Jusqu’alors Charles Aznavour était resté silencieux sur le conflit qui sévit actuellement au Moyen-Orient. Ce matin, il a publié une tribune dans Le Figaro où il propose que les communautés persécutées du Moyen-Orient s’installent dans les villages français « à l’abandon » avec pour obligation de les reconstruire, pour les faire revivre.
Depuis 1975 et sa chanson au titre sans détour Ils sont tombés, dans laquelle il dénonçait l’horreur du génocide de 1915 et ses centaines de milliers de morts arméniens, Charles Aznavour n’a de cesse de s’engager. Il a donc jugé bon de publier une tribune aujourd’hui dans les colonnes du Figaro.
«Dans la guerre de religions qui est en train d’embraser l’Irak et la Syrie, il est essentiel, certes, de se préoccuper du sort des chrétiens d’Orient, des Kurdes, des yazidis et des autres. Mais dans cette énumération, il ne faut pas oublier une communauté chère à mon cœur, les Arméniens. On n’en parle jamais, et pourtant, en Syrie, hier encore, ils étaient quelque deux cent mille. Je suis bouleversé par les drames qui se jouent là-bas au quotidien. Notre devoir n’est-il pas d’aider moralement, et concrètement, ces populations, le plus vite possible?» écrit le chanteur de 90 ans qui propose même une «idée simple» pour faire avancer le conflit. «Pourquoi ne pas confier ces « villages fantômes » à ces chrétiens, ces Kurdes, ces yazidis, ces Arméniens, explique l’interprète de La Bohème. Puisque celles et ceux qui devraient y vivre sont partis, pourquoi ne pas les remplacer par celles et ceux qui en ont besoin? Pourquoi ne pas confier ces «villages fantômes» à ces chrétiens, ces Kurdes, ces yazidis, ces Arméniens? Ils auraient pour obligation de les reconstruire, de les faire revivre, de labourer à nouveau des terres dont la fertilité ne fait aucun doute. Ils pourraient ainsi vivre en paix, quasiment en autarcie.Je réponds, en particulier, de mes compatriotes. Je sais qu’ils sont très travailleurs.»
L’icône des Arméniens termine sa tribune en réitérant qu’il compte s’investir pleinement dans son nouveau combat. «Je suis prêt à soutenir personnellement et physiquement,s’il le faut, une action qui se veut résolument apolitique, souligne-t-il. J’ai déjà chanté en Syrie. Je peux y retourner, mais, cette fois-ci, seulement pour parler. Pour aider toute forme de négociation avec les communautés. C’est ce que nous devons et allons faire. C’est cela, la véritable aide humanitaire.»
Après Félins et Chimpanzés, Disneynature se penche sur les ours d’Alaska. Grizzly suit le voyage d’une maman ours et de ses deux petits pendant six mois à travers l’Alaska. Passionnant et rafraichissant.
Avant d’être le doudou préféré des enfants, l’ours est un animal sauvage dont la vie n’est pas des plus tranquilles. C’est ce que démontre Grizzly, produit par Disney, en suivant l’histoire d’une femelle grizzly et de ses deux petits, depuis leur sortie d’hibernation jusqu’à la suivante.
Six mois qui se résument à la recherche de nourriture, vitale, malgré les dangers que représentent les loups et les autres ours. On suit avec émerveillement, et effroi parfois, le voyage de ce trio attendrissant, dans les neiges des hautes montagnes d’Alaska jusqu’au cours d’eau remplis de saumons, en passant par les plaines et les prairies verdoyantes.
Une véritable ode à la nature, sensible et attachante, au message écologique évident mais distillé sans lourdeur, avec délicatesse et intelligence. Grizzly est un film à découvrir en famille et qui ravira autant les grands que les petits
Tech giant Google has apologized for labeling the pro-life film Unplanned as “propaganda” on its search engine.
Fox News reported recently that tech giant Google had labeled the upcoming pro-life film Unplanned as a “Drama/Propaganda” when users searched for the film. Kelsey Bolar of The Daily Signal tweeted a screenshot of the search result showing the label, it can be seen below:
In comparison, the recent film VICE starring Christian Bale about former Vice President Dick Cheney received no such label, neither did many of the films made by left-wing documentarian Michael Moore.
Google quickly caved to scrutiny over the issue, however, as Fox News reported:
Google told Fox News that the issue related to Google’s “Knowledge Graph” which analyzes web content. A Google spokesperson told Fox: “When we’re made aware of disputed facts in our Knowledge Graph, we work to fix the issues, as we’ve done in this case.”
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week titled “Stifling Free Speech: Technological Censorship and the Public Discourse,” Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) grilled a representative from Twitter about the site’s hate speech policies and the suspension of the Twitter account for the pro-life film Unplanned. Hawley stated: “so let me just ask you a few more pointed questions, your account for the movie Unplanned, why was that suspended?”
Twitter representative Carlos Mohje Jr. replied: “What we discovered — we have a system which tries to stop individuals who have broken rules in the past from coming back on [the platform], the individual who started the Unplannedaccount had previously been suspended for violating our rules and as a result our automated systems flagged that account and it was taken down for an hour.”
Unplanned was released in late March to select theatres, find out where to watch it here
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The advocacy organization GLAAD says that LGBTQ representation is up for major studio films released in 2018, but that none included transgender characters.
Of the 110 movies surveyed, 20, or 18.2%, contained an LGBTQ character. This is a significant improvement from 2017′s all-time low of 12.8% and the second-highest in the seven years that GLAAD has been doing the report.
Both 20th Century Fox and Universal received “good” ratings for their individual contributions for releases like “Bohemian Rhapsody,” ″Love, Simon” and “Blockers,” while the Walt Disney Co. and Lionsgate were given failing grades. Others received the marker of insufficient.
The grades are determined based on percentage of releases. That meant Warner Bros., which had the second-highest number of films with LGBTQ characters (five) of all the studios, still got an insufficient rating because overall the studio released 23 films. The studio with the highest number of releases featuring LGBTQ characters was Universal, with six.
In addition to the lack of transgender characters, the report says racial diversity of LGBTQ characters has also fallen off despite films like “Crazy Rich Asians,” ″Deadpool 2″ and “Annihilation.” In 2018, 42% of LGBTQ characters were people of color, compared with 57% in 2017. But, for the first time in the report’s history, there were equal number of films that included gay and lesbian characters with 11 each, or 55% of the LGBTQ-inclusive films. Bisexual characters were seen in only 3 of the major studio releases, however. None of the animated and family films released by major studios in 2018 featured an LGBTQ character, the report said.
Representation is higher in films released by the arthouse arms of studios like Fox Searchlight with “The Favourite” and “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” and Roadside Attractions with “Juliet, Naked” and “Lizzie.”
Diversity in storytelling is good for business, says John Fithian, the president and CEO of the National Association of Theater Owners.
“NATO and its members are committed to creating inclusive spaces that expand our audiences, increase ticket sales, and reaffirm the importance of representation on the screen,” Fithian told GLAAD.
A Nielsen report also found that queer audiences are more 22 percent more likely than straight audiences to see a new release more than one time.
The report concludes that while progress has been made, there is more work to be done, in representation of transgender characters, bisexual characters, racially diverse LGBTQ characters and LGBTQ representation in animated and family films. Last year GLAAD called on studios to ensure that LGBTQ representation will reach 20% by 2021 and 50% by 2024.
“While the film industry should include more stories of LGBTQ people of color and transgender people, studios are finally addressing the calls from LGBTQ people and allies around the world who want to see more diversity in films,” GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement.And 2019 may be off to a promising start with films like “Booksmart” and “Rocketman” on the horizon.
After more than a year of excruciating negotiations, and despite continuing fierce differences, the U.K. and the EU have reached a shared understanding of how they can clinch a deal.
It will be hard, fast and with a bang, at a yet-to-be-arranged special summit in Brussels in November, according to senior government officials and diplomats in Brussels, the U.K. and other EU capitals.
There is still no guarantee of success, particularly given the continuing sharp divide over how to solve the Irish border issue, and the timetable could yet slip further. But if a deal is clinched, according to the diplomats and officials in Britain, Brussels and Berlin, it will come at a highly scripted moment to be quickly followed by EU27 leaders approving the package.
Both sides hope it will be a “transformative” political moment for Theresa May, with the goal of a jolt of momentum that will help the U.K. prime minister force a deal through parliament before her opponents can pick it apart.
Negotiators in London and Brussels are now working hand-in-glove to get the deal over the line, intent on avoiding any drip-drip of mini developments that critics can gnaw on.
A bland statement issued by Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab following an “extended phone call” Friday morning with his opposite number Michel Barnier was typical of this tight-to-the-chest approach. “Our teams are closing in on workable solutions to the outstanding issues,” said Raab with no hint of what they might be.
Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, offered his own bland confirmation, noting differences but stressing “useful dialogue,” “progress” and “continuing our discussions to find common ground on the future relationship.”
A week earlier, the pair had met in Brussels, but chose not to release any statement at all, or hold a press conference.
Chequers model
May’s tactics in strong-arming her ministers into supporting her Brexit plan in July may serve as a useful pointer to the overall Brexit endgame. She unveiled the full proposal to ministers shortly before a Cabinet retreat at her Chequers country residence. And while some big hitters, including David Davis and Boris Johnson, resigned in protest, May succeeded in making a forceful case that she alone has the best way forward.
In November, she will make a similar case, according to a senior U.K. official: her best hard-fought deal or the cliff edge.
Timing will also be critical. EU officials are concerned that anything agreed before the Conservative Party conference in early October could spark an angry Brexiteer backlash. And EU diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Barnier has told them to “avoid rocking the boat” before then too.
With the withdrawal treaty now 80 percent to 95 percent complete — depending on which official you ask and his or her mood at the moment — the last push will focus on the “political declaration,” a document setting forth the framework of the future relationship that will accompany the withdrawal treaty. There is now a growing consensus in Brussels and London about what it will look like.
According to three leading EU27 officials and diplomats working on Brexit, the final compromise will reflect some aspects of May’s Chequers plan while also remaining sufficiently vague to keep all sides happy.
One EU diplomat said: “The more generic it will be, the easier it will be for May to keep together the different souls of the Tories.”
Keep it too vague though, and MPs on either side of the debate, as well as MEPs who also have a vote, have said they will reject it as a leap of faith. That position was echoed by French Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau, who last week said France is against what she called a “blindfold Brexit.”
The equation is a bit easier in Brussels, where officials maintain that the political declaration cannot legally bind the EU27 to specific terms of a future trade accord.
To avoid the vagueness charge, one proposal that has been floated is to make the final document a combination of “high-level aspiration” in some core areas and “incredibly detailed agreement” in others, according to a senior U.K. official.
Such a structure would give some cover from attacks on the U.K. government that it is giving up its financial leverage, as Brexiteers see it, in exchange for only vague promises of a future trade arrangement.
This concern is reflected in one major outstanding area of disagreement on the future relationship: how the U.K. can ensure the EU sticks to its word after Brexit.
At an August 22 meeting between Barnier and Raab, the U.K. Brexit secretary called for a legal guarantee on the future framework to be inserted into the Withdrawal Agreement, according to an EU Brexit official familiar with the conversation. “Not only on the process, but also on the outcomes,” according to one familiar with the conversation.
This, the official said, is “not possible.”
A second idea is for “review clauses” to be inserted into the political declaration, which will allow both sides to argue that potential problems with the agreement can be ironed out at a later date.
One high-level official said these clauses should not give the impression of “perpetual divorce,” but could help allay concerns in the EU that the U.K. might emerge with “competitive advantages.” The prospect of a formal mechanism to review the arrangement could also help persuade Brexiteer MPs that the Northern Ireland border solution could be revisited in the future.
Both sides have already agreed on the need for a future “political joint committee” staffed with officials from both sides, sitting under a joint ministerial committee that will meet regularly to help resolve disagreements.
A separate independent arbitration mechanism — the details of which are still to be worked out — will sit alongside the committees.
Next steps
November is now being eyed as the time to bring together these potential ingredients. Senior EU officials in the Commission and in the Council now expect a deal on the withdrawal agreement to be clinched in one last marathon negotiation — potentially an all-nighter — that month, with May playing a direct personal role in the most critical endgame bargaining.
On Thursday, Barnier will brief EU leaders over lunch at an informal summit in Salzburg, Austria, and they will discuss the political declaration for the first time in detail. Based on that conversation, the negotiator will then begin drafting the text — two diplomats said he has not begun doing so yet.
Crucially, the leaders will not alter or add to Barnier’s negotiating mandate — both because no official action is to be taken in Salzburg, but also because EU leaders remain highly confident their carefully scripted approach to the talks has worked well so far.
EU officials said that hashing out a withdrawal agreement will require reassuring language on the Northern Ireland border that will ensure Dublin feels its interested are protected, but at the same time leaves some crucial details to be sorted out during the 21-month post-Brexit transition period.
One EU diplomat said that will require at least some concession from May on the Irish border. London has rejected the EU’s “backstop” insurance plan that is designed to avoid the need for a hard border on the island by requiring Northern Ireland to remain inside the EU’s customs union while excluding the rest of the U.K.
“They want to deal with this as part of the future relationship,” the diplomat said. “But you can’t be sure that the future relationship stuff will work out. For us, it’s a matter of trust.”
Once a deal is hatched, the EU will leave it to May to steer the agreement through the U.K. parliament. At that point, Brussels can only sit back and watch. If May succeeds, there’s a deal. If she fails, several officials in Brussels said they expect complete political turmoil, potentially including a general election or even a new referendum on EU membership.
What no one in Europe believes though is that the U.K. is seriously contemplating leaving without a deal.
Out of 14 diplomats approached by POLITICO not one said they thought the U.K. is serious about going ahead with no deal. “[The Brits] will keep on publishing material on it, no doubt, but it’s really difficult to believe in it,” one said.
Matthew Karnitschnig and James Randerson contributed reporting.
The unbelievably dishonest and ungrateful star of Captain Marvel, Brie Larson, is running around pretending to be the Rosa Parks of action heroines.
You know, when Whoopi Goldberg first started winning acting awards in the eighties for The Color Purple, she recognized she was standing on someone else’s shoulders, on the shoulders of Hattie McDaniel, the first black person to win an Academy Award (Best Supporting Actress, 1940). Finally, in 1991, a half-century later, Whoopi would become only the second black woman to win an Oscar.
When Denzel Washington finally won the Best Actor Oscar in 2002, he opened his acceptance speech by saluting the man he had been “chasing” for 40 years, the great Sidney Poitier — the first black man to ever win Best Actor (1964). Thirty-eight years later, Denzel was second.
Whoopi and Denzel did not pretend to be first, to be groundbreakers, to be the pioneers of their respective social causes — even though, they were. After all, until 1990, when Denzel won Best Supporting Actor for Glory, only three black actors had taken home the Oscar: McDaniel, Poitier, and Louis Gossett Jr. (1983’s Best Supporting Actor).
Nevertheless, they still saluted those who came first, showed them the proper respect, expressed gratitude, and acknowledged their struggle and accomplishment.
Compare that to Brie Larson’s comments earlier this month at something called the Women In The World conference — which sounds like a barrel of laughs…
“I did it.”
“I did it.”
“I.”
No, princess, you didn’t.
In fact, you didn’t come close to doing it.
Believe it or not, before you plenty of women were “normalizing” the idea of a woman making a billion box office dollars, of a woman being the foundation of an action franchise, of a woman as an action hero.
You’re not only not the first, cupcake, you not only didn’t break the glass ceiling, you are old hat…
Let’s start with the fact that Felicity Jones is the first woman to anchor a standalone billion dollar action movie with 2016’s Rogue One.
Oh, and before Brie there was Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games, a franchise that grossed nearly $3 billion.
Before Brie there was a little movie called Wonder Woman, that grossed $821 million.
Long before Brie, a whole 17 years before Brie, Milla Jovovich anchored the Resident Evil franchise, a franchise that grossed over a billion dollars.
A full 16 years before Brie, Kate Beckinsdale launched the Underworld franchise.
Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider?
Michelle Yeoh?
And where does this joyless harpy get off not recognizing Sigourney Weaver and the Alien franchise?
Which brings me to The Mighty Pam Grier, the godmother of all action heroines, an icon, a legend, the Neil Armstrong of the genre.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time Marvel’s disrespected the past. Remember when Black Panther tried to pull this same exact crap…
I get that everyone wants to be Neil Armstrong, I do… And I also get the politics behind all of this — this lie that convinces the woefully uninformed that America is so racist and sexist these firsts are only happening now.
But I gotta say, this is a lousy thing to do to the true pioneers, to those who actually took the risks to blaze a new path — in the vernacular of the woke, it’s a lousy thing to do to these women and people of color.
Brie Larson and Black Panther were not the first, or the second, or the third, fourth, fifth, or even sixth…
Robert Townsend was a true trailblazer and he deserves some goddamned respect, and so do Pam Grier and Sigourney Weaver.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
A Republican lawmaker made an unannounced trip to Syria this past week, meeting with Kurdish fighters allied with the U.S. against ISIS and American aid workers helping civilians caught in the crossfire of Turkey’s offensive into the region.
Rep. Ralph Abraham (R-La.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, traveled to northeastern Syria beginning last week for a multiday tour, visiting front-line positions where Kurdish forces trade fire daily with Turkish-backed fighters despite an October cease-fire agreement.
“The purpose of my trip was to express my deep concerns for the safety of Christians and other persecuted minorities in the region as well as my support for self-governance among the Kurds,” Abraham wrote in an email to The Hill.
ADVERTISEMENT
President TrumpDonald John TrumpChasten Buttigieg: ‘I’ve been dealing with the likes of Rush Limbaugh my entire life’ Lawmakers paint different pictures of Trump’s ‘opportunity zone’ program We must not turn our heads from the effects of traumatic brain injuries MORE in October ordered U.S. troops stationed in northeastern Syria to evacuate the region, clearing the way for a Turkish offensive launched with the purpose of eliminating Kurdish groups that Ankara views as terrorists.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle widely condemned the pullout of American forces and criticized the Trump administration for abandoning Kurdish allies in the face of the Turkish offensive. Kurdish fighters, along with Arab and ethnic minority and religious groups, fight under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces alongside the U.S. to root out ISIS from Syria.
In October, Abraham was among those who voted against a House resolution condemning Turkey’s invasion, saying he agreed with Trump’s decision to remove U.S. troops and called the vote a “deceitful ploy” by Democrats to create divisions in the Republican Party.
The resolution passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 354-60.
U.S. Special Envoy for Syria James Jeffrey told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in October that there is evidence Turkey committed war crimes during its offensive.
The U.S. suspended counter-ISIS operations immediately following the Turkish offensive and removed about 400 American troops from the region. About 600 troops remain, mostly guarding oil fields ISIS once used to generate profits; joint operations against ISIS have resumed.
Abraham has served in Congress since 2015 and presents himself as an ally of the president. He is a veterinarian, a physician, a veteran of the Army National Guard and a fixed-wing and helicopter pilot.
ADVERTISEMENT
“He’s brave,” said Dave Eubank, an American aid worker who helped organize the congressman’s trip. “He just said, ‘I’ll go.’ He said, ‘Take me to the most dangerous, nastiest place so I can learn.’”
Abraham was introduced on Capitol Hill to Eubank, founder of the Free Burma Rangers, an aid organization grounded in Christian faith and established in 1997 to provide medical training to ethnic Burmese civilians caught up in Myanmar’s decades-old civil war.
“He was interested in the plight of the Burmese and came to our camp in December,” Eubank said of Abraham. “He had to walk in, it was in the middle of the jungle.”
In 2014, the Free Burma Rangers expanded their operations toward the Middle East with the rise of ISIS, working in Iraq and Syria with the Iraqi army, Kurdish peshmerga and the Syrian Democratic Forces to evacuate civilians fleeing ISIS.
Eubank, with his wife, three children and Free Burma Ranger team members, were in the Kurdish areas of Syria when Turkey launched its offensive on Nov. 9.
“That was pretty terrible,” he said. One of his volunteers was killed during an attack on Kurdish positions by Turkish-backed forces near the village of Tal Tamr.
In December, during Abraham’s visit, Eubank said the congressman expressed an interest in traveling to Syria to see the areas most affected by the U.S. withdrawal of troops.
“He said, ‘I want to go see it and make sure our president is getting the right information,’” Eubank said.
The situation in northeastern Syria is relatively stable at the moment, with Russia patrolling a cease-fire line. Yet sporadic artillery fire and shelling occurs daily, Eubank said, and approximately 200,000 people have yet to return to their homes in the territory occupied by Turkey.
Eubank said Abraham traveled to the front-line position of Tal Tamr but avoided any shelling.
“They weren’t shelling at that minute but they shelled after he left,” Eubank said.
Abraham also traveled to Raqqa, the city ISIS claimed as its capital. There he met with the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), General Mazloum Abdi, who Trump had praised on Twitter and offered to meet with.
The commander posted on Twitter that he and Abraham discussed the security situation in Raqqa, the impact of the withdrawal of forces in the coalition against ISIS which includes the U.S., and ongoing Turkish attacks.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has accused Abdi of being a terrorist and told a Turkish state television station that the U.S. should hand him over to Turkish authorities.
Abraham told local Kurdish media he was impressed with Raqqa’s reconstruction under the SDF.
“I am impressed so much by the progress that has been made in Raqqa. Literally, the city has risen from rubble and it is continuing to rise every day that the sun rises,” he told the Rudaw newswire.
He also met with military leaders of minority groups, like the Syriac-Christian militia, the Syriac Military Council, and civil society representatives like the Raqqa civil council, public works employees, representatives for women’s issues and religious representatives.
“I think he learned how bad it was here, first hand,” Eubank said. “He learned how wonderful the people are, what a good system they have; it works.”
In its 2019 report and before the Turkish incursion, the U.S. Commission on International Freedom described northeastern Syria as a “safe refuge” with a “substantial degree of religious freedom, gender equality and representation in local governing bodies” under the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Council, the political arm of the Syrian Democratic Forces.
Abraham is the first U.S. lawmaker to visit the region since the incursion. He’s also one of only a handful of members to travel into Syria.
Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardBloomberg, Sanders, Biden beat Trump in head-to-heads in North Carolina: poll Sanders takes lead in new Hill/HarrisX poll The Hill’s Campaign Report: Bloomberg to face off with rivals at Nevada debate MORE (D-Hawaii), a 2020 presidential candidate, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in January 2017, and the late Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainMeghan McCain after Gaetz says Trump should pardon Roger Stone: ‘Oh come on’ Advice for fellow Democrats: Don’t count out Biden, don’t fear a brokered convention McSally ties Democratic rival Kelly to Sanders in new ad MORE (R-Ariz.) made a secret trip in February that year to the Kurdish-held areas in Syria, accompanied by the U.S. military.
Locals who met Abraham expressed a deep resentment and mistrust of the U.S., Eubank said.
“There was a lot of anger everywhere we went, everywhere,” he said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Abraham was not recognizable as a congressman among the people he met, Eubank said, adding that they are more familiar with Trump and lawmakers who speak out for the Kurds, like Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham: Trump has ‘all the legal authority in the world’ to pardon Stone Overnight Defense: Pentagon policy chief resigns at Trump’s request | Trump wishes official ‘well in his future endeavors’ | Armed Services chair warns against Africa drawdown after trip GOP chairman after Africa trip: US military drawdown would have ‘real and lasting negative consequences’ MORE (R-S.C.). Eubank said he’s heard people say they only trust in God and Graham.
Graham is a close Trump ally but one who has spoken out forcefully against the Turkish invasion.
Congress has stalled on moving forward sanctions against Turkey for its offensive against Syrian Kurds. A sanctions package drafted by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sens. Jim RischJames (Jim) Elroy RischLawmakers wary as US on cusp of initial deal with Taliban Senators condemn UN ‘blacklisting’ of US companies in Israeli settlements Dairy industry doesn’t own the word ‘milk’ MORE (R-Idaho) and Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezMenendez calls for ‘Marie Yovanovitch bill’ to protect foreign service employees Senators condemn UN ‘blacklisting’ of US companies in Israeli settlements Media’s selective outrage exposed in McSally-Raju kerfuffle MORE (D-N.J.), respectively, has failed to reach the floor for a vote.
Eubank said Abraham’s visit helped demonstrate to Syrians that there is still some U.S. commitment to the region.
“‘They said, ‘Well, you give us hope that Americans still have morals, that Americans still care,’” he said.
President TrumpDonald John TrumpChasten Buttigieg: ‘I’ve been dealing with the likes of Rush Limbaugh my entire life’ Lawmakers paint different pictures of Trump’s ‘opportunity zone’ program We must not turn our heads from the effects of traumatic brain injuries MORE on Thursday said he believes his longtime confidant Roger StoneRoger Jason StoneProsecutor defends initial DOJ recommendation at Stone sentencing Graham: Trump has ‘all the legal authority in the world’ to pardon Stone The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Roger Stone gets over three years in prison; Brutal night for Bloomberg MORE “has a very good chance of exoneration,” but that he intends to let the legal process play out after Stone was sentenced to more than three years in prison earlier in the day.
“I’m following this very closely, and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration in my opinion,” Trump said during remarks at a prisoner graduation event in Las Vegas.
“I’m not going to do anything in terms of the great powers bestowed upon a president of the United States. I want the process to play out,” Trump added. “I think that’s the best thing to do. Because I’d love to see Roger exonerated, and I’d love to see it happen, because I personally believe he was treated very unfairly.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The president’s comments made clear he was closely monitoring the developments in the Stone case and could consider a pardon for his former associate at some point, while signaling action was not imminent. Such a move would prove divisive at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and among his own advisers who have expressed differing opinions on whether to pardon Stone.
Trump made his latest remarks on the case at the outset of remarks at a graduation ceremony for ex-felons who had completed the Hope for Prisoners program, hours after a federal judge sentenced Stone to 40 months in jail for lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing a proceeding.
Stone had filed a petition for a new trial after Trump amplified accusations of potential bias on the part of the forewoman on the jury that convicted Stone last November. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, declined to postpone Stone’s sentencing as she considered his motion for a retrial.
The president on Thursday offered a lengthy testimonial defending Stone and cast doubt on the circumstances that led to his conviction and sentencing. Trump downplayed the connection between Stone and his 2016 campaign, but praised the conservative provocateur as a “smart guy” and a “good person.”
“Roger Stone and everybody has to be treated fairly,” he said. “And this has not been a fair process. OK?”
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump also repeated questions about the forewoman of the jury that convicted Stone, claiming she had been exposed as an “anti-Trump activist” and suggesting that her presence on the jury had tainted the fairness of the process.
“Is that a defrauding of the court? You tell me,” Trump asked the crowd, claiming she concealed anti-Trump social media posts from the court hid her bias. Trump has zeroed in on the woman, Tomeka Hart, after her political views expressed on social media came under scrutiny last week when she identified herself as a forewoman of the jury on Facebook.
Another juror in the trial came forward to defend Hart on Wednesday amid Trump’s accusation that she harbored “significant bias,” telling CNN that she was a strong advocate for a rigorous process that considered the rights of the defendant.
The president also appeared to question the legitimacy of the charges against Stone. He said the witness tampering charge Stone was convicted on was not like the tampering he was familiar with from movies where people are held at gunpoint. He also questioned why James ComeyJames Brien ComeyTrump decries lack of ‘fairness’ in Stone trial ahead of sentencing Blagojevich heaps praise on Trump after release from prison Free Roger Stone MORE, Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeGraham: Trump has ‘all the legal authority in the world’ to pardon Stone Trump decries lack of ‘fairness’ in Stone trial ahead of sentencing Free Roger Stone MORE and other former government officials had not faced punishment for their actions.
“At some point I will make a determination,” Trump said. “This has not been a fair process.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Stone was the last of six Trump associates to be charged in connection with former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerCNN’s Toobin warns McCabe is in ‘perilous condition’ with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill’s 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE’s two-year investigation into the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia.
He was convicted last November by a jury in Washington, D.C., on all counts he was charged with.
The president’s remarks were sure to overshadow what was intended as a commencement ceremony for prisoners who had graduated a prison reform program.
Trump has fueled speculation in recent weeks that he plans to pardon Stone. He has repeatedly derided the case against Stone as a “disgrace,” targeting the prosecutors and judge involved with the case in particular.
The president late Wednesday shared a video clip of Fox News host Tucker CarlsonTucker CarlsonMeghan McCain after Gaetz says Trump should pardon Roger Stone: ‘Oh come on’ Fox News legal analyst: Only a pardon can ‘fairly undo’ Roger Stone ‘mess’ Trump shares clip of Fox host Tucker Carlson suggesting he pardon Stone MORE advocating for a pardon for Stone. The video was pinned to the top of Trump’s Twitter feed as of Thursday afternoon.
But his insistence on weighing in on Stone’s case has led to rifts within the Justice Department.
Trump decried an original sentencing recommendation for Stone of seven to nine years as a “miscarriage of justice.” A day later, the Justice Department said it would alter the recommendation, though Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrProsecutor defends initial DOJ recommendation at Stone sentencing Roger Stone sentenced to over three years in prison Trump decries lack of ‘fairness’ in Stone trial ahead of sentencing MORE has said the decision was unrelated to the president’s commentary.
Barr urged Trump in an interview with ABC News last week to stop tweeting and commenting publicly about Justice Department criminal cases, marking a rare and public break between the attorney general and his boss. Barr said Trump’s tweets were making it “impossible” to do his job.
Tensions between Trump and the DOJ have remained high in the week since, however. He has continued to tweet about Stone’s case and maintained he has a right to intervene in cases if he wants to, while Barr reportedly has told those close to Trump that he may resign if the tweeting continues.
The White House and a DOJ spokeswoman have downplayed any potential for the attorney general’s imminent departure, saying the two men get along and Barr does not plan to resign.
Disability rights advocates on Thursday urged election officials to focus on accessibility alongside security for U.S. elections and pushed for more technological solutions that would allow all Americans to cast secure votes.
“For people with disabilities, our votes aren’t secure now,” Kelly Buckland, the executive director of the National Council for Independent Living, said at an election accessibility summit hosted by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) on Thursday. “I believe we could make them more secure through technology that is available today.”
After Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections — which according to U.S. intelligence agencies and former special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerCNN’s Toobin warns McCabe is in ‘perilous condition’ with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill’s 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE involved sweeping disinformation efforts on social media and targeting of vulnerabilities in voter registration systems — election security has become a major topic of debate on the national stage.
ADVERTISEMENT
Concerns around the use of technology in elections were also heightened this month following the use of a new vote tabulation app by the Iowa Democratic Party during the Iowa caucuses. The app malfunctioned due to a “coding issue,” leading to chaos around the final vote tally.
After these incidents, election security experts have advocated for using more paper ballots to ensure no individual or group can hack the votes, and to ensure no glitch can occur.
However, disability groups on Thursday noted that moving to just paper could make it difficult to vote for blind or visually impaired people, those who have difficulty leaving their homes, or those for whom English is not their first language.
Lou Ann Blake, the deputy executive director of Blindness Initiatives at the National Federation of the Blind, said Thursday that moving toward paper ballots brings up civil rights issues for those with disabilities.
“Security and accessibility, it’s not a question of either/or, we have to have both, because really it’s an issue of civil rights,” Blake said at the EAC summit. “With the movement to paper ballots, that status of first-class citizenship is now threatened … paper ballots are not accessible, you cannot make them accessible.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Diane Golden, the project director of the nonprofit Illinois Assistive Technology Program, argued that moving completely away from technological resources for voting would mean election officials may not be able to provide accessibility for disabled voters.
“If the only way you can deliver security is through a marked paper ballot, then you have to acknowledge it has to be done a different way for accessibility,” Golden said. “If security people continue to say any digital interface is insecure, then you have essentially said you cannot provide accessibility.”
EAC Chairwoman Christy McCormick noted during the summit that 14.3 million Americans with disabilities voted during the 2018 midterm elections, a number she said would “certainly increase” during the upcoming 2020 presidential election.
“We must ensure any technological voting solutions offer universal access and do not infringe upon a voter’s privacy,” McCormick said. “People with disabilities have the right to a seamless integrated and welcoming voting process at the polls.”
The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has served as one of the primary federal agencies involved in working with state and local election officials to ensure security.
Matt Masterson, the senior cybersecurity advisor at CISA and a former EAC commissioner, highlighted the link between accessibility to elections and the security of the vote.
“I could not agree more that it’s not a debate between the two, that accessibility is security,” Masterson said Thursday. “Privacy and independence is a security question as much as it is an accessibility question, if you can’t vote privately and independently, it is not a secure process.”
Multiple cities and states have taken steps to move towards more accessible elections through the use of technology.
One example is Los Angeles County, which has spent the last decade building a new digital voting system known as Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP) system, which will be used for the first time during the upcoming 2020 Democratic presidential primaries.
According to VSAP’s website, a major principle of design built into the new system is accessibility for all, including for voters who are not proficient in English.
However, according to a CNN report this week, cybersecurity experts have found major flaws in the system, which involves the use of digital technology in voting but includes a paper backup for voters to double check how their votes were cast.
Golden pointed to this report and others around the LA County system as indicative of the need for the U.S. to decide whether election security is more important than accessibility for the disabled.
“As a country, we have got to decide, is it or is it not, and if it isn’t, then we have got to actually commit to doing the right thing, and making it both accessible and secure, not secure first and then accessible as we can make it, as long as it’s secure,” Golden said.
Google has faced antitrust action on multiple occasions | Loic Venance/AFP via Getty Images
Oracle and Naspers’ stealth lobbying fight against Google
Two companies’ exclusive control of FairSearch raises questions about transparency of EU lobbying.
Oracle and Naspers, two of the world’s largest tech companies, control a nonprofit group that is the main complainant in a landmark European antitrust inquiry against Google, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.
The two companies hold legal authority over FairSearch, an organization that filed the first antitrust complaint in 2013 against Google’s Android mobile operating system, according to regulatory filings with Belgian authorities.
FairSearch says it represents Google rivals concerned with the search giant’s alleged illegal conduct in Europe. But records filed with Belgian authorities indicate that, in fact, executives from Oracle and Naspers are the group’s only members with legal authority over its activities.
None of the other FairSearch members, including several small European tech startups, have official voting rights over the group’s actions, which include hiring some of Brussels’ best-known legal advisers and lobbyists as part of the organization’s anti-Google campaign.
Oracle and Naspers’ exclusive control of FairSearch raises questions about the transparency of EU lobbying and highlights the risk that competition investigations can be taken hostage by warring corporate interests.
It also shines a light on opaque lobbying tactics known as “astroturfing,” in which large corporations support supposedly grassroots initiatives in the hope of winning favor with regulators and lawmakers.
“It’s an incredibly harmful practice,” said Alberto Alemanno, author of Lobbying for Change, a book about average citizens looking to lobby their lawmakers. “Astroturfing is misunderstood and largely invisible to most people.”
In response, FairSearch said the organization’s work “speaks for itself” and described POLITICO’s disclosures about Oracle and Naspers as a “distraction” from the debate about Google’s behavior.
Investigation wrapping up
Oracle and Naspers are not alone in using proxy organizations, and it is not illegal for companies to back third-party groups.
In its fight with EU regulators, Google can also rely on a network of proxies to represent its interests, including the Developers Alliance, a nonprofit group co-founded by the search giant. Google is one of the largest spenders on European lobbying activities, according to regulatory filings.
But while other companies like Intel and Ford sit on the Developers Alliance’s board, Naspers and Oracle enjoy sole legal control of FairSearch — an anti-Google coalition that stands out for the length and prominence of its action against the search giant.
FairSearch’s campaign against Google started almost a decade ago in the United States, when it contested the company’s purchase of ITA, a travel search comparison service. The organization expanded to Europe in 2013, establishing itself as a Belgian nonprofit and becoming the first complainant against Android in Europe.
Microsoft, whose online search product competes with that of Google, was a FairSearch board member, but left the organization in 2015. Nokia, whose digital maps service — which it sold in 2015 — remains a rival to Google’s map product, is still a member, though it no longer features in the group’s legal filings.
In its Android investigation, the Commission accused Google of using its dominant mobile software to favor its search and other digital products over those of rivals. The company denies any wrongdoing.
Margrethe Vestager, the region’s competition czar, could announce the results of that investigation — and a potential multibillion euro fine — as soon as the spring, according to people following the proceedings.
“Google’s behavior has harmed consumers by stifling competition and restricting innovation,” Vestager told reporters when announcing the Android charges against Google in 2016.
A fresh penalty would add to the search giant’s legal troubles, coming roughly a year after European enforcers fined Google €2.4 billion for abusing a dominant position in search, as well as similar antitrust setbacks in Russia and India.
The active role played by Oracle (an American provider of cloud computing and other software services) and Naspers (a South African tech and telecommunications giant whose corporate interests include a one-third stake in Tencent, the Chinese online giant valued at more than $500 billion, and leading Russian internet portal Mail.ru) raises questions about who will likely benefit from the expected remedies and fine.
Neither company has a direct stake in the mobile markets involved in the Commission’s Android investigation.
Their wider corporate interests, though, often conflict with Google’s own global digital empire. Oracle, in particular, is a longtime Google critic in Washington and Brussels and sued the search giant in the U.S. for up to $9 billion over alleged copyright infringements in an ongoing case.
“We’ve seen an expansion of tech lobbying in recent years,” said Daniel Freund, head of advocacy EU integrity at Transparency International, a group that tracks lobbying efforts. “With astroturfing, it’s hard to tell if a group is an independent voice or one that’s acting on behalf of a company.”
A spokesperson for the EU’s competition authority declined to comment on FairSearch, but said the agency “takes all complaints as an information source and starting point for our own assessment of any potential competition infringement.”
Its guidelines say complainants like FairSearch should be direct competitors or directly affected by the potentially illegal conduct, which investigators can review on an ongoing basis. By becoming a complainant in an EU antitrust case, companies enjoy privileged access to confidential information linked to ongoing inquiries.
James Allen, a spokesperson for Naspers, said the company’s involvement in FairSearch was based on its effort to ensure fair competition in the e-commerce sector. Oracle did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Google and the Developers Alliance declined to comment.
Exclusive voting rights
Oracle and Naspers lie at the heart of FairSearch. In the organization’s Belgian filings, Karl Cox, Oracle’s vice president for global public affairs in Paris and David Tudor, Naspers’ group general counsel in Amsterdam, are listed as the group’s only board members.
Both men are the sole individuals with legal powers to make decisions about the organization’s activities. Other FairSearch companies are so-called adherent members with no voting rights, according to the group’s recent statutes.
FairSearch does not promote its ties to Oracle and Naspers — whose combined net profit was about $15 billion, in their most recent annual reports — beyond a note in its submission to the EU transparency register, a database of lobbying interests.
In those records, FairSearch says both companies are members alongside other smaller companies like Foundem and Twenga, online comparison shopping sites with far less financial heft to conduct a yearslong anti-Google lobbying campaign.
Several FairSearch members said the group’s activities were conducted by consensus, and it was inaccurate to suggest that only Oracle and Naspers made decisions for the group. None of the members that POLITICO contacted for this article provided evidence of such consensus decision-making when asked for it, and FairSearch did not respond to repeated questions about its structure and financing.
Funding mystery
The anti-Google group reported an annual budget of zero euros between 2013 and 2016 to Belgian authorities, although it boasted a stable of top-flight advisers.
Its legal counsel is Thomas Vinje, one of Brussels’ most acclaimed antitrust lawyers at Clifford Chance, a law firm. Vinje previously fought Microsoft during its own lengthy antitrust standoff with the Commission, and also remains Oracle’s long-standing antitrust counsel in Europe, based on public statements.
FairSearch also hired Burson Marsteller and FIPRA International, blue-chip public relations firms in Brussels, to provide talking points to lawmakers and journalists about its anti-Google campaign.
In the EU transparency register, Burson Marsteller said it received up to €199,999 from FairSearch in 2016, while FIPRA International said it pocketed up to €49,999 from the organization that same year, the latest figures available. Both companies said the filings connected to FairSearch in the EU register were correct.
FairSearch’s most recent filings with Belgian authorities, though, state it received no money or membership fees since its creation in 2013. The origin of the money to pay these outside advisers remains unknown.
View this document on Scribd
Article 5 of FairSearch’s latest statues, filed December 2017, say “effective” members “participate actively and closely in the execution of the Association’s goals.” By contrast “adherent” members do not. Article 13 specifies that “only effective members have the right to vote.”
This article was updated to clarify that none of the members contacted by POLITICO provided evidence of consensus-decision-making at FairSearch.