GRANT'S WORLD HISTORY WEBSITE
Current Events News Project
Task:
Working together in a small team, you will read a news article regarding a contemporary global studies issue/topic. Next, your team will communicate the news story to the rest of the class by creating a news broadcast video.
Purpose:
• Meet new classmates
• Work together as a team
• Learn about and research a contemporary news topic
• Improve note-taking, script-writing, speaking, and video production skills
Directions & Timetable (70 mins):
• Find your group and individually, read your assigned article (5 mins.)
• As a group, take notes on the article by answering the following questions (on a provided wksht) (10 mins):
o What is the event?
o When did it occur?
o Where did it occur?
o What is the major issue?
o Who is being affected? How are they being affected?
o What is the conclusion being offered? Suggestions? Next steps?
• As a group, brainstorm ideas of what your news broad cast will look and sound like. For instance, will you have 2 anchor newsman sitting at a desk introducing and concluding the story? With 2 on-site reporters giving details of the event? Will you have an interview with an on-site witness or expert? Will your group re-enact the event? (5 mins.)
• As a group, use your news article worksheet as a script for your video. Be sure your language is news appropriate, i.e., “Good Morning, welcome to Channel 5 news, reporting from Windsor High School, Thank you for joining us and be sure to tune in next time.” Rehearse your news broadcast. Your group will film each other and record it using a phone and a video software program like iMovie. Your video should be 1 min - 1 minute and 30 seconds long. (50 mins.) Once your video is complete, upload it to YouTube. Then, email the video to Ms. Grant: dgrant@ Videos will be played to show the rest of the class.
• Your video should have:
o filming of your group members reporting on the topic
o background music or sound effects
o 3-5 pictures of topic
o some text information to help the audience better understand and enjoy the video
News Article Evaluation Worksheet
What is the event? __________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
When did it occur? __________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Where did it occur? _________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
What is the major issue? ____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
What are the effects? Financial Effects? Health Effects? Environmental effects? Political Effects? Who is being affected? Why should people care about this event? ________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What is the outcome of this event? Conclusion being offered? Suggestions? Next steps?_____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Findings of Police Bias in Baltimore
Validate What Many Have Long Felt,
NY TIMES
SHERYL GAY STOLBERG AUG. 10, 2016
BALTIMORE — As a black man and a lifelong resident of this city, Ray Kelly has been stopped by the police more times than he can count. And as a community organizer who tried to document police bias after the death of Freddie Gray, Mr. Kelly, 45, had always expected that a federal investigation would uncover a pattern of racial discrimination.
Even so, the scathing report that the Justice Department unveiled here on Wednesday — a data-rich indictment of how Baltimore police officers have for years violated the Constitution and federal law by systematically stopping, searching (in some cases strip-searching) and harassing black residents — gave him a jolt.
“Hearing the actual numbers, like on the traffic stops, is blowing my mind,” Mr. Kelly said.
Release of the 163-page report, at a packed City Hall news conference here, was another wrenching moment of self-examination in this majority black city. Even as Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and the police commissioner, Kevin Davis, accepted the findings — both vowed to turn the Baltimore Police Department into a ‘‘model for the nation’’ — there was relief, but also rage and skepticism among black residents here who wondered if anything would change.
“Mere words by officials mean little when it’s people on the ground who are living with these material conditions every day,’’ said the Rev. Heber Brown III, a Baptist pastor who was among a small group of community leaders who met privately last year with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. “From the streets to the suites, everybody is skeptical and furious.’’
In one stark statistic after another, the department’s report helped validate the experiences of Mr. Brown, Mr. Kelly and countless others in poor African-American neighborhoods who regard the police as an occupying force. Many wanted to know what took so long.
In Baltimore, a city that is 63 percent black, the Justice Department found that 91 percent of those arrested on discretionary offenses like “failure to obey” or “trespassing” were African-American. Blacks make up 60 percent of Baltimore’s drivers but account for 82 percent of traffic stops. Of the 410 pedestrians who were stopped at least 10 times in the five and a half years of data reviewed, 95 percent were black.
The report is a first step toward a negotiated settlement, known as a consent decree, in which police training and practices will be overhauled under court supervision. The city has already entered into an ‘‘agreement in principle,’’ the mayor said, adding, “We have a very long journey ahead of us.’’
Mr. Davis, who described himself as “very, very concerned” by the findings, said he had already fired six officers who had engaged in misconduct uncovered by Justice Department investigators.
The report took 14 months; the mayor invited the Justice Department in after the April 2015 death of Mr. Gray, a 25-year-old black man who sustained a fatal spinal cord injury in police custody, set off riots. As the inquiry has progressed, she said, Baltimore has worked closely with the department to change police practices.
City officials have revised 26 policies, she said, including the one governing use of force, and officials are engaged in ‘‘active discussion’’ about giving residents a role in determining how officers are punished — a central demand of civil rights advocates. The city has also retrofitted its transport vans — officials say Mr. Gray was injured while riding unbuckled in a van — and has begun issuing body cameras to officers.
Tensions over race and policing here date to at least 1980, when the N.A.A.C.P. called for a federal investigation into police brutality, and they continued with a crime-fighting strategy known as “zero-tolerance policing,” which was singled out by the Justice Department.
Baltimore is now among nearly two dozen cities that the Obama administration has investigated after they were accused of widespread unconstitutional policing. Once Baltimore reaches a settlement, an overhaul of the Police Department will take years and will cost millions; Ms. Rawlings-Blake and her aides put the price tag at $5 million to $10 million a year for five to 10 years.
Here are the 4 Challenges Rio de Janeiro Must Meet to Host a Successful 2016 Olympics
Anna J. Kaiser/Rio de Janeiro TIME MAGAZINE, April 2nd, 2015
With fewer than 500 days to go before the next Summer Games, Rio faces great problems including crime, pollution and energy
The countdown is on until the 2016 Olympics and Rio de Janeiro is preparing to welcome millions of people from around the world. But in order to succeed as hosts, the Brazilian city — which won the bid to host the Summer Games back in 2009 — must address the social tensions, environmental problems and water crises that threaten to marr the biggest sporting event in the world. Here are four of the main challenges Rio must tackle before the Opening Ceremony.
1. Pollution in Rio’s Guanabara Bay
Guanabara Bay borders Rio de Janeiro’s east side and is the host site for the Olympics’ sailing and windsurfing events. It’s also made international headlines due to its polluted waters, filled with raw sewage and massive amounts of garbage. While part of Rio’s Olympic bid included a promise to clean up the bay by 80 percent, the state environment secretary, Andre Correa, admitted in January that it would not be possible. They’re currently at 49% of their cleanup goal.
Mario Moscatelli, a biologist and outspoken bay advocate, says the state has the technology, time and money to make significant improvements but that politicians are not interested in making it a priority. He believes they never intended to fulfill this promise and tells TIME they “simply lied” to get the Olympic bid.
Mayor Eduardo Paes told CNN last June that pollution doesn’t pose any health risks for the athletes, but Moscatelli thinks otherwise, claiming that sailing in the bay is “like playing Russian roulette.”
“Sailors run the risk of hitting anything from plastic bags to a car bumper, pieces of wood, tires and even furniture,” he warns. “Falling in the water, the sailors could potentially be victims of gastrointestinal infections, mycoses, otitis or hepatitis.”
2. The water and energy crisis
Brazil is suffering from the worst drought in 40 years. The south eastern city of São Paulo has started rationing water and Rio could be next. Making matters worse, Brazil gets about 70 percent of its energy from hydropower. In Brazil, water crisis equals an energy crisis.
The Minister of Mines and Energy, Eduardo Braga, also made a frightening announcement last week: the turbines on Brazil’s principal hydroelectric plants will stop running if water levels dip below 10% capacity. They’re currently at 17%.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the Brazilian government spent $5 billion to subsidize fossil fuels to make up for lost hydroelectric power in the lead up to the 2014 World Cup and may have to do so again for the Olympics.
3. Olympic development is raising social tension
In the informal settlements known as favelas, about 8,000 families have been, or are at risk of, removal from their homes for construction linked to the Olympics and the World Cup, according to a 2014 study done by an activist group, the Popular Committee. While the government has been praised for promising market-rate compensation for those evicted, in practice it seems there is no standard price per square foot. A recent study by MIT reported that government officials go from house to house and negotiate behind closed doors. Residents think this is both an intimidation tactic and has sparked rumors of how much people are receiving.
Meanwhile, the “Olympic Legacy” in Rio has been criticized for serving mostly the interests of the private sector and the wealthy. Olympic sites like the golf course and the Olympic Village will be handed over to private construction firms who plan to build luxury apartments, made possible through a financial model known as Private-Public Partnerships (PPP). PPPs mean that private construction firms are footing 60 percent of the bill for Olympic construction projects. While it saves public money, the construction firms are then able to develop the land for profit. Another report by the Popular Committee describes the PPP model as “the eviction of a low-income community, that the city of Rio has made their priority to remove in order to make room for yet another commercialized project.”
Professor Mauro Kleiman, an urban studies professor at the Federal University of Rio, agrees that the legacy will primarily serve private interests, excluding public transportation projects like the extension of the metro and rapid transit bus lines. “The legacy is [in] the interests of real estate development and the tourism sector,” Kleiman tells TIME. “So far, we’re seeing inflated costs, similar to in Greece [where the 2004 Olympics were held in Athens].”
4. Street crime and public security
While street crime has generally fallen over the last 30 years, Rio has seen a spike in street robberies in recent months, reaching levels not seen since 1991.
In March alone there were seven mass robberies, known as arrastões, in public spaces. Armed robbers assaulted commuters twice in the metro and another group of armed criminals closed off a major tunnel and robbed the stopped cars.
A representative from the Rio State Security Secretary said they are responding by increasing police presence in strategic points throughout the city and pointed out that the city of Rio has held major events like the World Cup and Pope Francis’ visit with no major security incidents.
4 Reasons the War Against ISIS Is Working—and 1 Reason It’s Not
Ian Bremmer May 5, 2016, TIME Magazine
The U.S.-led coalition has had increasing success in the war on ISIS, especially in Iraq and Syria—but the terror organization is regrouping in Libya
ISIS remains the best-funded, best-equipped terrorist organization the world has ever seen. But for the first time since its rise in 2014, real progress is being made against the jihadist group. These five facts explain what you need to know.
1. Finances
ISIS has been an economic juggernaut from the moment it seized Mosul. When the group captured its first wave of Iraqi cities in 2014, it also seized an estimated $700 million in cash, instantly transforming this al-Qaeda offshoot into the world’s richest terrorist organization. By year’s end, ISIS controlled more than $2 trillion in assets and had another $2.9 billion in annual income. Today, ISIS has two main sources of revenue: oil and taxes.
Both are under tremendous strain at the moment—following the Paris attacks, Western coalition forces intensified their air campaign, targeting not just their oil infrastructure, but also banks and warehouses filled with cash. At the same time, the Iraqi government has stopped paying government workers in ISIS-controlled cities, including Mosul. That move deprives ISIS of nearly $2 billion in annual revenue, forcing the group to slash salaries for its fighters and impose harsh new taxes on those unfortunate enough to live under its rule.
2. Territory
Nevertheless, ISIS still has hundreds of millions at its disposal, including 60 percent of Syria’s oil wells and 5 percent of Iraq’s. But that number is shrinking along with the territory it controls. The sustained international offensive has cost ISIS 40 percent of its territory over the last year, a welcome sign of progress for the coalition. It’s particularly noticeable in Iraq, where the Iraqi military was able to recapture the city of Ramadi and push the Islamic State back towards the Syrian border. Syria has proven trickier, which is not surprising given the wide range of international actors (and conflicting interests) involved. Still, progress is progress. IHS now estimates that the number of people living under ISIS control has fallen from 9 million to 6 million over the past 15 months, shrinking the caliphate’s overtaxed base even further.
3. Foreign fighters
The recent progress of anti-ISIS forces have also reduced the jihadi group’s foreign recruitment numbers. At its height, ISIS is believed to have rallied 30,000+ foreign fighters from more than 100 countries to its cause, six thousand of whom travelled to Iraq and Syria from Western countries. That number has reportedly fallen as low as 19,000 today. But the true measure isn’t the absolute number of foreign fighters ISIS controls but its recruitment rate: according to the Pentagon, a year ago ISIS was averaging roughly 2,000 new foreign fighters a month. Today that figure is at 200, which means ISIS can’t replace battlefield losses as quickly. One critical reason is that ISIS’s self-narrative of an inexorable march towards a global caliphate has lost much of its force, given recent developments. Another is that the anti-ISIS coalition has become much more effective at limiting the reach of ISIS propaganda.
4. Social media
ISIS’ deft use of social media caught the world off guard in 2014. ISIS wasn’t the first global terrorist group to come of age in the internet era, but it was the first to so effectively harness its power. It took some time, but tech companies have finally taken a more aggressive and effective approach, spearheaded by Twitter, which has pulled down more than 125,000 accounts for promoting terrorist activities in less than a year. They’ve been aided by hacker collectives like Anonymous and CtrlSec; CtrlSec alone identified nearly 120,000 Twitter accounts with ties to ISIS.
The U.S. government has also tried to take a more tactical approach to combating ISIS propaganda online, establishing the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. After a few false starts, the government realized that U.S.-branded messages were falling on deaf ears and decided to spend more money providing “seed funding and other support to NGOs and media startups focused on countering violent extremist messaging.” Turns out the messenger is often as important as the message itself.
5. Problems ahead
But troubles still loom. When we talk about ISIS today, we tend to focus on the core fighters who control territory in Iraq and Syria. But as its grip on those two countries weakens, it has begun to shift attention to neighboring countries across North Africa and the Middle East. Of particular concern is Libya, which has seen a marked uptick in foreign fighters—approximately 5,000—according to U.S. officials. In the first three months of 2016, there have been nearly as many ISIS attacks in Libya than the last six months of 2015. And as its control over Iraq and Syria weakens, the group has become even more violent within its own confines, registering more attacks in the first quarter of 2016 than any other three-month span since it stormed to power in 2014.
Even more concerning is the Islamic State’s global reach; it’s estimated that anywhere between 20-30 percent of foreign fighters have returned to their home countries, posing threats in new places. The group also has more than 30 affiliate groups around the world, the most visible of which is Nigeria’s Boko Haram. But there is little evidence that the central authorities in Iraq and Syria have provided much material support to its affiliates, meaning that these groups are financially independent. Taking out ISIS in Syria and Iraq will do little to materially weaken these groups, while giving them more motivation to step up their own acts of terror and fill the void.
Progress is being made in the battle against ISIS. But the war still has ways to go.
On National Security | Bring sanity to the Space Force debate? That would be boring
by Sandra Erwin — August 5, 2018
“On National Security” appears in every issue of SpaceNews magazine. This column ran in the July 30, 2018 issue.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Celebrity astrophysicist (and member of the Defense Innovation Board) Neil deGrasse Tyson recently told that the idea of a U.S. Space Force isn’t crazy or particularly new. It does generate a strong reaction, however, because people associate it with President Trump.
Tyson supports having a separate military branch for space. Among other reasons, a Space Force one day might be needed to save the planet. “What happens when the next asteroid comes to take us out? I want the Space Force to bat that thing out of harm’s way.”
So this is what it’s come to.
Since Trump ordered the Pentagon to create a Space Force, the topic has captured the public’s imagination while Washington policy wonks and defense insiders struggle to explain exactly what a space force is or what it will do.
Tyson’s crack about the Space Force one day preventing Armageddon illustrates why Trump’s directive has thrown the Defense Department — and especially the Air Force — for a loop.
“It is sucking a lot of bandwidth inside the Pentagon,” said an industry consultant who works with space industry contractors. At a recent Washington gathering, the confusion was palpable. Even space enthusiasts don’t understand what the debate is really about. Some actually wonder if the Space Force will one day fight alien civilizations in Battlestar Galactica. Most people seem to believe this was Trump’s idea, while in reality it has been talked about a lot for years, and proposed in legislation that the House passed in 2017 but the Senate voted down.
The actual process of breaking off a piece of the Air Force and turning it into a Space Force is not very exciting. “It’s organizational, resource driven,” the consultant said. “It’s not Trump militarizing space, which is what people are inclined to think.” The day-to-day duties of the Space Force will be performed mostly on the ground, monitoring satellites, preventing spacecraft from colliding with debris and other functions that the Air Force has performed quietly for decades.
Just cataloging what the Air Force currently does in space — and how much it costs — has become a major assignment that is draining a lot of energy out of the building. But these are the initial steps that are required in order to start reorganizing the military as Trump directed.
Congress has the final word, however, as it has the legal authority to organize and equip the military. A House-Senate conference report for the fiscal year 2019 defense policy bill does not mention the Space Force. Many in Congress support it but more time will be needed to go through the sausage-making process. And by most accounts it’s going to be a long haul. “We are in month one of 24 to 36 months of debate,” the consultant said.
Former Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the Pentagon will need to provide a lot of data and options to the president and Congress. The Air Force in the past has fought back against attempts to break it up but it is now in a corner. “This was not coordinated,” James said. “This was very personal to the president, this is his style, he seizes the moment, makes news, and takes his own team by surprise.”
Many in the Air Force leadership are not happy about all the disruption but will soldier on. They really don’t have much of a choice, said James. “They value their jobs and want to continue in their current capacities. They need to somehow make this real.”
Sandra Erwin covers military space for SpaceNews. She is a veteran national security journalist and former editor of National Defense magazine.
Humans are pushing the Earth closer to a climate cliff
A new study examines potential climate feedbacks that could push Earth into a ‘hothouse’ state
John Abraham
Wed 15 Aug 2018 06.00 EDT
Last modified on Wed 15 Aug 2018 06.02 EDT
A melt pond on Arctic sea ice in the Central Arctic. Photograph: Stefan Hendricks/Alfred-Wegener-/PA
A new paper, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has received a lot of media attention. The attention is justified because the paper paints a very grim picture of the climate and what humans may be doing to it. In particular, the authors of this study tried to determine the trajectory that the Earth is on so we can predict what the future climate will be.
There are many really important insights from this paper. The authors wanted to know how feedbacks in the Earth’s climate will play a role in shaping the climate in the future. By feedbacks, we mean a change in one part of the climate that then causes another change, which in turn may cause another change, and so on, potentially setting up chain reactions.
Feedbacks are really important because they are changes that the natural system makes without being caused directly by humans.
For example, melting ice is one feedback, particularly in the Arctic. Humans have emitted greenhouse gases that have caused the Earth to warm. As the Earth warms, ice melts; as ice melts, it means there is less white reflective cover on the Earth surface. In fact, a lot of this ice melting is happening in the Arctic. Instead of having a white surface that reflects sunlight, we have open ocean water that absorbs sunlight. Consequently, melting of ice leads to more absorbed sunlight which then leads to more melting of ice – a reinforcing cycle, as illustrated below.
Melting ice positive feedback cycle diagram. Illustration: John Abraham
Activating one of these cycles is bad news for a few reasons. First, it takes away a lot of control of the Earth’s climate from us. Right now, humans control the climate through our emissions of greenhouse gases. But once these cycles get activated, the Earth’s climate will partially control itself. That means it will be harder to stop the warming process.
The second reason this is bad news is that many of the cycles are linked together. For instance, the feedback cycle shown above might be strong enough to activate another cycle (for example, melting of permafrost and release of trapped methane). So, you can’t look at these feedbacks in isolation. You have to consider how they behave as a group.
The image below is taken from the paper. It shows 15 different feedback cycles. They are colored by the temperature at which they will be triggered. For instance, the authors believe the Greenland ice sheet will be activated when temperatures rise 1–3°C. The East Antarctic ice sheet however, shown at the bottom, will be activated once temperatures rise by 5°C or more.
The various feedbacks also have connecting arrows to show how they are interrelated. For instance, there is an arrow connecting the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic summer sea ice. This means the two feedbacks affect each other.
Map of potential tipping cascades. Illustration: Steffen et al. 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
This image is really important for understanding why scientists are so worried. Consider the summer Arctic sea ice. We know that it has decreased by about 70% in volume and perhaps 50% or so in area. Loss of Arctic sea ice will affect the Greenland Ice Sheet. That in turn will affect the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
It doesn’t stop there; both of these affect the thermohaline circulation which would be activated at a higher temperature threshold. Finally, all of these (Greenland, West Antarctica, and the thermohaline circulation) affect the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Melting of that ice sheet would be devastating to the entire globe. We see how a change that started with Arctic ice has spread, through these interconnections, to the South Pole.
A couple of things to note. First, we don’t actually know when these various feedbacks will be “tipped.” Scientists have educated guesses, but we really are not certain. Also, we don’t know how long they will take to tip. As an example, let’s say we pass the tipping point for a collapse of the Amazon Rainforest. That doesn’t mean it will die off immediately, but it means its death is likely or certain. But how long will it take? Years? Decades? We can make estimates, but that is what they are – estimates. We know that some feedbacks will take a long time to complete, even after we pass the point of no return. For example, the East Antarctica Ice Sheet will take centuries to melt.
But with these caveats, it just means humans should be more focused on taking action now to avoid triggering the tipping points. We don’t know where they are so let’s be safe and stay far away. The problem is, humans collectively are not doing enough. My country specifically is the world’s worst when it comes to pushing us over these tipping points. There still is time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But, it is far too late to avoid all climate change – it is already here. What we are hoping for now is enough wisdom and will to at least stop short of going off these cliffs.
HuffPost, POLITICS 07/27/2018 03:07 pm ET Updated Jul 28, 2018
The Mueller Investigation, Explained. Here’s Your Guide To The Trump-Russia Probe.
Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian
interference in the 2016 campaign can be a lot to keep up with.
By Ryan J. Reilly
ILLUSTRATION: DAMON DAHLEN/HUFFPOST; PHOTOS: GETTY IMAGES
Special counsel Robert Mueller, center, is looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election. It’s been alleged that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to tip the scales toward a Donald Trump victory.
Let’s start at the top. When did this Trump-Russia investigation begin?
Two years, or roughly a million news cycles ago, give or take. The FBI’s original Trump-Russia investigation got underway in the summer before the 2016 campaign, though the public wasn’t really aware of it then. (In contrast to the extremely public FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, the bureau followed protocol and never publicly acknowledged that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was under investigation for its ties to a hostile foreign government.)
The little reporting on the probe at the time underplayed the gravity of the investigation. Not long before the election, The New York Times said in a piece titled “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” that investigators had not “found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
It wasn’t until long after Trump’s election that then-FBI Director James Comey in March 2017 publicly confirmed the bureau’s investigation of connections between Trump associates and the Russian government. The Times later admitted that its pre-election story “gave an air of finality to an investigation that was just beginning” and buried the key fact of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s Russia ties.
When and why did Robert Mueller get involved in all this?
In May 2017, Trump fired Comey, and said a day later that Russia was on his mind when he made the decision. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was overseeing the Russia probe at the time because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigations involving the Trump campaign (Sessions’ recusal decision came amid public pressure over his failure to disclose that he met with the Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign).
With the bureau in turmoil over Comey’s firing, Rosenstein named Robert Swan Mueller III (aka “Bobby Three Sticks”) as special counsel on May 17, 2017. That day, Mueller issued the only public statement he’s issued since he took the job: “I accept this responsibility and will discharge it to the best of my ability.”
Rosenstein said at the time that his decision was based on the unique circumstances of the situation. He said that the “public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”
Hold on, didn’t Rosenstein have something to do with Comey’s firing?
Yup. Rosenstein, at Trump’s request, wrote a legal memo that made the case for Comey’s firing. Ironically, while Trump long insisted that Comey went too easy on Hillary Clinton, Rosenstein’s case was that Comey’s public declarations about the Clinton email investigation during the 2016 campaign were unfair and violated Justice Department protocol. It probably didn’t matter a ton, because Trump said he was going to fire Comey no matter what Rosenstein’s letter said. But that was the official story the White House tried selling: that Trump fired Comey because he was unfair to Clinton. Rosenstein, meanwhile, was reportedly upset that the White House cast him as the guy who instigated Comey’s firing.
What’s Robert Mueller’s job?
Rosenstein’s memo tasked Mueller with investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
So what is a special counsel, anyway?
A lot like a regular prosecutor, but they have a bit more independence from the normal chain of command. Federal regulations say that a special counsel can be appointed if there’s a conflict of interest or there are “extraordinary circumstances.”
A special counsel isn’t the same as an independent counsel, the type of investigation aimed at former President Bill Clinton. The independent counsel statute expired in 1999, and a special counsel isn’t quite as independent as an independent counsel. Mueller, as special counsel, reports to Rosenstein. But the special counsel regulations don’t allow Mueller to be fired as special counsel without good cause.
So how much has the Mueller investigation cost?
Roughly $7.7 million as of March 31. That’s around what the federal government spends in a typical minute. The Justice Department’s budget for 2018 was $28.1 billion.
What’s Mueller got to show for it?
A whole bunch of indictments and several guilty pleas. Mueller’s team has been involved in indicting 32 people and three Russian companies. Mueller’s team has secured the indictments of four Trump campaign officials: Paul Manafort, Richard Gates, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn. All but Manafort have reached plea deals. One of Manafort’s two trials (it’s complicated) is set to begin later this month.
The majority of those charged in the Mueller probe ― 26 Russian nationals ― are unlikely to show up in an American court anytime soon. But two major indictments this year offered an outline of major Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.
So what did Trump know about all this? And what about the allegation that Trump obstructed justice?
What exactly Trump knew about Russian efforts to undermine the 2016 election is still an open question. Trump, of course, has long insisted there was “no collusion” while also routinely rejecting or undercutting the intelligence community’s universal consensus that Russia was behind the 2016 interference.
But it’s been clear for months that Mueller’s team has been more focused on the question of obstruction. The obstruction case against Trump would center on his alleged attempt to intervene in the Flynn case, his decision to fire Comey and his attempts to get Sessions to reverse his recusal. Mueller’s team even laid out for Trump’s lawyers some of the questions they’d want to ask.
We know Mueller wants to talk to Trump, and Trump has said he welcomes the interview. His legal team is less excited, though. It seems increasingly unlikely that the interview will take place. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently said that the legal team wasn’t willing to let Trump answer questions about obstruction of justice. They believe that Trump has the power under Article II of the Constitution to appoint and dismiss members of his administration, so he shouldn’t be questioned about his hiring and firing decisions.
HOW’S THIS ALL GONNA END?
Probably not with an indictment of the president, even if Mueller’s team thinks Trump committed a crime. The Justice Department’s view has long been that a president can’t be indicted while in office. There’s some disagreement in legal circles, but Mueller is a by-the-book kind of guy, and there’s little chance he’d break from precedent, even if he thinks Trump broke the law. Plus, the president’s lawyers claimed Mueller’s investigators told them directly that they won’t indict the president.
Well, what’s Mueller’s team going to do then?
Mueller’s team could write a report about the president’s conduct and send it to Congress to potentially be used in impeachment proceedings. Or they could list Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator in court documents. Sending a report to Congress seems more likely. It’s unclear what form that report would take.
But will Congress impeach Trump?
Certainly not as long as it’s under Republican control. You can’t even find many Republican members of Congress willing to say they’d impeach Trump if he pardoned himself. Democrats, too, have been wary of talking too much about impeaching Trump. Ultimately the makeup of Congress after the midterm election and the timing of the Mueller report ― if he issues one ― will be pretty crucial to how this all ends.
-----------------------
A young man rests next to a destroyed house at the shanty town Vila Autodromo, which is located close to the Olympic Park built for the Olym楰慇敭楒〲㘱湩删潩搠慊敮物Ɐ䈠慲楺ⱬ漠䄠牰汩㈠⸵牉煡潧敶湲敭瑮映牯散慷敶琠敨物渠瑡潩慮汦条湯䴠牡档ㄠⰰ㈠‶晡整敲慴楫杮琠敨琠睯景娠湡畫慲潮瑲睨獥⁴景删浡摡Ⱪ映潲桴獉慬業瑓瑡䤨⥓樠桩摡獩⁴牧畯pic Games Rio 2016, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 01 April 2015.
Iraqi government forces wave their national flags on March 10, 2016 after retaking the town of Zankura, northwest of Ramadi, from the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group in Anbar province. Iraqi forces retook a town from the Islamic State jihadist group in Anbar province Thursday and evacuated 10,000 civilians as they advanced up the Euphrates valley, a security spokesman said. The sprawling province of Anbar -- which borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- was at the heart of the "caliphate" that IS proclaimed in 2014. The jihadist group still holds most of the province but the noose is tightening around some of its key bastions. / AFP / MOADH AL-DULAIMI (Photo credit should read MOADH AL-DULAIMI/AFP/Getty Images)
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.