fun to see boxes arrive on your doorstep.

Shopping in brick-and-mortar stores on the other hand can be more of an exhilarating and social experience. You can touch, feel, assess quality, and fit items on right away thereby making a decision about them. You avoid the guessing game of size and quality when you see an item in person before purchasing it. There are no shipping costs, and you avoid the tedious repetition of opening and resealing boxes.

I LOVE to shop in brick-and-mortar stores because I enjoy the atmosphere and activity. I adore shopping with clients and fab shopping buddies because it’s fun, rewarding, active, and frequently the way I make my bread and butter. I adore to shop when I travel so that I can bring back interesting treasures and sentimental souvenirs.

That said, I’ve grown to appreciate online shopping because half the time it’s the only way I can find the right size, fit, colour and vibe. Retailers seldom carry the full spectrum of sizes, widths, lengths, colour options and silhouettes that I need in city stores. But I do have the option of getting exactly what I need and want online. It’s amazing! I’m grateful for the large assortment, availability, and that shipping in the US is very easy and often free.

I can’t pick a side so I’m sitting this one out on the bench with garlic and honey baked chicken, wild rice, steamed broccoli, and Häagen-Dazs ice cream. Over to you. Do you bat for Team Store or Team Online. Tell us why. No batting for both teams, but feel to join me on the bench.

Click Here: bapehoody