Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Disbands Business Councils as More CEOs Quit

After President Trump seemed to defend white nationalists regarding the violence in Charlottesville, even more former allies are turning their backs on him. Yesterday, he closed down two business advisory councils as many CEOs quit in response to the president’s comments. The Strategy & Policy Forum and the Manufacturing Council are now disbanded. “Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville,” said the CEO of Campbell Soup, Denise Morrison, as she resigned from the Manufacturing Council. Trump announced the disbandings on Twitter, even though the councils had reportedly decided to call it quits internally before that.

Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017

Trump’s blaming of “both sides” also caused military officials and Republicans to issue their own statements condemning the alt-right violence and distancing themselves from the president. Even Fox News hosts criticized him in some broadcasts and revealed that they hadn’t found a single Republican to come on air in defense of Trump.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is “Thankful” to Putin for Expelling U.S. Diplomats From Russia

Late last month, President Vladimir Putin decided to expel 775 U.S. diplomats and staffers from the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Russia. Yesterday, President Donald Trump commented on that decision for the first time. Trump said that he is very thankful to Putin for helping him cut down the payroll and that it was great that he let “a large number of people” go. “There’s no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We’re going to save a lot of money,” he said. Some people thought it was a way to troll Putin.

I get it! Trump’s using reverse psychology on Putin … as some 2nd grade teachers do. Certain to work on a KGB trained killler/dictator. https://t.co/J6v5HY3h06

— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) August 11, 2017

But Trump was not clear on whether he was actually joking, and a lot of people were baffled that the president took the increased tensions with Russia so lightly, as well as hundreds of people losing their jobs. Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was not entertained and pointed out that the diplomatic staff in Russia provides the U.S. with invaluable information about the country, which is an incredibly important function.

Imagine wanting to know less about Russia’s military modernization! That’s what Trump praised today. https://t.co/qMorkknjhU

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 10, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As part of the Treaty on Open Skies, an international program aimed at transparency between allies, a Russian plane scanned much of Washington D.C., including the White House, Capitol, and Pentagon, yesterday, alongside American representatives.

The Treaty on Open Skies is an agreement signed in 1992 between 34 nations that allows them to go on unarmed flights in secure air territory with a representative from the nation they are observing. Countries party to the agreement include Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other smaller nations, according to the U.S. State Department. While Russia and the United States have a quota of 42 for observation flights, the smallest nations are only allowed a few opportunities.

The Capitol Police kept tabs on the Russian plane and U.S. military airmen were onboard with the Russians to make sure everything was okay, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier on Wednesday morning the Capitol Police released an alert that an “authorized low-altitude aircraft” would be flying in restricted airspace between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and would potentially fly directly above government buildings. The airspace around Washington D.C. and its suburbs is the most restricted region in the country, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plan for the Russian plane was to take a tour of various Trump properties including his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNN. Trump is currently on vacation at the course for 17 days and had been there for 11 days before this trip began on Monday, according to TrumpGolfCount.com.

While the ride was certainly legal, some felt that Russia may be taking advantage of the treaty. Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been voicing concerns for over a year now. Last year Stewart met with the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee and said he would “love” to potentially deny future Russian expeditions in American airspace, according to the Washington Post.

“The things that you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing, allows Russia, in my opinion, to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities,” Stewart said in March 2016. “So from my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage.”

Despite those concerns, the Trump Administration has continued to be reluctant to be stern with Russia in either rhetoric or actions.

Navy Captain Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of the program in response to Stewart’s comments. Despite the increased American anxiety regarding diplomatic ties with Russia, Davis sees no legitimate reason to renege on a 25-year-old treaty.

“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Plane Surveys Washington as Part of Open Skies Treaty appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Putin Reacts to New American Sanctions

At the end of last week, Congress passed a bill that would levy sanctions on Russia for its involvement in the 2016 election-related hacking, as well as its annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Donald Trump has indicated he will sign it–although even if he chose to veto it, it appears that Congress has the votes to override his veto. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded to the measures yesterday, ordering a reduction of U.S. diplomatic staff by 755. That would bring American staff to 455 at all the diplomatic missions across Russia. Russia is also seizing some American property in the country.

The Russian government says that the affected diplomats must leave the country by September 1, although State Department numbers indicate that many of the people working at diplomatic missions in Russia are local hires, meaning they’ll likely just be let go. Tensions with Russia have been on a bit of a roller coaster of late–Trump’s staff has been accused of colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. But, Putin has said that he doesn’t see relations changing “anytime soon.”

Putin said Russia had run out of patience waiting for relations with the United States to improve https://t.co/pUzx6nZZYb

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 31, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry apparently spent 22 minutes on the phone last week discussing international energy issues with someone who he believed was Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman. Unfortunately for Perry, the call was a prank from Russian jokesters posing as Groysman. They discussed, among other topics, a fuel that is made from home-brewed alcohol and pig manure.

Perry was duped by Vladimir “Vovan” Kuznetsov and Alexei “Lexus” Stolyarov, who are known for pranking high-profile celebrities. Perry and the duo talked via a translator so the American politician was convinced the man he was corresponding with was Groysman. Besides the alternative fuel, Perry discussed underwater pipelines for gas, cyber attacks on America, natural gas in Ukraine, and even the Paris Accords, according to Bloomberg.

“Our position is that it’s our record that should be looked at, not whether or not we have signed onto some international accord,” Perry said. “We see our record of progress relative to the global environment to be substantially defensible.”

The pair even inquired if Ukraine could strike a deal on American coal exports, to which Perry responded that negotiations are always possible.

(FYI: the entire conversation was uploaded to a Russian video streaming site and can be found here.)

The prank phone call was first reported by E&E News. After the hoax was discovered, Perry’s office commented on the matter in an email to the Washington Post:

Secretary Perry is the latest target of two Russian pranksters.These individuals are known for pranking high-level officials and celebrities, particularly those who are supportive of an agenda that is not in line with their governments.

The duo, known as the “Jerky Boys of Russia,” claims to have pranked celebrities such as Elton John, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and John McCain, but rumor-debunking site Snopes notes that while some instances are true, such as McCain’s call, others remain unverified.

The situation is perhaps even more confusing since Perry and Groysman met in person just last month. On June 20, Perry hosted Groysman and his entourage at the Department of Energy office in Washington D.C., according to the Washington Post. So when Perry’s office received a call requesting a follow-up conversation, they assumed it was the Prime Minister. Instead it was the young Russians scheduling their prank.

After serving as governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015, Perry was the second contestant eliminated on ABC’s “Dancing With The Stars,” (though it’s debatable how much of a star Perry really is.) Besides competing on the reality show, Perry has famously been pretty gaffe-prone throughout his career. During a Republican Presidential Debate in 2011 Perry forgot which government agencies he vowed to abolish. Then, in 2013 Perry was giving a speech in New Orleans when he mistakenly said he was in Florida.

Perry has the political resume to lead the Department of Energy, but these juvenile gaffes should worry some Americans as we enter an era in our country where the debate over climate change is fierce. Citizens can only hope that mistakes like these don’t eventually endanger American interests at home or abroad when it comes to the energy sector.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rick Perry Tricked by Russian Pranksters appeared first on Law Street.

The Treasury Department fined Exxon Mobil $2 million on Thursday for signing business deals in 2014 with a Russian oil magnate who had been blacklisted under U.S. sanctions. Exxon, which at the time of the sanctions breach was led by now-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, immediately responded by filing a lawsuit against the Treasury Department.

“OFAC seeks to retroactively enforce a new interpretation of an executive order that is inconsistent with the explicit and unambiguous guidance from the White House and Treasury,” Exxon said in a statement, referring to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Treasury Department’s sanctions enforcement agency.

According to OFAC, Exxon subsidiaries signed eight legal documents with Igor Sechin, president of Russia’s state-owned energy conglomerate Rosneft. While Rosneft had not been sanctioned as part of the U.S. punishment for Russia’s seizure of Crimea and incursion in Ukraine in 2014, Sechin had been individually blacklisted. That meant U.S. entities were barred from doing business directly with him.

In Exxon’s complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in Texas, the company called the penalty “unlawful.” Exxon argued OFAC’s enforcement of the sanctions, implemented by the Obama Administration in April 2014 is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.” The lawsuit also alleges that the penalty denies Exxon its due process.

In a release announcing the lawsuit against OFAC, Exxon pointed to a White House fact sheet published in 2014. The fact sheet said the purpose of blacklisting individuals was to target “personal assets, but not companies that they may manage on behalf of the Russian state.”

Effectively, the oil giant contends, doing business with Rosneft had never been illegal, and so dealing with Sechin in his capacity of its top representative should be permitted. The Treasury Department disagreed, saying there is no “exception or carve-out for the professional conduct of designated or blocked persons.”

Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO at the time of its alleged sanctions violation, and, during an annual meeting, said he did not support sanctions “unless they are very well implemented.” In January, during Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearing, his past with Exxon and its extensive dealings in Russia raised concerns that he would be partial in dealing with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

But in his short tenure as America’s top diplomat, Tillerson has worked to keep the sanctions against Russia in place. Earlier this month, in a visit to Ukraine, Tillerson said the sanctions “will remain in place until Moscow reverses the actions that triggered these particular sanctions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Exxon Fined $2 Million for Violating Sanctions During Tillerson’s Tenure appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Pardon Me?

As the investigation into the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia continues to heat up, Trump has reportedly asked for more information about the power of his presidential pardon. Specifically, he has asked about the power he has to pardon his aides, family members, and even himself.

In 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explained that Nixon could not pardon himself. https://t.co/KKfSVe3Vzx

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) July 21, 2017

He has also asked questions about the reach of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. According to the New York Times, Trump’s team has been looking into whether it’s possible to fire Mueller or some members of his staff. Trump claims that Mueller should not be looking into any issues other than the allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. That worry isn’t without precedent. Kenneth Starr’s investigation into former President Bill Clinton’s land deals in Arkansas eventually led to his impeachment after it was discovered he had lied about an affair. But many point to Trump’s shakiness when it comes to Mueller as evidence that his team is increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of scrutiny placed on the president.

Bonus: for more info on what a presidential pardon actually is, check out Law Street’s explainer.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Russia is all over the news right now, and given that art imitates life, you’d think that we’d start to see this national concern spill over into our box offices any day. But the opposite phenomenon may be taking place–studios are reportedly writing Vladimir Putin storylines out of their movies. The studios are apparently concerned that they will fall victim to hacking if they insert the Russian leader into their films.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, two movies in particular have gotten this type of editing. “Red Sparrow,” which stars Jennifer Lawrence and is slated to come out next March, is based on a book that features Putin quite heavily. Although the screenplay went through a number of revisions, the Putin character was dropped and never brought back. There’s also “Kursk,” which tells the true story of a Russian submarine that sank in 2000. Despite the fact that Putin appeared in the book on which the movie will be based, and earlier drafts of the screenplay, he’s missing from the movie itself.

The fears of hacking are by no means unfounded. In 2014, Sony released “The Interview,” which poked quite a bit of fun at North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Sony was hacked, and in the months that followed, thousands of emails and other files containing confidential information were leaked. North Korea is widely believed to have been behind the attack. It’s safe to assume that Russia has hacking capabilities that are the very least on par with those of North Korea.

Of course, Russia claims that the whole controversy is silly. According to the Russian-government controlled Sputnik News, the Kremlin doesn’t care about Hollywood depictions of Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the news service, “We do not know anything about these movies. We do not know, who is filming them and what they are about. It is not our topic.” Since that’s pretty tough to believe, it makes sense that movie studios aren’t taking any chances.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Putin Storylines Cut from Movies Out of Hacking Fears appeared first on Law Street.

It’s fair to question exactly how fidget spinners have become so popular. But one Russian TV network has taken it a little farther–and recently accused the popular toys of becoming a threat to national security.

A news report on the state-owned network Rossiya 24 claimed that opposition politician Aleksei A. Navalny is using fidget spinners to influence young people and raise money for his campaign. Navalny has been the target of repeated attacks and arrests, as he is determined to run against President Vladimir Putin in the general election next year.

“It is a mystery why it has become so popular in Russia right now. Who is promoting this to the masses so actively?” A reporter for the network said. But the implied suspect seemed to be either Navalny or America.

The reporter explained that a video blogger was selling fidget spinners at one of the recent anticorruption protests that Navalny inspired, under a banner that said “Spinners from Navalny.” The reporter also pointed out that the packaging of a spinner bought in Moscow only had instructions in English. “Not a word in Russian!” he exclaimed.

State-run news outlets in Russia said fidget spinners might be an American plot to “zombify” young Russians https://t.co/do0zuZ44oX

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 19, 2017

One editor of a pro-government news site commented on Rossiya 24’s story, saying, “those who understand political technologies, they understand very clearly that this simple thing is controlling the masses.”

Another report on the same network claimed that the spinners can hypnotize and “zombify” people, effectively manipulating their behavior. The TV network even interviewed a psychologist, Svetlana Filatova, who said that the spinners dull people’s minds and warned that if you focus on one it will take “you to a different world.”

These recent reports prompted Russia’s consumer protection agency to launch an investigation into the little toys that were originally designed to help children focus.

“There has been an aggressive promotion of so-called spinners among children and teenagers in Russia recently,” the agency said, and added that it would study the effects the gadgets have on children, including any negative ones.

On Tuesday, Navalny posted a video of himself using a fidget spinner while waiting for the verdict at one of his trials back in May. But that move seems more like a tongue-in-cheek mocking of the Russian government than a call to arms for revolutionaries.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Thinks Fidget Spinners Are Part of the Opposition’s Plot to “Zombify” People appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted screenshots of his email conversations regarding efforts to set up a meeting with a “Russian government attorney” in June 2016. His tweets came after The New York Times told him that it was about to publish an article detailing the contents of the emails. Trump Jr. declined to comment and instead tweeted a brief statement along with the screenshots, saying he was posting them “in order to be totally transparent.”

The emails show how Trump Jr. was approached by Rob Goldstone, a British publicist and former tabloid reporter, to set up a meeting. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, the son of a Moscow real estate tycoon.

Here’s my statement and the full email chain pic.twitter.com/x050r5n5LQ

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 11, 2017

Agalarov’s father, Aras, and Donald Trump cooperated back in 2013 to bring the Miss Universe contest to Russia. Their families befriended each other, and the younger Agalarov featured Donald Trump in one of his music videos. The Agalarov family also has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the email to Trump Jr., Goldstone wrote that Emin Agalarov said that his father had met the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” and claimed to have damaging information on Hillary Clinton, which could be useful for his father’s presidential campaign. “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” Goldstone wrote. “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer,” was Trump Jr.’s reply.

After some back and forth, the meeting was set for June 9 in Trump Tower. Trump Jr. brought Paul Manafort, his father’s campaign chairman at the time, and Jared Kushner, his brother-in-law who remains a close advisor to his father, to the meet with the Russian attorney. Goldstone even checked in at Trump Tower on Facebook before the meeting.

You have to love that Rob Goldstone wrote an email saying the Russian gov wants to help beat Hillary and then checked in for the meeting pic.twitter.com/Ajg1NWHciA

— Josh Schwerin (@JoshSchwerin) July 11, 2017

What exactly happened at the meeting remains unclear. Trump Jr. claimed that the attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, only wanted to talk about adoption policies. The day after, when The New York Times contacted him again to say it was about to publish a second article, he changed his account.

Trump Jr. then said he only knew that he was meeting a woman who claimed to have information that would be helpful to his father’s campaign, but said he didn’t know her name beforehand. He also said that she didn’t have any valuable information after all.

A spokesperson for Vladimir Putin said that the Kremlin had no knowledge of the meeting and does he know Veselnitskaya.

On Tuesday morning, Veselnitskaya defended herself on NBC and said she never had any damaging information about Clinton. She denied having any ties to the Kremlin and said that the conversation with Trump Jr. was about the Magnitsky Act–a law that imposed sanctions on Russian officials who have committed human rights violations.

In retaliation for the law, the Kremlin stopped allowing the adoption of Russian children by American parents. Veselnitskaya is reportedly known for having well-connected clients and has aggressively lobbied against the Magnitsky Act in the past. According to Veselnitskaya, the Trump team may have wanted info on Clinton “so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.”

No matter what was said at the meeting, and whether or not the information was useful, the emails show that Donald Trump Jr. was fully aware that he was meeting with someone who he was told was a representative of the Russian government, which also wanted to help to get his father elected.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emails Show Trump Jr. Sought Information From Russian Government During Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Donald Trump Jr. Met With Russian Lawyer Who Offered Damaging Info on Clinton

Over the weekend, news broke that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, who promised him damaging information about Hillary Clinton during last year’s campaign. Donald Trump’s then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort also attended the meeting, as did Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The meeting reportedly took place at Trump Tower on June 2016, only two weeks after Trump became the Republican nominee. Despite a long period of accusations and speculation of collusion with Russia, this is the first confirmed private meeting between people in Trump’s inner circle and someone connected to the Russian government.

So. We’ve learned unequivocally that Trump Jr. acted on behalf of the campaign and that they were willing to get materials from Russia.

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 10, 2017

It is unclear what exactly went down at the meeting. But when Trump Jr. was first asked about it, he said they mainly discussed adoptions of Russian children. When asked again, after the New York Times had published a second story, he changed his account and claimed that he met the lawyer after an acquaintance requested it, and that she claimed to have information that people with links to Russia were funding Clinton’s campaign. The information was “vague, ambiguous and made no sense,” Trump Jr. said. This morning, Moscow denied knowing anything about the meeting.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump tweeted that apparently “everyone” is talking about John Podesta and why he “refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and CIA” at the G-20 summit in Hamburg. His comment seemed peculiar, given that the world’s leaders probably had more pressing issues to discuss, like climate change and international terrorism.

It’s not clear whether any G-20 leaders actually did talk about John Podesta. But later in the day, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman hit back on Twitter and called the president a “whack job.”

1/ On a x-country road trip with my wife;

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

3/ Get a grip man, the Russians committed a crime when they stole my emails to help get you elected President.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Podesta wrote that the Russians hacked his email to get Trump elected. It seemed like Trump conflated that hack with the DNC one, although they were two separate incidents. Podesta also pointed out to Trump that he didn’t even work for the DNC.

5/ BTW, I had nothing to do with the DNC.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

7/7 Dude, get your head in the game. You’re representing the US at the G20.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) July 7, 2017

Other lawmakers commented on the president’s tweet as well. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote, “Yes, I’m sure that’s the big talk at G-20. Not climate change or trade, but why didn’t John Podesta give a server that wasn’t his to the CIA.”

Others said it was a diversionary tactic, so people wouldn’t talk about his meeting with Putin. And some just thought it was a “very 2017” moment.

2017 got Podesta saying dude on the internet https://t.co/LPYpk3OuIQ

— Rebecca Nesi (@rebecca_nesi) July 7, 2017

A lot of people on social media questioned why Trump brought up the 2016 election at all when he is at the G-20, as well as the fact that he tweeted those comments shortly before his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Exactly what Trump and Putin talked about during that meeting we don’t know, but according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump did bring up the hacking of the 2016 U.S. election more than once. The meeting was supposed to take 30 minutes but reportedly lasted for over two hours.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Podesta Replies to Trump’s Tweets: “Get a Grip Man” appeared first on Law Street.

As the civil war in Syria has escalated, American, Saudi Arabian, and Russian interests have played increasingly larger roles. The Obama Administration adopted the stance, shared by the majority of the U.N., that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of human rights violations and must be removed from power. Russia, on the other hand, has long been an ally of Syria, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported Assad throughout the conflict. This has led to what is in part a proxy war, with Syrian rebels that have been trained and armed by Saudi and American militaries fighting against Assad’s forces, which are armed with Russian weapons and drive Russian tanks. Amid this turmoil has been the growing power of ISIS, opposed in different ways by both the United States and Russia.

As the war has carried on, it has grown increasingly bloody. By the end of 2015, the war had claimed a staggering 470,000 Syrian lives, representing a loss of 11.5 percent of the nation’s population. Even among the survivors, the damage to Syrian national security has been extreme; over half of the nation’s population has been displaced by the war. The Syrian conflict is vast and extremely complicated and both Russia and the U.S. have numerous reasons for their involvement.

However, it’s imperative to analyze one important but under-emphasized element of the war: the role of energy. Both the U.S. and Russia stand to influence the future of the global energy market if their side comes out dominant in this conflict. If the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, it will likely push ahead with current plans to build a natural gas pipeline running from Iran through Syria. The pipeline would be built by the Iranian government in collaboration with Russia’s major gas corporations, and would allow both countries to profit off of the largest gas reserve on earth. On the other hand, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an active interest in preventing this from happening to protect its share in the energy market, as well as the strength of the petrodollar, against Russian and Iranian competition.

President Trump has long denounced America’s anti-Assad position and previously discussed working with Russia, and possibly Assad, against the common enemy of ISIS. However, following the Syrian Air force’s chemical attack in the Idlib Province, Trump at least temporarily reversed his public position on Assad and Russia. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration has grown increasingly closer to Saudi Arabia. Future negotiations will tell whether there is still a possibility for Russia and the U.S. to work together in Syria, and Trump’s ultimate stance on the Assad regime will heavily influence whether the Iranian pipeline is built. We are currently at a critical moment in the future of the Syrian conflict, and for the roles of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in the global energy market. Read on to see what each side stands to gain and lose as we move forward.

Syria: The Energy Crossroads

The conflict in Syria is fueled by numerous religious and geopolitical divisions within the Middle Eastern Region and energy is far from the only relevant factor in American or Russian involvement. However, the importance of energy within the Middle East and its ever-present role in regional conflict is hard to overstate. Control of the global energy market means being able to exert huge influence on the international economy, and the Middle East’s vast fossil fuel reserves have always attracted the interest of international superpowers. The last two decades of constant regional conflict have been a consistently perilous struggle for power and market control, especially between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest economies in the Middle East.

Syria has attracted international interest because its central location in the Middle East makes it a potential energy crossroads for pipelines that could transport natural gas across the region from the South Pars/North Dome gas field. Because of Syria’s critical position, the results of the war will likely determine who gains access to the gas field, and thus will greatly impact the future of energy sovereignty within the region. The oil and gas trade is very directly related to the strength of the American dollar and both the U.S. and longstanding ally Saudi Arabia are worried that Syria could become the construction site of a pipeline. A new major pipeline could upset the balance of the energy market, and subsequently the power of the dollar and the Saudi Riyal, which is pegged to the dollar.

Saudi Arabia, home to 16 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and the leader of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has long used whatever means are necessary to ensure that its business never shrinks. Recently, as foreign dependence on petroleum in the last few years lessened due to a boost in gas production abroad, the Saudis chose to ignore their 2014 promise to reduce output and actually increased their production up until 2016. This caused international petroleum prices to drop, keeping Middle East petroleum competitive, despite the fact that the price gouge also sent many of the poorer OPEC countries near collapse.

In order to maintain its status as the largest energy producer in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has also spent the last two decades attempting to block energy infrastructure proposals designed to access the South Pars/North Dome gas field. The South Pars/North Dome Gas Field lies beneath the Persian Gulf, with the northern end of the field in Iranian territory and the Southern edge in Qatari territory. It is the single largest gas reserve on earth, and a pipeline that allowed cross-regional transport of its resources could dramatically change the future of the energy market. The first pipeline was proposed in 2009 and would have carried gas from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, although both the late King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia and Assad in Syria rejected its construction in 2009. It is sometimes falsely claimed that Saudi Arabia supported this pipeline, but the Saudis also opposed its development because a pipeline would have given the E.U. direct access to cheap gas. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with its then ally Qatar had at the time also grown unstable, and the Saudis were skeptical about a large scale business collaboration.

However, in place of the Qatari project, an alternative pipeline was proposed, which would be built avoiding Saudi land and would replace Qatar with Iran as the central supplier of natural gas. Saudi Arabia views Shiite Iran as its primary enemy within the Middle East and is determined to keep it from growing in power in the energy market. However, Assad publicly supported this pipeline, which would give Russian and Iranian business interests primary access to the gas field’s massive resources. Saudi Arabia lacked the veto power it held with the first pipeline, which forced Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan to reach directly out to Putin, promising to ensure that the gas reserve would not be utilized in competition with Russia’s business if Putin abandoned his support of Assad’s regime. Putin refused and Saudi Arabia pushed forward with regime change in Syria by militarizing rebel Sunni groups, including the Free Syrian Army, the Al Nursa Front, and the organization that would become ISIS.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia

The U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia is a tense and complicated one. Saudi Arabia has come under international criticism for its human rights record and the Saudis have continuously funded extremist Sunni groups that threaten the Western world. However, the economies of the two nations are tied together through the petrodollar. Petroleum is the most commonly traded substance on earth by volume, and globally, petroleum has been traded almost exclusively in American dollars for the last 40 years. If a country wants to buy oil, it must first purchase U.S. dollars, which increases demand for the dollar and dollar denominated assets. Because of this, the success of the oil industry and cooperation with Saudi Arabia very directly affects our domestic economy. The United States and Saudi Arabia have worked together in coordination for almost three-quarters of a century to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics, from the establishment of the petrodollar system to the Persian Gulf War to both Yemen Civil Wars and the battle against Al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia has also been a central customer of the U.S. defense industry for decades, although Obama ordered a weapons sales freeze following large-scale civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes in Yemen. Some have accused this freeze of being largely political theater, since overall the Obama Administration sold over $46 billion in weapons to the Saudis, more than any president in the 71-year alliance. The State Department also went on to grant a pre-planned $3.51 billion initiative to arm and train the Saudi army to defend the Saudi-Yemen border, claiming none of this money would go the actual war it supposedly condemned. While the Obama Administration has been critical of Saudi Arabia, it also continued to support the country and many of its conflicts throughout Obama’s presidency.

While Assad is certainly guilty of human rights violations, the U.S. also has a critical interest in coordinated regime change because the current pipeline proposal would give unfriendly Iran dominant control of the largest source of energy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Russia’s three largest gas companies will play a large part in the development of the pipeline, meaning Russian interests stand to profit directly off the reserve. Russia and Iran are two of the few countries worldwide that refuse to use the petrodollar, so not only does control of the gas field give them a huge business advantage, the greater their share in the market the weaker the U.S. dollar and Saudi Riyal will become. While the United States and Saudi Arabia disagree on many things, the two nations are united geopolitically in their desire to prevent Russia and Iran from gaining greater regional power and control over the energy market through a coordinated business venture.

In 2014, following a meeting between John Kerry and King Abdullah of Jordan, the United States agreed to work with Saudi Arabia on a military offensive in Syria through Operation Timber Sycamore, with Saudi Arabia funding and arming the Free Syrian Army and the CIA training them in preparation for the war. While the stated purpose of U.S. involvement was to counter ISIS, the choice to fund the rebel group looking to overthrow the ruling Baath party reflects the Obama Administration’s consistent desire for regime change.

“Obama/Saudi Ties” courtesy of Tribes of the World; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Russian Involvement

Currently, Syria is Russia’s oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East, although Iran and Russia have grown increasingly closer throughout the last decade. Aside from representing Russia’s foothold in the region, Syria is also the location of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base. In exchange for this critical regional access, Syria has the support of one of the world’s largest superpowers. The long-standing connection between these countries makes it no surprise that Russia is willing to give political and military support to Assad.

However, Russia also stands to gain significantly moving forward if Assad can suppress the rebel forces. As long as the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, then construction of the Iranian pipeline should move forward as planned. Russia is the second largest producer of fossil fuels globally and recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s top crude oil producer. Together oil and gas exports account for 70 percent of Russia’s $550 billion annual exports. European natural gas imports from Russia dramatically increased from 48 percent in 2010 to 64 percent in 2014, and Putin’s long-term plan is to become an even larger energy superpower, spiking production and exports by 2020 by increasing sales in Europe and expanding into the Asia-Pacific region. It is no secret that the E.U. dreads increasing its dependence upon Russia’s major gas giants. Because of heavy resistance to the Russian energy business in the West, Putin has been continuously looking for new projects in the East, notably in China and the Middle East. Iran has long been looking for international investors in its shale business, and in 2013, the Russian state-controlled gas corporation Gazprom signed a deal with the Iranian government to cooperate in ongoing energy infrastructure development. The infrastructure agreement makes Gazprom the third major Russian corporation to be heavily invested in Iranian energy, following Lukoil and Zarubezneft. The construction of the Iranian pipeline would give these corporations new ability to profit off of huge quantities of natural gas. By ensuring that the field is developed and utilized first by friendly Iran, along with Russian gas corporations, Putin can avoid dangerous new competition in the European energy market as was planned in the original Qatari pipeline, thus maintaining Russia’s position of market dominance.

Fear of Saudi Arabia and increased U.S. support for the Syrian insurgency pushed Assad to request greater assistance from Putin, which resulted in Russia joining the conflict in September 2015, mounting a series of airstrikes both against the Free Syrian Army and ISIS. What followed became an increasingly serious proxy war between the Syrian rebels, backed by the United States, and the Syrian military, backed by Russia. The bloodiest of these conflicts has centered around the City of Aleppo, where over 400,000 have died thus far. The FSA has suffered both massive causalities and the loss of members who have defected to join the more radicalized Al-Nursa Front and Jaysh Army. The Syrian Air Force’s chemical attack on Idlib came shockingly during negotiations that were expected to come out in Assad’s favor. President Trump sided initially with the majority of the Western world and voted in favor of a U.N. resolution to launch an investigation into the attack. The resolution was blocked by Russia and we are currently in a pause, waiting to find out how the conflict will move forward.

“Aleppo, Syria” courtesy of yeowatzup;  License: (CC BY 2.0)

Conclusion: What does the Future Look Like?

While Trump has criticized Saudi Arabia in the past for its own role in funding radical Islam, he seems to have recently made a complete reversal on this stance and has even sided with Saudi Arabia in its dispute with U.S. ally Qatar. The Trump Administration and Saudi Arabia have also recently entered into a $110 billion dollar weapons deal, the largest in U.S.-Saudi history. Following the attack on Idlib, it seemed possible that Trump might decide to align with the anti-Assad stances held by the Obama Administration and the Saudi government. However, since the U.S. airstrike and the failed U.N. Security Resolution, the Trump Administration has not publicly emphasized Assad’s removal.

Currently, it’s uncertain whether Trump will side with reestablished ally Saudi Arabia or if his administration still plans to find a way to work together with Russia in Syria. The U.S. warned the Russians prior to the airstrike on the Shayrat base, allowing them to evacuate without casualty. There have also been accusations that the airstrike was essentially political theater to dispel the notion that Trump is compromised by Russian interests, given the fact that Russia chose not to deploy its anti-missile systems, effectively allowing an attack it knew was coming to take place.

While the future of the South Pars/North Dome gas reserve isn’t certain, at this point Assad has successfully dominated the majority of rebel forces in Syria. As long as the Assad regime is still in place, any major cross-regional energy infrastructure utilizing Syrian land will most likely be to the advantage of Assad and his ally Putin. If the Iranian pipeline does end up being built, the reverberations will be felt throughout the global energy market. Saudi Arabia may lose the upper hand in several markets where it competes with Iran and Russia, especially in East Asia where Saudi Arabia has struggled to maintain active business in the face of Russian competition. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Europe will ever be able to utilize the gas field as a cheap alternative to lessen its dependence on Russia.

If Iran and Russia become larger figures in the energy market, the petrodollar will weaken as less U.S. dollars are needed for oil transactions, which would affect the economies of both America and Saudi Arabia. How dramatic these effects will be is impossible to say. Saudi Arabia still has massive hydrocarbon reserves and is in no danger of being pushed out of the global fossil fuel trade. While the petrodollar has played a large part in the strength of the American dollar since the end of the Gold Standard, it is only one of many factors that contribute to and decide the strength and stability of the U.S. economy. We will have to wait and see what direction the Trump Administration takes American foreign policy in the Middle East to learn the answers to these questions.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two Pipelines: The Influence of the Energy War in the Middle East appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s ban on “gay propaganda” violates international law, Europe’s top human rights court ruled on Tuesday. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the ban was discriminatory and violated freedom of expression.

“Above all, by adopting such laws the Court found that the authorities had reinforced stigma and prejudice and encouraged homophobia, which was incompatible with the values — of equality, pluralism and tolerance — of a democratic society,” the ECHR wrote.

Life in Russia has long been unwelcoming–and at times, perilous–for LGBTQ people. According to Russian news outlet Novaya Gazeta, more than 100 gay men in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe, have been detained in Chechan prisons. Some have been tortured and killed due to their sexual orientations. In an interview with VICE News, Ayub Kataev, a Chechan prison warden and head of the ministry of internal affairs, not only denied the reports of the imprisonment and abuse of gay men, but denied the existence of gay people altogether.

“My officers would not even want to touch such people, if they exist, let alone beating or torturing them,” Kataev told VICE News.

Since 2003, regional governments in Russia have passed variations of the “gay propaganda” ban, and in 2013, the ban was adopted nationwide. Three Russian LGBTQ rights activists, Nikolay Bayev, Aleksey Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev, protested the ban between 2009 and 2012 at a school in Ryazan, a children’s library in Arkhangelsk, and an administrative building in St. Petersburg–some of the cities that had instituted a ban at the time. The activists were found guilty of administrative offenses and fined. After the activists unsuccessfully appealed the convictions to Russia’s Constitutional Court, the ECHR agreed to hear their case.

According to the ECHR, Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences was amended in 2013 with the ban that prohibited “the promoting of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors, … creating a distorted image of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.”

The ECHR held that the Russian government had failed to demonstrate how LGBT expression would negatively impact so-called “traditional families,” and minors, who the government claimed needed to be protected from non-heterosexual orientations. To the contrary, the ECHR asserted that the ban “embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority.”

The decision was handed down by a seven judge chamber comprised of judges from seven different European countries. The chamber’s judge from Russia, Dmitry Dedov, was the lone dissenter, claiming that “a positive image of homosexuality adversely affects the development of children and puts them at risk of sexual violence.”

The ECHR ordered Russia to pay a total of 43,000 euros to the three activists who brought the lawsuit. However, whether that ruling will be followed has yet to be seen as Russia approved a law in 2015 allowing the country to ignore ECHR rulings if they conflict with the Russian constitution.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post European Court Rules Russia’s “Gay Propaganda” Ban Violates International Law appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks and months, President Donald Trump’s military policy has begun to coalesce around a somewhat coherent idea: defer decision-making to the Pentagon. In contrast to its predecessor, the Trump Administration has taken a more hands-off approach to the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The U.S. has had a footprint in all three battlefields for years. But the day-to-day operations since Trump took office have seemingly shifted from the White House to the Pentagon.

Afghanistan

Last week, the administration quietly announced it would increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000 troops. The precise number of troops, the White House said, would be determined by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The U.S. currently maintains a force of about 8,800 troops in Afghanistan, where they train and advise Afghan government forces in the 16-year battle against the Taliban.

Deferring such a decision to the Pentagon could reflect the inner conflict taking place within the White House. Steven Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, favors an isolationist approach, and would like to see the U.S. stay out of global conflicts. Others, like Mattis and National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, favor a strong U.S. presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan.

Still, some see the Pentagon’s longer leash as a reflection of the administration’s lack of a coherent longterm strategy. In a statement released Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “six months into the new administration, it still has not delivered a strategy” in Afghanistan. According to the White House, a comprehensive strategy will be in place by mid-July.

Yemen

The first indication that Trump would afford the military greater command in overseas conflicts came in January. U.S. special forces raided a compound in Yemen that belonged to al-Qaeda leaders, a mission that the Obama Administration had not approved. The raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and a number of civilians, including children. Months later, in April, Trump said he was giving the military “total authorization”

“Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately,” he added. “If you look at what’s happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous difference.”

Syria

In Syria, a number of incidents over the past month has demonstrated the differences in approach between Trump and former President Barack Obama, who many critics say micromanaged the military to its detriment.

On Sunday, a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian jet after it dropped bombs near the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of U.S.-backed rebel groups. The Pentagon said the action was taken “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces.”

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. “

The episode marked the first time the U.S. directly took down a Syrian government jet. Earlier this year, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a chemical agent on its own citizens, the Trump Administration responded with an airstrike against a Syrian airstrip. The strike was the first direct U.S. attack against the Syrian government during the six-year-old civil war. 

Four direct engagements w Syria/Iran/Russia in 45 days. Trump is quietly starting a new war that Congress has not declared. Red alert. https://t.co/D4MKPLXFTS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 19, 2017

During Obama’s tenure, airstrikes and other combat actions in Syria were often meticulously reviewed by the White House. Critics, including people within the Obama Administration, argued that approach was too timid, perhaps contributing to the deteriorating situation in the war-torn country.

But critics of Trump’s approach say the lack of a diplomatic strategy to go along with a weightier military component can be dangerous. It can potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and other powerful actors in the region, like Iran and Russia, some observers say.

Within the administration, there have been lobbying efforts to broaden the war against Iran and its proxies in Syria, according to Foreign Policy. But Mattis and other generals with decades of battlefield experience have snuffed that idea. The ultimate goal in Syria remains the destruction of Islamic State. The push toward Raqqa, the group’s de facto capital, is well underway.

Regardless of the Trump Administration’s tactics, the outcome in Syria remains the same as it was under Obama. The Pentagon recently wrote in a statement: “The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Doctrine: Let the Pentagon Handle It appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorist Targets Muslims in London, Muslim Girl Killed in Virginia

Late last night, a van rammed into people leaving a mosque in Finsbury Park in North London. One person died and 10 were injured in what police are investigating as a terror attack, as it was “quite clearly an attack on Muslims.” A white, 48-year-old man has been arrested and is being investigated for attempted murder. According to eyewitness reports, the man who died collapsed after the van hit people–it’s not clear whether his death was a direct result of the attack. The attacker struck just as people were leaving the mosque after evening prayers and breaking their Ramadan fast. Eyewitnesses said the man got out of the van after hitting people and said, “I want to kill Muslims,” repeatedly. He tried to flee the scene, but several people held him to the ground until police arrived.

This quote at #FinsburyPark station by @TfL is a fitting reminder that in tragedy we become a more unified, stronger force always pic.twitter.com/1Htakvuy2p

— Yasmina (@animsche) June 19, 2017

Also yesterday, a 17-year-old Muslim girl was found beaten to death in a pond in Virginia. The girl, identified as Nabra Hassanen, was reported missing after leaving a mosque in the early morning hours. She was with her friends on their way to get food after prayers, when two men with baseball bats started attacking them. In the chaos that followed, Nabra disappeared. Her body was found later that afternoon. A 22-year-old man was arrested. Although police aren’t investigating this murder as a hate crime, there is evidence to suggest that there has been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States–according to CAIR, there was a 44 percent increase just from 2015 to 2016.

if you believe muslim women face less violence in the west, youve been blinded. nabra, 17, murdered with baseball bat last night in virginia pic.twitter.com/zlZJclJ3qT

— Amani (@xoamani) June 19, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

While it’s been more than 20 years since a major Washington, D.C. sports team has been invited to the White House, two faces of Washington sports are getting political this summer.

Last week Washington Redskins quarterback Kirk Cousins played a round of golf with President Donald Trump at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Meanwhile, Washington Capitals star Alex Ovechkin attended an annual event for President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader answered questions from a studio audience and civilians across the nation.

Neither has made any specific political statements, but the actions of both stars raised eyebrows in the nation’s capital. Some fans expressed frustration on social media, but others accepted that each athlete has their own personal lives and they can do what they choose.

The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia–which comprise the main fan base for both teams–all voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Cousins said that Eric Shuster, the director of strategic partnerships at CSN Mid-Atlantic, helped put the duo together. The opportunity was too much to pass on. Cousins said the round was a great experience, adding:

I didn’t ever think that would happen. Had a good enough time that if there’s any former presidents in the D.C. area that want to give me a call, I’d love to meet them at one of the courses around here. I know lots of them are members at these courses and I’m not, so I’d love to get on and get to meet them. Republican, Democrat, left, right, I’d love an invite.

Meanwhile, Alex Ovechkin explained his rationale to Sovetsky Sport, a Russian outlet. Ovechkin said he was making a plea to Putin to help save the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) from its massive financial troubles.

Alex Ovechkin goes to Vladimir Putin town hall meeting to lobby for struggling Dynamo… https://t.co/6iA87Fdy62 pic.twitter.com/1SmEDqe9tw

— Zesty NHL News (@nhl_zesty) June 16, 2017

The KHL, Europe’s premier hockey league, is in serious debt, with teams owing their players more than $17 million, according to the Associate Press. Some players haven’t received a salary payment in over six months.

Ovechkin’s former team, Dynamo Moscow, is in about $35 million in debt and in danger of shutting down. The future Hall of Famer wants to do all he can to avoid that situation.

“It’s a great pity that such things are happening in our sport,” Ovechkin said. “I hope the teams experiencing difficulties will overcome them.”

So both Washington sports stars had their own rationale for spending time with these world leaders. Ovechkin had a goal in mind while Cousins simply jumped at the opportunity to meet the most polarizing figure in American politics.

Neither meeting means much in the grand scheme of global politics, but it does add intrigue and anguish to the beginning of summer for many Washington sports fans.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Sports Stars Spend Time with Trump and Putin appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

Washington nearly exploded on Thursday morning. Not literally, of course. But when James Comey, the now-ubiquitous former FBI Director, testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the capital was transfixed.

For an hour or so, it seemed like much of the country was fairly united–CNN dubbed the event “Washington’s Superbowl.”

But while all eyes were on Comey, all ears were certainly not. Some heard Comey all but indict Trump. Others heard him liberate the president, and take aim at the New York Times and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The hearing centered around the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible communications with Russia, and its meddling in the election, which Comey was overseeing before he was fired by the president last month.

Comey’s firing, coupled with a leaked memo Comey wrote (which he revealed in the hearing he had a hand in leaking) that detailed a questionable conversation with Trump, ignited claims that Trump could be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Among other things, here is what Comey revealed in his testimony to the committee: he firmly believes he was fired because he was leading an investigation into Trump’s campaign operatives and Russia; he kept detailed memos of every private conversation he had with Trump because he was afraid the president would later lie about their interactions; Comey believes Trump, in a February 14 conversation, asked him to scrap the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn, the former head of the NSA.

To everyone’s surprise, Trump did not tweet during the hearing. But his personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement soon after the proceedings ended. It reads:

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference.

The statement denied that Trump ever demanded loyalty from Comey, as the former director said he did, or that the president ever, “in form or substance,” instructed Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

Kasowitz also called out “those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.” He added, “Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.”

During the hearing, Comey said Lynch, the attorney general at the time, requested he publicly refer to the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.” This, he said, along with Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, partially informed his decision to publicly announce Clinton was under investigation.

Some observers pounced on this small nugget, raising questions as to whether or not Lynch would be charged with obstruction of justice.

Will fmr AG Lynch be charged w/ obstruction of justice after Comey revelations of demands she made? Will Dems demand it?

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 8, 2017

The RNC and the DNC released two completely irreconcilable statements following the hearing.

The RNC statement read, “Today’s testimony proved what we have known all along: President Trump is not under investigation, there’s still no evidence of collusion, and he did not hinder the investigation in any way.”

In contrast, the DNC statement said Comey’s testimony “gave us the clearest and most damning evidence yet that President Trump lied to the American people and is likely under investigation for obstruction of justice–a serious and disturbing charge.”

While millions of Americas may have been united in watching Comey’s testimony, both statements illustrate the potentially unbridgeable divide in American politics.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reactions to Comey Hearing Illustrate America’s Political Divide appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Did Trump Funnel Money Intended for Kids with Cancer into his Own Business?

President Donald Trump allegedly funneled money from his son Eric’s children cancer charity into his own business. Eric Trump has held a golf tournament to raise money for his charity for the past 10 years. As the event takes place at his dad’s golf course, he said the charity could use the course for free, allowing all the donated money to go straight to the children’s fund. However, according to Forbes, the costs quickly soared over the years, making it clear that the golf course was not free.

It just cannot get worse than this: pocketing money from a kids’ cancer charity. https://t.co/8qXpxxdpgQ

— Tina Jordan (@EWTinaJordan) June 6, 2017

“The Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament,” Forbes states. Roughly $100,000 of the donations were funneled into revenue for the Trump Organization, and more than $500,000 were donated to other charities, often benefiting Trump family members. This does not look good for the Trump family, and obviously, a lot of people are outraged.

“Morality is just gone,” says Eric Trump, who Forbes earlier today reported used a charity to (literally) steal money from kids with cancer. pic.twitter.com/4XyZZOdZcw

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) June 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As former FBI Director James Comey prepares to speak on Thursday before a Senate committee on recent events surrounding Russia, President Donald Trump, and the 2016 election, many are preparing their watch parties.

First off, not only will C-SPAN and PBS be broadcasting the feed but ABC, NBC, and CBS all plan to replace their normally scheduled daytime programing with a live feed of his testimony, according to CNN.

And some bars in the nation’s capital are changing things up to show the testimony on their flat-screen televisions.

Shaw’s Tavern plans to open at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning in preparation for Comey’s 10 a.m. testimony, according to The Washington Post. The bar is calling its viewing party a “Comey Hearing Covfefe,” nicknamed after Trump’s mysterious tweet last week.

They will be offering $5 vodka drinks along with $10 “FBI” sandwiches, according to CNN.

A bar fittingly named The Partisan will also be opening at 10 a.m. to offer food and beverages.

Other bars are running with the “covfefe” theme. Duffy’s Irish Pub, normally a Washington Nationals bar, will tune into the testimony instead of baseball. The pub is offering a “Covfefe Cocktail,” an orange drink with unknown ingredients.

Duffy’s getting in on the Comey watch party action pic.twitter.com/HvDT35YMHR

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 6, 2017

“…It is like drinking Kool Aid but only a small group of people know what’s in it,” the advertisement says.

“Covfefe” is quite clearly another joke on the administration. In the aftermath of Trump’s strange tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” according to CNN.

Comey’s testimony on Thursday has the potential to be an interesting morning in Washington so television networks and bars are looking to capitalize. Cheers to what may be a momentous day in American history.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Television Stations (and Bars) Prep for the Comey Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Angela Merkel Implies that Europe Can No Longer Rely on the U.S.

After his recent trip, some European leaders seem a little sick of President Donald Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently hinted, without specifically mentioning Trump’s name, that European countries can no longer consider the U.S. a reliable ally. During a rally held inside a Bavarian beer tent on Sunday, she said, “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.” She added that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands.”

Frmr CIA Dir McLaughlin: Trump creating rift w/ Germany and Europe “is one of the most damaging things I have seen in…years and years.”

— Steve Peoples (@sppeoples) May 30, 2017

During his visit to Europe, Trump said he might pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement–the most unified effort to combat climate change to date. Trump has also expressed support for Brexit and encouraged other countries in the European Union to explore leaving the coalition. As a result, many Europeans see Trump as a potential threat to regional stability. But now it seems like his recent comments and behavior in Europe could actually unite Europe–even Merkel’s rivals in the upcoming national elections have supported her response. This morning, Trump hit back against Germany with a tweet (of course).

We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

During a speech in Brussels on Thursday, President Donald Trump spoke to a cluster of European heads of state. He implored them to pay their fair share in defense spending for the NATO alliance, while simultaneously refusing to commit to support in case of an attack. The speech baffled America’s European allies, and potentially pleased Russia’s militarily-adventurous President Vladimir Putin.

“Members of the alliance must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump told the leaders of the 28-member defense bloc, including the newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron. “Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.”

Trump, it turns out, was correct: According to NATO figures, only five countries meet the benchmark for defense spending, which is set at two percent of each member nation’s respective GDP. The U.S., Britain, Estonia, Greece, and Poland are the only five NATO members that meet the mark. The rest, including Europe’s economic engines, France and Germany, do not.

Speaking at the opening of NATO’s new billion-dollar headquarters in Brussels, Trump barely mentioned Article 5, the treaty’s tenet of collective defense. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and fomented a pro-Russia separatist movement in eastern Ukraine that same year. So, Trump’s refusal to explicitly endorse Article 5 could worry NATO members, especially the Baltic States, which border Russia and were occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The last–and only–time the 68-year-old alliance triggered Article 50 was after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, when NATO forces joined the war in Afghanistan. While Trump–who called NATO “obsolete” as a candidate but nominally embraced it as president–did not reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did.

Asked on Wednesday about Trump’s commitment to Article 5, Tillerson said, “of course we support Article 5.” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said all the fuss about Trump’s failure to back Article 5 was “silly because by being here at such a ceremony, we all understand that by being part of NATO we treat the obligations and commitments.” He added: “By having to reaffirm something by the very nature of being here and speaking at a ceremony about it is almost laughable.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Speech at NATO HQ, Trump Implores Members to Pay More for Defense appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News retracted a story from its website Tuesday afternoon, after a week of conspiracy theory peddling from one of its most popular television hosts, Sean Hannity. The story was about Seth Rich, the 27-year-old DNC staffer who was murdered last July while walking to his home in D.C. The story was also popular on a number of websites, including alt-right Breitbart and the far-right Drudge Report.

Quoting Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was supposedly looking into the case on behalf of the Rich family, the story claimed that Rich leaked emails and other documents from DNC staffers and Hillary Clinton to WikiLeaks. That would mean the information did not come from Russian operatives, as both the CIA and the FBI have concluded. Fox issued the following statement on its retraction of the story:

On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.

Early last week, Wheeler sparked the tinder that would set the “alt-right” media–and Hannity–aflame: he told Fox 5 D.C. he had sources at the FBI that said Rich had released a trove of emails and attachments to WikiLeaks. Rich was assassinated, according to the unfounded conspiracy, as part of an attempt to spread rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to harm the Clinton campaign by releasing thousands of embarrassing emails.

The FBI, along with the Senate and House intelligence committees, are currently investigating communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Hours after Wheeler’s report, he told CNN that his “information” was in fact “from the reporter at Fox News,” not based on hard evidence or any of his own original findings or sources, including at the FBI. Wheeler later told Fox 5 the false report was due to “miscommunication.”

But that has not stopped Hannity and others on Twitter from fanning the flames:

Congress, investigate Seth Rich Murder! @JulianAssange made comments u need to listen to! If Seth was wiki source, no Trump/Russia collusion https://t.co/QPHZwypU34

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017

 On Sunday’s “Fox and Friends,” Newt Gingrich also parroted Wheeler’s false report, saying: “We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments.”

Hannity and others have been able to latch on to Wheeler’s account, and earlier conspiracies swirling around Rich’s murder, because of the investigation’s lack of progress–the case remains unsolved. The investigation is ongoing; D.C. Metropolitan Police have some evidence that the murder was a botched robbery.

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast reported earlier this week that staff members and reporters at Fox News found Hannity’s insistence that this story has merit to be “embarrassing” and “gross.” Wheeler could find himself in court because of his unfounded claims. Rich’s family already sent a “cease-and-desist” letter to Wheeler through their lawyer, Joseph Ingrisano.

“Your improper and unauthorized statements, many of which are false and have no basis in fact, have also injured the memory and reputation of Seth Rich and have defamed and injured the reputation of the members of the family,” Ingrisano wrote.

Wheeler told the Chicago Tribune that he is “exploring all of my legal options and I sincerely hope that one day we find the person who took Seth’s life.”

In a Washington Post op-ed, Mary and Joel Rich, Seth’s parents, pleaded with those who continue to promulgate the falsehoods “to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.” They added: “With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Retracts Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory appeared first on Law Street.

In a meeting last week with top Russian officials, President Donald Trump discussed classified information regarding an Islamic State threat, according to current and former U.S. officials. The revelations sparked outrage in Washington, even among high-ranking Republicans, and raised international questions about whether the U.S. under Trump is a reliable intelligence-sharing partner.

According to the Washington Post report, Trump shared an ISIS plot involving commercial aircraft and laptop computers with the Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The president also reportedly shared the name of a Syrian city in which the intel was collected by an unnamed ally in the Middle East. White House officials denied the report, and said Trump did not disclose how the classified intelligence was gathered, or by which Middle Eastern ally.

But early Tuesday morning, Trump took to Twitter to confirm that he did indeed share intel with the Russians concerning an ISIS plot, for “humanitarian reasons.” The president tweeted:

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

Still, the main concern is that Russia, which is backing Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, could glean how and from whom the U.S. receives its intelligence in regard to the fight against ISIS. A senior European intelligence official, speaking anonymously, told the Associated Press on Tuesday morning that if the Post’s report was accurate, his country, which the official did not want to be named, could stop sharing intelligence with the U.S.

Top Republicans were dismayed by the report that the Trump Administration was embroiled in yet another controversy, less than a week after Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey. “The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “To compromise a source is something that you just don’t do, and that’s why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close as to prevent that from happening.”

Sen. John McCain, perhaps the most vocal Republican critic of Trump, called the intelligence sharing “deeply disturbing.” He continued, in a statement on Tuesday: “Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future.” Top Senate Democrats also responded with concern:

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians. https://t.co/CRiSC024F7

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) May 15, 2017

Before the Post story was published on Monday, the White House denied its claims. For its part, the Kremlin derided the report as “complete nonsense.” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the sources and methods of the intelligence gathering was not discussed in the meeting, “and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” In a press conference on Tuesday, McMaster indicated that Trump was unaware the information he shared with the Russian officials was classified, and that the discussion that took place was “wholly appropriate.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Confirms He Shared Classified Intel with Russian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Comey Contradictions Are Everywhere

During a hearing yesterday, the acting director of the FBI, Andrew G. McCabe, contradicted what the White House has said about the firing of James Comey and the importance of the ongoing Russia inquiry. The administration has tried to downplay the latter, but McCabe said the inquiry is very significant. “Simply put, you cannot stop the men and women of the F.B.I. from doing the right thing,” he said. He also emphasized that Comey had the support of most people within the FBI, saying, “Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the F.B.I. and still does.” But White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders continued trying to undermine that report by saying that she had talked to “countless members of the F.B.I. that are grateful and thankful for the president’s decision.”

Love the thought of a bunch of FBI agents randomly reaching out to Sarah Huckabee Sanders to express their appreciation for Comey firing

— Amanda Terkel (@aterkel) May 12, 2017

But when pressed for details by reporters, Huckabee Sanders admitted that she didn’t “know that many people in the F.B.I.” At the same time, President Donald Trump claimed he fired Comey because he thought “this Russia thing with Trump” was a story Democrats made up to explain why they lost the election. And it has also been revealed the two had dinner in the White House, but accounts on what happened differ.

Trump tweets “Comey better hope” there are no “tapes” of convos as Comey associates question if he told Trump he wasn’t under investigation pic.twitter.com/EU7Ya1Yvtv

— ABC News (@ABC) May 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Astounding Democrats and Republicans alike, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday evening. The abrupt firing ignited widespread calls for a special, independent inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Comey was leading a probe into Trump’s and his campaign associates’ ties to Russian actors during the 2016 campaign; Russian hackers delivered Democratic operatives’ emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn made the emails public through an online database. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, concluded that the cyber-meddling was intended to assist Trump.

Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

Lawmakers expressed worry immediately after the Comey firing that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia ties could be compromised. “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is right now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday morning. And Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement posted to his Twitter account that the timing of this firing is “very troubling,” and that it represents “the loss of an honorable public servant” and “a loss for the nation.”

According to people familiar with the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to Comey’s ouster, Trump was upset with Comey on two accounts: the ongoing Russia investigation, and his public rebuttal of  Trump’s claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House is also saying that Comey’s dismissal was a result of his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” read Trump’s letter to Comey.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

On Wednesday, before Trump was set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he told reporters he fired Comey “because he was not doing a good job.” Trump dispatched his aides, including counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, to defend the decision. People familiar with Trump’s deliberations said he was surprised at the torrent of negative reactions–from Democrats, Republicans, and the press–that have followed Comey’s dismissal.

Meanwhile, current and former FBI officials, including Comey himself, were reportedly flabbergasted at the news of Comey’s ouster. “We just have no idea why this happened. No idea,” one recently retired top FBI official told Politico. “No one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened.”

There were conflicting reports over who exactly took the lead in the decision to fire Comey. Some said Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein led the charge. Rosenstein wrote a letter released Tuesday that pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation as the grounds for his dismissal, saying “I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.” Other White House officials told reporters that this was a unilateral decision by Trump, who directed the Justice Department to fish out a reason to fire the director.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Trump Fire FBI Director James Comey? appeared first on Law Street.

From Cannabis churches to Russia banning Jehovah’s Witnesses, religious expression was a hot topic last week on Law Street. ICYMI, check out some of our top stories below!

Spiritual High: A Cannabis Church Opened Last Week in Denver

From the outside, it looks like any other nondescript, brick-built church. But its stained glass panels, instead of biblical images, are adorned with a colorful fresco of planets–with wide, cartoonish grins–and stars. Welcome to Denver’s International Church of Cannabis, which had its grand opening last Thursday, on the unofficial weed holiday known as “4/20.” In a city where smoking marijuana in public is illegal, despite Colorado’s legalization of the drug in 2012, the church offers a holy refuge to those looking for a more spiritual kind of high.

Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Labels Them Extremists

Russia’s Supreme Court has banned the Jehovah’s Witness organization after the Ministry of Justice labeled it an extremist group. The denomination already was on shaky ground in Russia, as the government had banned its literature and website as well as arrested members and seized their property. But now with a complete and nationwide ban, the group’s headquarters in St. Petersburg and 395 local branches will all become state property.

How El Salvador Became the First Country to Ban Metal Mining

On March 29, El Salvador became the first country in the world to ban metal mining. The ban passed through the El Salvador unicameral legislature with support from a sweeping coalition and is favored by nearly 80 percent of the El Salvadorian population. In spite of the overwhelming support for the ban, the anti-mining movement started with a handful of grassroots groups determined to push back against the country’s historical devotion to “pro-business” policies.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

People are Outraged at “Stealthing”

There’s a name for a man removing a condom during sex without his partner’s consent: stealthing. The phenomenon is reportedly on the rise in the U.S., according to a new study by Alexandra Brodsky in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Rape victims’ organizations say this kind of behavior needs to be classified as rape. And a lot of people are outraged that this is a “thing.”

Given that “stealthing” puts a victim at risk of pregnancy or disease, and that many people only consent to sex with a condom, this is “experienced by many as a grave violation of dignity,” the study says. And according to Sandra Paul, who is a specialist in sexual crimes, this could amount to legal rape. “There has to be some agreement that a condom is going to be used or there is going to be withdrawal. If that person then doesn’t stick to those rules then the law says you don’t have consent,” she said.

It’s both affirming and terrible to write about an under-acknowledged form of gender violence and hear a chorus of “me, too” in response

— Alexandra Brodsky (@azbrodsky) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Flynn, the ousted former national security adviser, appears to have violated federal law by accepting money during a trip to Moscow in 2015, according to top lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee. In a press conference after a review of classified documents related to Flynn’s brief stint as the head of the NSA, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the committee, said that Flynn’s failure to disclose the payment could be a prosecutable offense.

“As a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey or anybody else,” Chaffetz said, referring to Flynn’s consulting firm’s undisclosed work with a company tied to the Turkish government. “And it appears as if he did take that money. It was inappropriate, and there are repercussions for a violation of law.” Chaffetz, who delivered remarks on Tuesday with his colleague, Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, added: “There was nothing in the data to show that Gen. Flynn complied with the law.”

According to Chaffetz, Flynn failed to disclose the payments when he was seeking a security clearance for his appointment as national security adviser. Moscow reportedly paid Flynn tens of thousands of dollars to make a speech in the capital in 2015, at an event organized by the state-owned Russia Today, or RT. White House officials on Tuesday said they would not turn over documents pertaining to Flynn’s foreign contacts while he served in the administration.

Flynn was pressured to resign from his post in mid-February, less than a month after being sworn in. After reports leaked that Flynn misled administration officials–including Vice President Mike Pence–about the content of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, a public maelstrom ensued. Last month, Flynn offered to testify in the House and Senate investigations into President Donald Trump’s and his campaign advisers’ communications with Russia in exchange for immunity. His offer immediately raised a question: what did he seek immunity from? The latest revelations might offer a clue.

Following Chaffetz’s remarks on Tuesday afternoon, Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, released a statement, denying any wrongdoing on Flynn’s part: “As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of (the Defense Department), extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by DIA concerning the trip during those briefings.”

Also on Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is probing the Trump-Russia ties, announced it would hold a hearing on May 8. Testifying at the hearing will be former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who initially told the White House about Flynn’s misleading statements to Pence, and former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jason Chaffetz: Michael Flynn May Have Broken Federal Law with Moscow Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s Supreme Court has banned the Jehovah’s Witness organization after the Ministry of Justice labeled it an extremist group. The denomination already was on shaky ground in Russia, as the government had banned its literature and website as well as arrested members and seized their property. But now with a complete and nationwide ban, the group’s headquarters in St. Petersburg and 395 local branches will all become state property.

Last year, the Russian general prosecutor issued a warning to the group, urging it to stop all “extremist” activities. But there was no clarification of what that means or which activities would be seen as “extremist.” One of the Jehovah’s Witnesses main codes of conduct is to be peaceful and not engage in violence. But according to an attorney with the country’s Justice Ministry, Svetlana Borisova, the Jehovah’s Witnesses “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security.”

But the Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute this claim, and the organization published a statement on its website on Wednesday. It says that Russian officials never specified any legal basis for the ban. According to the country’s anti-extremism law, crimes that are “motivated by prejudice or, as stated in Russian law, ‘ideological, political, racial, national or religious enmity, as well as hatred or enmity towards a social group’” are extremist crimes.

#Russia: #JehovahsWitnesses ban – blow 2 #FoRB, sign of totality. Pacifism is not extremism. https://t.co/FymTwysX6x pic.twitter.com/8auTw7Yp9B

— Jan Figel (@janfigel) April 21, 2017

The group argues that if that is the law under which the Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned, that sounds like a clear misuse of the law. It describes the opposite of what the organization promotes, which is anti-violence. “In the whole world, Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as peaceful, obedient, respectful citizens. We respect government, and we are politically totally neutral,” said Yaroslav Sivulsky, an official from Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

The anti-extremism law also makes it illegal for any group other than the Orthodox Church to claim to “offer the true path to religious salvation.” This basically means that there is no freedom of religion.

Many people see the latest court order as a crackdown on freedom of religion and expression. Some worry that other groups of people or religions will be next. Human Rights Watch issued a statement from Moscow and said the ban is “a serious breach of Russia’s obligations to respect and protect religious freedom.”

Catholics for Choice condemns #Russia‘s ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses (learn more: https://t.co/KDelnhPC1W) pic.twitter.com/FrMCalcF6X

— Catholics for Choice (@Catholic4Choice) April 21, 2017

There are about 170,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and they are all now officially in the same category as extremists like Islamic State. According to the New York Times, the group does not engage in politics or criticism against the government. But President Putin has repeatedly targeted the Jehovah’s Witnesses since his third term began in 2012, when he started promoting the Orthodox Church in order to lift Russia to greater international power.

Victor Zhenkov is a lawyer representing the organization. He called the ban “an act of political repression that is impermissible in contemporary Russia.” He said they would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and if that it fails, take it to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Labels Them Extremists appeared first on Law Street.

It is not unusual for a politician to say one thing publicly, and believe another privately. It is also not unusual for a politician–even a president–to change his or her tune on a specific issue. Presidents’ thinking on certain issues evolve over time. But with President Donald Trump, a political novice who seems to favor a transactional style over an ideological one, his flip-flops have been seismic. Especially on foreign policy, Trump has gone from embracing marginal viewpoints antithetical to mainstream thinking to, you guessed it, mainstream thinking. Here are three of the president’s foreign policy shifts to date:

Russia

We all know the narrative for this one: throughout his campaign, Trump lavished Russian President Vladimir Putin with praise. He hinted that, if elected, he would lift the U.S.-imposed sanctions on Russia. But that barely scrapes the surface of Trump’s initial cozying up to the Kremlin. In hacking into Democratic operatives’ email accounts, Russia aimed to aid Trump in his quest for the White House, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded. And since July, the FBI has been investigating his and/or his aides’ communications with Russia. The House and Senate also have ongoing probes into potential collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

But that good will has all but dissipated. Trump has dropped the idea of lifting the sanctions, which were levied on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its incursion into Ukraine. And earlier this month, Trump authorized a retaliatory strike on a Syrian airbase for a chemical weapons attack that U.S. officials concluded was carried out by the Syrian regime. Russia, a vital backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was not happy with the action, and Trump recently said relations with Russia may be at “an all-time low.”

China

On his first day as president, Trump used to say, he would label China a currency manipulator. A dubious, if not dangerous claim, not only has that not happened nearly four months into his presidency, Trump recently wrote the idea off completely. “They’re not currency manipulators,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, referring to China. While Trump has seemingly moved on from his tough rhetoric, his administration plans on signing an executive order targeting countries that dump steel in the U.S. market, a practice long-suspected to be undertaken by China and others.

Trump has evolved on other China-related policies as well. As president-elect, Trump suggested everything regarding China was “under negotiation,” including the decades-old One China policy. A post-election phone call with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen ran counter to that policy, which recognizes Taiwan as a piece of the larger Chinese puzzle. In a February phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump affirmed his commitment to the One China view.

NATO

Obsolete. That is the adjective Trump the candidate used to describe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Europe’s most effective bulwark against Russian aggression on the continent, and in the Baltic states in particular. He publicly pressed NATO members to pick up their slack in funding the bloc’s budget–a stance previous presidents privately shared. Since deeming the alliance “obsolete,” members of his administration–including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson–have traveled to Europe in the hopes of soothing NATO members’ concerns of a dwindling U.S. commitment.

On Wednesday, during a press conference with NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump acknowledged his 180: “I said it was obsolete,” he said. “It’s no longer obsolete.” So what has led to Trump’s change in thinking, especially on foreign policy matters? Maybe it’s the fading voice of Steve Bannon, or the rising influence of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and economic adviser Gary Cohn. Or, just maybe, his more unorthodox positions have been tempered by the weight of the Oval Office.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Changing Stances: Three Foreign Policies Issues POTUS Has Flipped On appeared first on Law Street.

Last August, U.S. officials obtained a FISA warrant to wiretap the communications of Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump. The FBI suspected Page was working as a spy on behalf of Russia, a U.S. official told the New York Times. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the wiretap was granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, after the Justice Department provided evidence that Page might have been a mole for the Kremlin.

Previously a Moscow-based investment banker, Page is one of Trump’s former advisers many suspect FBI Director James Comey was alluding to when he said in a recent House hearing that the bureau was investigating the “nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Comey said the FBI had been probing the matter since July.

Securing a FISA warrant is no easy feat, and requires solid evidence to justify a wiretap. Usually, FISA warrants are used to surveil the communications of foreign agents, such as Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. For Page, the FBI pointed to two pieces of information that vindicated its suspicions about him acting as a Russian agent:

1. In 2013, Page met with a Russian man who U.S. intelligence officials identified as an undercover Russian intelligence officer. During the meeting with Page, the man was posing as a Russian businessman. Page reportedly provided the Russian agent, Victor Podobnyy, with documents pertaining to Page’s New York-based investment firm, Global Energy Capital.
2. In July 2016, after the Republican National Convention and before he left Trump’s campaign, Page traveled to Moscow to give a speech at the New Economic School. Page delivered a scathing harangue of U.S. policies toward Russia, including the sanctions imposed for its annexation of Crimea and its aggression in Ukraine.

According to the government official, the 90-day FISA warrant has been renewed more than once. Obtaining a FISA warrant is an intentionally complicated process. One of three top senior officials at the Justice Department must approve the request before it can go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Along with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Page is one of Trump’s former aides whose communications with Russia have caught the attention of U.S. intelligence officials. Page, according to Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks, had an “informal” role, and never had a private meeting with Trump. There has been no criminal charges brought against Page, and even months-long FBI investigations do not necessarily lead to charges.

For his part, Page has denied any wrongdoing. In an email to the Times on Tuesday, he said it “will be interesting to see what comes out when the unjustified basis of those FISA requests are more fully disclosed over time.” And on Wednesday, in an interview with CNN, he said, when asked if he has acted as a Russian agent: “Let’s not jump to any conclusions, and until there’s full evidence and a full investigation has been done, we just don’t know.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Obtained Warrant to Wiretap Former Trump Aide Carter Page appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

America’s First Female Muslim Judge Found Dead in the Hudson River

Yesterday, police found the body of Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first female Muslim judge in U.S. history, floating in the Hudson River. Abdus-Salaam was 65 years old and had been reported missing earlier that day. Authorities said there were no signs of foul play so far, but the investigation is ongoing. Abdus-Salaam made history as the first black woman on the New York Court of Appeals–she was nominated in 2013 as part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s effort to diversify the court. Many described her as a professional and intelligent but above all a warm and empathetic judge who often sided with vulnerable parties. Many high-profile New Yorkers expressed their condolences on social media.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist and a force for good.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I extend my deepest sympathies. https://t.co/hnic07Shp1

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) April 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, reports came out stating that over a hundred gay men had recently gone missing in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe. The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta claimed that gay men had been “illegally detained, beaten, tortured with electric shocks” by officials. They were then allegedly locked up in secret prisons, including one former military facility. Now several media outlets have referred to these prisons as de facto concentration camps, after claims that inhabitants are regularly tortured and killed.

Though the exact situation is hard to glean, and proof would be hard to obtain, what is clear is that Chechen officials have a problem with gay people. The official response to the accusations is baffling–a spokesperson for the republic’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov said that the reports were “absolute lies and disinformation,” not because he condemned the atrocity of the reports, but because he claimed there are no gay people in Chechnya. “You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist in the republic,” he told the Interfax news agency.

He also claimed that had there been “such people” in Chechnya, their families and relatives would already have sent them “somewhere from which there is no returning.” Chechnya is a strictly conservative region and the majority of occupants are Sunni Muslims. Kadyrov has been criticized previously for forcing women to wear hijabs in public places, encouraging polygamy, and starting two conflicts.

Reports Say That Gay Men Are Being Held in Concentration Camps in Chechnya https://t.co/E5orv8yzKV pic.twitter.com/l1Qh5josHX

— The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) April 10, 2017

Human Rights Watch says the group has received information from reliable sources, including sources “on the ground,” that corroborates the information about detentions and torture. In a statement on its website, the group’s Russia Program Director Tanya Lokshina says that the number of sources and consistency of the stories leave her with no doubt that they are true. However, she wrote, she couldn’t reveal any details about the sources’ stories, for fear of repercussion against them.

People reacted strongly to the news and many questioned why this subject isn’t being given more attention.

Kadyrov denying gay concentration camps in Chechnya by saying ‘those people don’t exist in the republic’ is terrifying. Talk about this. pic.twitter.com/zs9yyxsqNo

— Meg V. Jones (@ItsMegNotMegan) April 11, 2017

What’s happening in #Chechnya today is literally what the Nazis did. Rounding up, torturing, and killing gay people. It’s abhorrent

— Ferenc G. Koszorus (@fgkoszorus) April 11, 2017

I’m calling on @nikkihaley to speak up against the reported #LGBTQ concentration camps in Chechnya. RT to join me. https://t.co/NM05ag67fA

— Sarah Kate Ellis (@sarahkateellis) April 11, 2017

A spokesman for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said that the government would look into the matter, but didn’t provide any details about what would be done. He also suggested that any individuals that have suffered abuses should file a complaint and go to court. But that would be basically impossible to do in Chechnya. Lokshina from Human Rights Watch says,

These days, very few people in Chechnya dare speak to human rights monitors or journalists even anonymously because the climate of fear is overwhelming and people have been largely intimidated into silence. Filing an official complaint against local security officials is extremely dangerous, as retaliation by local authorities is practically inevitable.

One of the harrowing accounts explains how a man was beaten with a hose and tortured with electricity to confess that he was gay. He said he was locked in a room with 30 others and that security officials told him the crackdown orders came from the republic’s leaders. Gay people are also sometimes shunned and killed by their own families in Chechnya.

Gay men have reportedly started fleeing the region and deleting their social media accounts. For now the outlook is grim, but at least an LGBT group in St. Petersburg, where the gay community is relatively strong, has set up an anonymous hotline that gay Chechens can call if they need help.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reports Claim that Chechnya Has Created Gay Concentration Camps appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles late Thursday night, marking its first direct strike against the Syrian regime in the country’s six-year civil war. Authorizing the strike from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, on the first day of a two-day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to signal the U.S.’s willingness to escalate its role in the conflict. He said it was a response to the chemical attack on Tuesday, which killed up to 100 civilians, and was believed to be carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” The strikes, which commenced at 8:40 p.m. EST and lasted three to four minutes, launched from two U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

With the strike, Trump signaled to Syria, its allies Russia and Iran, and the rest of the world that the U.S. is changing its calculus in a region where it has long resisted direct action. Former President Barack Obama–whose “weakness and irresolution” was to blame for Tuesday’s chemical attack, the new administration said–was reluctant to directly strike the Syrian regime, afraid that deposing Assad would only make things worse.

As a result of Obama’s failure to stop Assad, Trump said on Thursday, “the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” According to U.S. officials, in a meeting on Wednesday with military advisers, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Trump was presented with three options in responding to the chemical attack. He chose the “one-off” missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield, which advisers describe as the tamest option.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said an early review indicated the strike “severely damages or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment…reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.” Trump’s decisiveness was welcome by a host of international and domestic actors–from Israel and Syrian activist groups to a bipartisan cohort of senators and some former Obama officials.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint-statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also applauded the decision to strike. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. Others said his decision was rushed and, if unaccompanied by a long-term vision, potentially dangerous and ineffectual. 

By directly striking Assad, Trump could jeopardize any further cooperation with Russia in fighting Islamic State, which has a substantive–yet shrinking–footprint in the country. A Russian spokesman said the strike “deals a significant blow” to U.S.-Russia relations, and “creates a serious obstacle” to fighting terrorism. Though its stated goal in joining the fight in Syria a few years ago was to combat terrorism, Russia has played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime. Russia, the Pentagon said, was notified of the strike beforehand; no Russians were killed in the attack.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to meet with Russian officials next week in Moscow. U.S. officials said Thursday’s strike was meant to provide leverage in the talks, and to show the Russians they can no longer act with impunity in Syria. “This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said. “The more we fail to respond to the use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Missile Strike in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

He is often caricatured as an iron-fisted, shirtless, horseback-riding, murderous regime-supporting paragon of machismo. But Russians also have a sense of humor. So in 2013, during gay rights protests, an image of Russian President Vladimir Putin made up as a clown with mascara, long eyelashes, and lipstick became a popular symbol of resistance.

On Wednesday, Russia officially banned the image, calling it a form of “extremism.” It is illegal to share the image on the internet, because it implies “the supposed nonstandard sexual orientation of the president of the Russian Federation.” Naturally, Twitter had a field day:

Sharing this illegal picture of Putin as a gay clown. #ThingsIWontApologizeFor pic.twitter.com/KiaIbJW6nX

— Allensaurus Rex (@allenrw81) April 6, 2017

Oh no! It’s Putin the Gay Clown!!! Why doesn’t Putin like this image, he looks so pretty!#theresistance #russiagate pic.twitter.com/dVf75py21c

— Queen du Tout (@Gravityisback1) April 6, 2017

It is now illegal in Russia to share an image of Putin as a gay clown.

Guess what motherf*ucker America is still a free nation… for now. pic.twitter.com/xsG0Nma7KA

— Impeach Donald Trump (@Impeach_D_Trump) April 6, 2017

In the summer of 2013, Russians took to the streets to protest Russia’s homophobic laws and repression of the gay community. Wielding the Putin-as-a-pretty-clown meme, protesters opposed Russia’s new laws banning the propagandizing “nontraditional sexual relations” to children. Russian officials beat and arrested scores of protesters.

The LGBT community in Russia suffers from a variety of oppressive, draconian laws. In January 2015, a law passed that made it illegal for transgender people, or others with “disorders,” to operate a vehicle. In October of that year, the Russian government proposed a law that would deem public displays of non-heterosexual orientation–kissing or holding hands, for instance–a criminal act.

While the new Kremlin directive does not explicitly name a single image, it casts a wide net, banning pictures of a Putin-like figure “with eyes and lips made up.” One Russian news outlet suspects a meme of Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, both with make up, clutching a bouquet of flowers, is the banned image:

В РФ признали экстремистским плакат с накрашенными Путиным и Медведевым https://t.co/HhJvROd6Bl

— Gordonua.com (@Gordonuacom) April 5, 2017

To clear up any confusion, this Twitter user compiled all of the potentially banned images in one handy tweet:

Did anyone get the meme-o on which gay-clown images #Putin has banned in Russia? Was it any of these? #stophomophobia pic.twitter.com/ljrUm7Pmo8

— Jason ’Toole (@jayrotoole) April 6, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Outlaws Images Depicting Putin as a Gay-Friendly Clown appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday morning, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes announced he was stepping aside from the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. This announcement isn’t too surprising, given his questionable actions two weeks ago when he decided to brief President Donald Trump about the ongoing investigation into his campaign, and then called a spontaneous press briefing without notifying his colleagues on the committee first.

Also on Thursday morning, the House Committee on Ethics revealed that Nunes is being investigated because of suspicions that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” according to the New York Times.

The main criticism against Nunes is that he doesn’t seem capable of conducting an impartial investigation into President Trump; many have claimed that he is too close to Trump and the White House. Nunes said that “left-wing activist groups” had filed “entirely false and politically motivated” accusations against him and that he made the decision to step down from the investigation into the Russia ties because that would be the best for the committee.

Devin Nunes to be investigated for disclosing classified information while heading Russia probe https://t.co/xg9AY0mLuT pic.twitter.com/bWi0jF9Gmq

— The Hill (@thehill) April 6, 2017

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in a statement that he still trusts Nunes but also supports his decision to step down. Texas Rep. Mike Conaway will replace him on the investigation. Nunes will remain the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, but just won’t participate in the Russia investigation. Conaway announced that he hopes to work with the Democrats on the committee to get the investigation going but that he needs their cooperation.

The investigation has already had one high-profile recusal, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in the beginning of March. That time it was over questions about his meetings with the Russian ambassador last year, which were revealed after he denied having any contact with “the Russians” at his confirmation hearing. Trump then accused the Democrats of carrying out “a total witch hunt.”

However, many people had positive reactions to Nunes’s recusal.

Devin Nunes has recused himself from the Russia probe. Soon there won’t be Trump allies anywhere but in the crosshairs of this scandal.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) April 6, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Devin Nunes Steps Away from House Investigation into Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Chemical Attack in Syria Kills Dozens of Civilians

A chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province has killed at least 58 people, including many children. Human rights groups say either the Syrian government or Russian jets perpetrated the attack. Chemical weapons cause a horrendous and painful death–victims essentially choke to death. According to witnesses, the attack started early in the morning when they saw airplanes flying overhead and a series of loud explosion. Shortly after, civilians on the ground started displaying symptoms of a gas attack.

Horrible pictures of chemical weapons attack in Idlib. The world could have protected these kids years ago, but is still refusing to. #Syria

— James Sadri (@halfiranian) April 4, 2017

The Syrian government and Russia both deny all involvement, but some international leaders have already condemned the move as a war crime. Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan told President Vladimir Putin that this could complicate their upcoming peace talks.

This attack comes just a few days after U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said that ousting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad is no longer a priority.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

100+ Arrested and Three Killed in Chechen Crackdown on Gay Men

Over the past week, more than a hundred gay men went missing in Chechnya, the semi-autonomous Russian republic located in the southernmost part of Eastern Europe. The republic is predominantly Muslim and extremely conservative. On Saturday, a Russian opposition newspaper reported that the men had been arrested by Chechen police and confirmed that at least three had been killed.

After 100+ gays seized in Chechnya, human rights official says homosexuality=”evil every Chechen will fight against” https://t.co/dT6zu1NeGv

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 1, 2017

Allegedly, the crackdown started after a gay rights group in Moscow applied to hold Pride parades in areas close to Chechnya. But the leader of the republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, said through a spokesman that the reports are false and impossible. In fact, he seemingly flat-out denied that gay people exist in the area. “You cannot arrest or repress people who just don’t exist in the republic,” spokesman Alvi Karimov said. He added, “If such people existed in Chechnya, law enforcement would not have to worry about them, as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return.” These horrendous comments caused international outrage and gay men have started fleeing the republic.

LGBT activist handcuffs himself to Petersburg’s Akhmat Kadyrov bridge to protest news that 100+ gays detained in Chechnya, at least 3 dead https://t.co/V49WGZos45

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

With a new story coming to light seemingly every single day, there’s no question that all the news about Russia and its interference in the 2016 election is confusing. So, it’s fair to assume that a lot of people were surprised on Wednesday when Senators Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner, the Democratic Vice Chairman, held a joint news conference discussing the Senate’s Russia probe.

The biggest takeaway from the press conference was Warner’s comment on one part of Russia’s strategy to destabilize the election, which concerned the Kremlin hiring 1,000 paid trolls to generate fake anti-Clinton stories targeted at specific areas in the U.S. Warner did not elaborate on where those specific areas were, but he alluded to the committee investigating trolls targeting Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The significance of Russia targeting these three specific states is simple: they are all swing states that President Donald Trump narrowly won. They were also the three states included in the unsuccessful recounts prompted by Jill Stein.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia Probe appeared first on Law Street.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify in the House and Senate intelligence committees’ Russia investigations in exchange for immunity, his lawyer said in a statement on Thursday. Flynn “certainly has a story to tell,” said his lawyer, Robert Kelner, who added that his client is seeking immunity because of the “highly politicized, witch-hunt environment” of the investigations.

An immunity deal would protect Flynn against criminal charges, should it come to light that he broke the law. According to a U.S. official, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is engaged in one of two congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his advisers’ communications with Russia, denied Flynn’s immunity request. The House Intelligence Committee, which is running the second congressional investigation, has not responded as of Friday morning.

Flynn resigned in February after he misled White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He has since become a central figure in the murky saga of Russia–which the FBI and CIA concluded meddled in the U.S. election in favor of President Donald Trump–and its communications with Trump aides during the campaign.

Congress has the ability to grant immunity, but usually consults a prosecutor first. The FBI is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his advisers’ ties to Russia, which director James Comey recently said has been underway since last July. The Justice Department has the power to delay–but not outright deny–an immunity request.

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, said in a statement, “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.” He added, somewhat cryptically: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.” Trump, in a message on Twitter early Friday, encouraged Flynn to seek immunity:

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

But an immunity request does not necessarily suggest Flynn is guilty of something worthy of criminal charges. “At this early stage, I wouldn’t read anything into this request beyond smart lawyering,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, told the New York Times. “In such a politically charged, high-profile national security case, I couldn’t imagine not first asking for immunity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request appeared first on Law Street.

Dreamer Hits Back at People Sending Her Online Threats

ASU student Belén Sisa came to the United States with her parents when she was six years old. She is protected under the DACA program and is allowed to live, study, and work in the United States. On Sunday she posted a selfie with a tax form on Instagram. She wanted to show that there are millions of immigrants who work hard and pay taxes and don’t get anything back from the system, as they are not eligible for benefits or unemployment.

Belen interned in our Phoenix office. I’m proud to see her dispelling myths about immigrants & defending #Dreamers https://t.co/ktKginIxDK

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) March 28, 2017

But the post resulted in a ton of hate messages on social media; people called her derogatory names, said they had reported her to ICE and that she would be deported, and claimed that she is a criminal. Someone even photoshopped a disturbing picture of her decapitated, with Trump throwing her head over a wall. But she hit back at the harassers by Instagramming pictures of their messages, with their social media names fully visible. “Those messages were to instill fear and ensure we wouldn’t fight back, but it made me do the complete opposite,” she said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of people fanned out across cities in Russia to protest corruption on Sunday, the largest public demonstrations in five years. Hundreds were arrested, including Russian and foreign journalists and scores of young people. While the protests broadly targeted government corruption, there were few direct displays of dissent against President Vladimir Putin, who throughout his nearly 17-year rule has kept a tight grip on protests and opposition.

From Vladivostok in the east to Kaliningrad in the west to Moscow, protesters waved Russian flags and wielded banners and signs, chanting: “Russia without Putin,” and, in Moscow, “this is our city.” A spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, called the protests a “provocation and a lie” and said young people were “promised financial rewards in the event of their detention by law enforcement agencies.”

Aleksei Navalny, an increasingly influential and strident opposition politician, called for the protests weeks ago. His Foundation for Fighting Corruption organized the demonstrations. Navalny, who ran for mayor of Moscow in 2013, was arrested in Moscow on Sunday while protesting. While some see him as a viable Putin opponent in the 2018 elections, he is widely expected to lose. In February, a Kremlin-backed court found him guilty of fraud (he denied the charge), further derailing his chances.

Unprecedented number of young Russians who’ve known no president but Putin came to protest him today. This looks like being the iconic shot pic.twitter.com/noRLeNNxDu

— max seddon (@maxseddon) March 26, 2017

Regardless of his political future, Navalny, who also helped organize the protests that followed tainted elections in 2011 and 2012, is hitting a nerve across the country. Sunday’s protests in Moscow were the most visible and received the harshest crackdown from authorities. Protesters were met with riot police and surveillance helicopters. The Moscow Police Department said “around 500” people were detained for an “unapproved public event.” A group that monitors arrests, OVD-info, said the number of arrests was closer to 1,000.

In the U.S., the White House response was muted; some lawmakers were vocal about the Kremlin’s swift response to the protests. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NB) said in a statement: “Putin’s thugocracy is on full display. The United States government cannot be silent about Russia’s crackdown on peaceful protesters. Free speech is what we’re all about and Americans expect our leaders to call out thugs who trample the basic human rights of speech, press, assembly and protest.”

And while President Donald Trump–who is currently under investigation by the House and the Senate for his communications with Russia during the election–was silent on the issue, Mark Toner, the acting spokesman for the State Department said the U.S. “strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout Russia on Sunday.” He added: “Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds Arrested in Anti-Corruption Protests Across Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Senate Intelligence Committee to Question Jared Kushner

The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia is still ongoing and investigators now plan to question Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser Jared Kushner. The Senate Intelligence Committee reportedly wants to ask Kushner about meetings that he organized with Russian ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak. Apparently one of the meetings involved the boss of Russia’s state-owned development bank, a fact that was previously unreported.

According to White House sources that spoke to the New York Times, Kushner met the head of the bank on Kislyak’s request even though the U.S. had placed the bank on its sanctions list after President Putin’s invasion of Crimea and conflict with Ukraine. According to White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks, there was nothing unusual about this meeting. But the news of Kushner’s impending questioning has still raised eyebrows–he’s the first from Trump’s inner circle to be questioned about this issue.

Before he fixes the Middle East and remakes the US Government, first Jared Kushner has to explain the meetings with all them Russians! https://t.co/zIsEMnfdAC

— Eric Garland (@ericgarland) March 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said, in a press conference on Capitol Hill and later at the White House on Wednesday, that President Donald Trump and his associates were compromised during the campaign as the result of surveillance in Trump Tower. Trump’s associates, Nunes said, were “unmasked” by the surveillance, and some of Trump’s communications were swept up in “incidental collection” as a result. He cited a classified report as the source of his claims, but did not divulge who provided him with the information.

“I don’t want to get too much into the details, but these were intelligence reports, and it brings up a lot of concern about whether things were properly minimized or not,” Nunes said. “What I have read bothers me, and I think it should bother the president himself and his team, because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

This behavior by Nunes, head of the House investigation into Trump and his associates’ communications with Russia, brings up a host of questions: Can Nunes continue to lead an impartial investigation? Did he reveal any new information? What is “unmasking” and “incidental collection”? And was the surveillance that Nunes described lawful?

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said that Nunes apologized Thursday morning for going straight to the White House with his concerns, and circumventing the House Intelligence Committee. But many House Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said Nunes could no longer be expected to be an impartial voice in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The White House, in contrast, warmly embraced Nunes’s direct approach. “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found,” Trump said, adding that he feels “somewhat” vindicated for his accusations that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said Nunes provided “startling information.” But what exactly did Nunes reveal that was previously unknown?

The FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which are leading separate investigations into Russia’s communications with Trump and his associates, both concluded there is no evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped–by Obama or any other intelligence agency. And Nunes on Wednesday admitted as much. It is the “unmasking” of Trump’s associates that has Nunes concerned. Americans are often surveilled for communicating with foreign actors that might concern the U.S. But their identities are commonly masked, hidden from U.S. authorities who are tracking them.

Not so in the case of Trump’s associates, Nunes claims. He said the identity of those who were surveilled–Nunes said it was multiple associates, Schiff said it was one–was revealed to U.S. officials. Given the unusual nature of the investigation into people close to Trump who had ties to Russia (a common target of U.S. surveillance), it is hardly surprising that U.S. officials might not have conducted business as usual.

And according to Schiff, “unmasking” in and of itself “does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies,” and “is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information.”

The “incidental collection” Nunes mentioned refers to Trump’s communications that might have been collected due to the surveillance of his associates. Again, there is nothing illegal about that. As to who might have been the subject of the surveillance, Nunes provided no specifics. Here’s a good bet though: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman who resigned last August after his name was included on a ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Devin Nunes Reveal Any New Information About Trump’s Wiretap Claim? appeared first on Law Street.

What You Need to Know About Devin Nunes, the FBI, and Russia

Yesterday, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) shocked everyone by claiming that President Donald Trump might have been under surveillance after all. He said that he had been given reports that showed that intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Trump and his associates. But he conceded that those communications were picked up incidentally by intelligence agencies and that Trump was not the primary target. Nunes then chose to brief Trump and talk to the media before informing his Democratic counterpart, California Congressman Adam Schiff.

Within minutes of #DevinNunes‘s stunt, it was clear he had torpedoed his reputation and that of his committee. That assessment still holds.

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 23, 2017

It’s all very confusing–Nunes said that the information appeared to be part of lawful collections of foreign intel, but that he was still “alarmed.” And he was pretty severely criticized for immediately briefing Trump on the matter, given that he’s also tasked with investigating the president. Nunes defended his decision by saying that the information he told Trump had nothing to do with Russia.

Then, late last night, U.S. officials said that the FBI does have information that indicates that Trump’s associates may have communicated with Russian officials to release information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Accusations have now been levied that Nunes only made the surveillance comments to deflect attention from these more concerning claims. Democrats, and some Republicans, are pretty outraged and are calling for an independent investigation.

The idea that Devin Nunes will investigate Trump/Russia is a farce. It’s time for a real, independent, transparent inquiry.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, lobbied on behalf of a Russian oligarch with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to an Associated Press investigation, Manafort began discussing a strategy, as early as June 2005, with Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska to push his business interests in Russia and other former Soviet republics.

One of Deripaska’s goals, as indicated by memos obtained by the AP, was to support Putin’s government and to undermine anti-Putin politicians in Russia and former Soviet republics like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Georgia. 

In a 2005 memo obtained by the AP, Manafort wrote to Deripaska, whose net worth is $5.1 billion according to Forbes, and described a “great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.” Manafort added: “We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success.”

Manafort’s “great service” involved influencing politics, business exchanges, and news not only in Russia and former Soviet states, but in the U.S. as well, according to the AP. Manafort and Deripaska signed a contract to carry out the lobbying efforts in 2006. Deripaska paid Manafort $10 million per year for his efforts, and the two maintained a business relationship until at least 2009.

Last August, Trump asked Manafort to resign as his campaign chairman after reports came out that he lobbied on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had a cozy relationship with Putin. On Monday, FBI Director James Comey revealed that a number of Trump’s campaign associates are under investigation for their Russian ties. And though Comey declined to explicitly name Manafort as one of the associates in question, it is highly likely he is a subject of the probe.

After Comey testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Manafort “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” for the Trump campaign. In fact, Manafort was campaign chairman from March to August, a crucial six-month stretch of the campaign.

Manafort denied any malfeasance in a statement to the AP: “I worked with Oleg Deripaska almost a decade ago representing him on business and personal matters in countries where he had investments,” Manafort said. “My work for Mr. Deripaska did not involve representing Russia’s political interests.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concern over the AP’s report. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Manafort’s lobbying could amount to “basically taking money to stop the spread of democracy, and that would be very disturbing to me.” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the AP report “undermines the groundless assertions that the administration has been making that there are no ties between President Trump and Russia.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Paul Manafort Work to Benefit Vladimir Putin’s Government? appeared first on Law Street.

Want to see the new “Beauty and the Beast” movie in Malaysia? Be our guest.

Disney’s live-action remake of the classic animated film won a small victory in the country recently, despite efforts from its censorship board to ban the film over the decision to depict one of the characters, LeFou, as a gay man. 

Malaysian censorship officials pushed to cut scenes suggesting that LeFou is gay, but Disney refused to edit it and the film’s postponed release date is now set for March 30 with a PG-13 rating.

Movies that feature gay characters can only be shown in Malaysia if the characters are portrayed negatively or renounce their sexuality. Malaysia is among a handful of countries, where homosexuality is either outlawed or condemned, that have tried to hinder the movie’s release.

In Russia, the film, which is rated PG in the U.S., has been restricted to viewers aged 16 and older. “Beauty and the Beast” was also pulled from cinemas in Kuwait, where an edited version might return to screens soon. Meanwhile, a group of churches in Singapore has issued a warning about the movie to parents.

The controversy can likely be traced back to the U.S., where, before the movie even came out, a drive-in owner in Alabama said he would refuse to show it because he opposed the inclusion of a gay character on religious grounds.

So what exactly happened in the film to spark such a global scandal? It turns out, the representation of a gay character may actually be overhyped. LeFou is a sidekick to the villain Gaston, and it is implied throughout the story that he has an unrequited crush on Gaston. One scene shows LeFou dancing with another male character for about three seconds, but he never explicitly reveals his sexuality.

If anything, the scene–which director Bill Condon described as an “exclusively gay moment”–deserves criticism for being too subtle, according to some LGBT advocates. Bustle’s Martha Sorren writes:

I can acknowledge that Condon has taken a (small) step forward with this scene, but I’m certainly not going to praise the director and cast for representing the gay community when they did so little to represent us.

Sorren adds that LeFou’s effeminate gestures reinforce stereotypes about gay men, and that his unreciprocated feelings for Gaston could cause “straight people–especially the young viewers who will undoubtedly see ‘Beauty and the Beast’–to think that their gay friends are going to develop creepy, obsessive crushes on them.”

Sorren’s concerns echo those about another beloved children’s tale that stars Emma Watson. In 2007, J.K. Rowling revealed that the character Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series is gay, but critics were disappointed that she never made this clear in the books or movies, and questioned whether she was just tossing in a token gay character as an afterthought.

Though Disney has taken steps to expand racial diversity in its movies in recent years, members of the LGBT community hope to see the studio create more characters like them. Last spring, some fans of the movie “Frozen” started a campaign to give the main character, Elsa, a girlfriend in the sequel.

And then, of course, there’s this perspective:

imagine boycotting beauty & the beast because of a gay character while being totally cool with a teenage girl falling in love with a buffalo

— Tyler Oakley (@tyleroakley) March 5, 2017

It’s certainly not a Disney production without a happy ending. Disgruntled fans could not stop “Beauty and the Beast” from becoming a box office hit. In fact, boycotters who complain about too many women or people of color in Disney’s movies have never had much success before–just look at the attempts to bring down the company’s first “Star Wars” film, “The Force Awakens,” two years ago.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Beauty and the Beast” to Premiere in Malaysia Despite Controversy over Gay Character appeared first on Law Street.

FBI to Investigate Breitbart, Other Media Outlets, Over Russian Ties

The FBI is getting ready to investigate Breitbart News and some other right wing media outlets to see whether they cooperated with Russia to boost President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. The agency is reportedly looking into online bots that pushed out fake and real news stories that were supportive of Trump. The automated bots would create millions of posts on social media that linked to far-right sites like Breitbart, and Russian-backed outlets like RT and Sputnik News. Observers noticed that whenever damaging information about Trump was revealed or his campaign was thought to be struggling, anti-Clinton posts would surge.

Investigators will try to determine whether the media outlets knew what the bots were doing when they were pushing fake news. This announcement resulted in mixed reactions on social media. While many thought this investigation was a long time coming, some expressed concerns about freedom of the press.

Am I the only one who thinks an FBI counter-intel investigation of Breitbart is a dangerous move for press freedom? https://t.co/jn0eZHM3zI

— David Mastio (@DavidMastio) March 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State and former CEO of oil giant Exxon Mobil, will not attend a meeting with NATO representatives next month in Brussels, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Instead, Tillerson will travel to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Tillerson will then travel to the G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, followed by a jaunt to Moscow to meet with Russian officials.

In forgoing the NATO meeting in favor of a trip to meet with Kremlin officials, Tillerson is only compounding the dim view some have of his personal ties to Russia, and the Trump Administration’s connections as well. Tillerson steered Exxon through lucrative drilling contracts with Russia, and President Vladimir Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship in 2013.

And Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” though members of his cabinet–and Vice President Mike Pence–have since tried to walk back those remarks. Then of course, there are Trump’s murky relations with Russia: FBI Director James Comey said on Monday that Trump’s associates are currently under investigation for communications with Russia during the campaign.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting would do little to alleviate the defense alliance’s concerns about U.S. support. “Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration [is] simply too cozy with Vladimir Putin,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

The State Department spokeswoman said in lieu of Tillerson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affair Tom Shannon will represent the U.S. in Brussels. Tillerson will, however, be meeting with NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday in Washington. The meeting will focus on defeating Islamic State, or ISIS, the spokeswoman said.

A former U.S. official and former NATO diplomat told Reuters that the alliance offered to change the date of the Brussels meeting so that Tillerson could attend, but that the department declined the offer. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the former diplomat said engagement with NATO is vital given the growing Russian threat. “Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rex Tillerson to Skip NATO Meeting, Meet with Chinese and Russian Leaders Instead appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump met with the leader he once said was “ruining Germany” at the White House on Friday: German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In their first face-to-face visit, Trump and Merkel were expected to discuss a number of topics that concern Germany, the U.S., and the rest of the world: NATO, Russia, the European Union, refugees, and North Korea.

Merkel came to Washington with a business-centric agenda in mind. She was accompanied by top executives from BMW, Siemens, and other top German businesses that trade with the U.S. In a recent interview with a German newspaper, Merkel said she planned to stress to Trump the importance of the U.S. and Germany’s trade relationship. “I’ll make that clear,” she said.

But it wasn’t all business-as-usual, like this very awkward moment:

Photographers: Can we get a handshake?
Merkel (to Trump): Do you want to have a handshake?
Trump: *no response*
Merkel: *makes awkward face* pic.twitter.com/ehgpCnWPg7

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 17, 2017

During a press conference that followed their two-hour private conversation, Trump and Merkel largely focused on areas the U.S. and Germany cooperate on–trade and defense. Trump praised Germany for its work-training programs. But echoing a point he repeatedly made as a candidate and early on in his presidency, Trump said Germany and other NATO members must “pay their fair share.”

Merkel agreed that Germany must do more to meet its commitment to the defense alliance–each NATO member is expected to pay two percent of its GDP per year, a mark all but the U.S. fall short of–and promised that she would make sure it does. The press conference was tense at times, which is hardly surprising, given the history of animosity between the two leaders.

At a campaign event last March, Trump said “the German people are going to end up overthrowing this woman,” in reference to Merkel and her open-door refugee policy. “I don’t know what the hell she’s thinking.” Trump has called Merkel’s refugee policy, in which she welcomed roughly a million refugees to Germany, a “catastrophic mistake.”

Some other notable snippets from the press conference:

• Trump said he is “not an isolationist,” but a “free trader” and a “fair trader.”
• Trump said immigration is a privilege, not a right.
• Merkel said globalization “ought to be shaped in an open-minded way but also in a very fair way.”
• When asked by a German reporter if he ever regrets his tweets, Trump said: “very seldom.”

With populist movements gaining traction in the U.S. and Europe–many with isolationist, anti-globalization, and anti-establishment elements–Germany is a valuable democratic partner for America, as it has been for decades. But Trump’s apparent embrace of anti-EU forces, and of Britain’s exit from the EU, has many U.S. allies questioning his commitment to the traditional western order.

One thing is clear: Trump still believes Trump Tower was wiretapped by President Barack Obama during the 2016 campaign. When asked about his claim, which has been struck down by U.S. intelligence officials and high-ranking Republicans, Trump said he and Merkel, who the NSA has reportedly spied on, “have something in common, perhaps.” Visibly taken aback, Merkel said nothing.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Merkel Meet to Discuss NATO, Trade, and Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sound Familiar? Mike Pence Used His Private Email Too

Vice President Mike Pence harshly criticized Hillary Clinton for using her personal email for official business, but now it turns out he did something similar. Pence used his personal AOL account to communicate with top advisers in Indiana while he was governor. Sometimes his emails included sensitive matters such as Indiana’s response to terror attacks and the arrests of terrorism suspects. His account was even hacked by a scammer last summer who emailed Pence’s contacts, claiming that Pence and his wife were stuck in the Philippines and needed money.

Pence’s office in Washington issued a statement yesterday, saying, “As Governor, Mr. Pence fully complied with Indiana law regarding email use and retention.” The office of the new Indiana governor released 29 pages of the email conversations but an unknown number of other emails were withheld, as they are considered confidential. The incident has caused an uproar among Democrats, who remember Pence’s calls for an investigation into Clinton.

Hey @FBI

Mike Pence would like you to investigate him now…because NO ONE is above the law.#PenceEmails

(via @DonaldJOrwell) pic.twitter.com/qAJPVE9B0P

— The Hummingbird (@Alifaith55) March 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration’s connections to Russia have worried both Democrats and Republicans, with lawmakers from both parties calling for special prosecutors, committee investigations, and intelligence probes into the matter. Late Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, had met with Russia’s U.S. ambassador twice before–in July and September–despite denying any contacts with Russian officials in his confirmation hearing in January.

A bi-partisan chorus has been building over the past few weeks for the Justice Department to investigate the administration’s ties to Russian officials. Lawmakers’ concerns were amplified when former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month after misleading the vice president about his contacts with the same ambassador Sessions met with, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions, the man who would lead a Justice Department investigation into Trump’s Russian contacts, might be embroiled in the investigation himself. Now lawmakers are calling on him to recuse himself or, like Flynn, step down completely.

A handful of prominent Republicans on Wednesday and early Thursday said a special prosecutor should investigate the Trump Administration’s contacts with Russia, instead of Sessions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said Sessions should recuse himself:

AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) March 2, 2017

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) initially echoed that sentiment, but hours later said he is “not calling on [Sessions] to recuse himself.” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it “would be best for [Sessions] and for the country” to recuse himself. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during a CNN town hall Wednesday evening, also seemed to embrace the idea of a special prosecutor in lieu of Sessions. Graham said that “if there’s something there that the FBI thinks is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor.” 

Of course, a senator is allowed to meet with Russian officials, and at the time Sessions met with Kislyak, he was a senator from Alabama. But Sessions denied having any contact with the Russians during the campaign (“I have no idea what this allegation is about,” he said in a statement), and during his hearing he swore under oath that he did not have contact with Russian officials. At worst, Sessions committed perjury, in which case he would certainly be forced to step down. And at best, he misled Congress, which many Democrats see as reason enough to resign.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sessions “is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said Sessions should “resign immediately, and there is no longer any question that we need a truly independent commission to investigate this issue.” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a vocal critic of Sessions when he was nominated as attorney general, said Sessions “should have never been confirmed in the first place,” and that he should resign. “We need it now,” she added.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should Jeff Sessions Recuse Himself from the Russia-Trump Investigation? appeared first on Law Street.

CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, has been going on just outside of D.C. all week and on Friday the president took the stage. President Donald Trump spent the first half of his speech bashing the media, saying that “the dishonest press” and “fake news” are “the enemy of the people.” He went on to say that he doesn’t oppose negative stories about himself, but that the media is just making things up. Then, Trump explained how he is going to follow through on his campaign promises such as the dismantling of Obamacare, the construction of the border wall, the deportation of “bad dudes,” and the creation of more jobs.

Trump also claimed that there were so many people who wanted to see him speak that the line outside the Gaylord Hotel and Convention Center where the event is taking place went for six blocks. “There are lines that go back six blocks. I tell you that because you won’t read about it,” he said.

Reporters at Jezebel decided to look into it, and concluded that the reason you won’t read about it is because it didn’t happen; they couldn’t find any evidence of long lines. Volunteers who were stationed by the doors to check peoples’ tickets denied seeing any long lines, and the only big crowds of people to arrive simultaneously came from buses. Jezebel also pointed out that the area where the hotel is located doesn’t even stretch for six blocks.

At one point, several attendees started waving Russian flags with Trump’s name on them.

Someone handed out Trump Russian flags on the #CPAC2017 floor before Trump’s speech pic.twitter.com/uf1ADMt6ZL

— Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) February 24, 2017

When staffers saw the flags they hurriedly confiscated them.

Crowd at CPAC waving these little pro-Trump flags that look exactly like the Russian flag. Staffers quickly come around to confiscate them. pic.twitter.com/YhPpkwFCNc

— Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) February 24, 2017

It’s unknown who made or handed out the flags and why. It’s also unclear whether people even realized it was the Russian flag they were waving, or if they just thought it was just a flag with the American red, white, and blue colors. But according to journalist Sarah Posner, there was at least one attendee who wore a t-shirt that said “Make Russia Great Again.” Prank or not, the incident gave rise to some laughs.

@PeterHamby @mkraju “Excuse me Sir, your Russia is showing. Let me hide that for you. Carry on.”

— MichelleK (@Michelle_In_AR) February 24, 2017

Well played, anonymous CPAC monkeywrencher. https://t.co/ZXElPROsKx

— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) February 24, 2017

Are Russian flags the Right’s answer to #pussyhats? #CPAC #TRUMP https://t.co/FM74Irzwg4

— lnmassaro (@liddabird) February 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Up at CPAC?: Attacks on “Fake News” and Russian-Themed Trump Flags appeared first on Law Street.

These days, fake news is everywhere. After all, 2016 was marked by “post-truth” becoming the word of the year and the made-up news stories that made their way around the internet. Some of the stories that sprung up last year were so bizarre it is incredible anyone would believe them, but fake news is now being blamed for things like Donald Trump’s victory. Back in March 2015, a group of 11 European diplomats, bureaucrats, and former journalists based in Brussels started investigating the origins of fake news stories under the name East StratCom. In the 16 months since, the group has debunked about 2,500 stories.

The European Union has a new unit to combat Russian propaganda, an 11-member team called East Stratcom. https://t.co/TtsfAd8bJZ

— Steven Lee Myers (@stevenleemyers) February 21, 2017

Incorrect information has always been easily spread. But last year was different, given the controversial U.S. election, and how quickly fake stories could spread via social media, especially Facebook, which came under fire for trending fake articles in the fall. The problem was also spurred on by Google, where stories that went viral would pop up toward the top of searches because of the traffic they had gained. Purveyors of fake news would also try to make their websites look like real news sites, and place their fake stories next to genuine ones.

The European Council created East StratCom specifically “to address Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns.” Most of the team members know Russian and they work full time scanning the web for fake stories. They try to debunk stories in real time on social media, send out newsletters and inform their followers about fake news. They have over 14,000 followers on both Facebook and Twitter. But they say it is impossible to cover as much as they would want to.

Conspiracies: the bread & butter of pro-Kremlin disinformation. Don’t be deceived & read #DisinfoReview: https://t.co/7tkJBWaRaR pic.twitter.com/14mAFDuFFR

— EU Mythbusters (@EUvsDisinfo) February 17, 2017

This year, France, Germany, and the Netherlands all will hold elections and many people are worried that outside efforts will succeed in influencing the outcomes, like it seems they did in the U.S. The Russian goal is believed to be to undermine the European Union and gain more control in the region. And several of the team members have received death threats, with one of them being accused twice on Russian TV of being a spy.

President Donald Trump has made a point out of calling mainstream media “fake news” but has also spread incorrect information himself. In a speech at a Florida rally last weekend, Trump mentioned something that allegedly happened in Sweden when talking about immigrants and crime, implying that there had been some sort of terror attack. He later explained on Twitter that he was referring to something he’d seen on Fox News, and once again attacked Sweden and the “fake news media.”

Give the public a break – The FAKE NEWS media is trying to say that large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2017

This tendency to quote false information as if it were real is an actual danger to democracy, says British politician Damian Collins who is examining the phenomenon. “There are concerns shared by many governments that fake news could become weaponized,” he said. “The spread of this type of material could eventually undermine our democratic institutions.”

And while East Stratcom works as hard as possible to debunk fake news stories, the speed of information sharing on social media has many experts doubting whether the efforts will have any effect. And given the anonymity of the internet, it is virtually impossible to find the perpetrators.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A European Task Force is Battling Fake News, One Story at a Time appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Presidents Day! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hey, Donald Trump: What Exactly Happened in Sweden?

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump cited Sweden when discussing terrorism and immigration. “You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” he said. But there was no remarkable incident in Sweden the night before. The former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt commented on Twitter, asking, “What has he been smoking?”

Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound. https://t.co/XWgw8Fz7tj

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 19, 2017

The Swedish embassy said it asked the White House for an explanation, as no one in Sweden knew what the American president was talking about. And many on Twitter mocked POTUS’s comments, speculating that it could be IKEA-related:

Uncovered: the plans for the terrorist attack in #Sweden last night. RT because the fake news MSM wont report it! #swedenincident pic.twitter.com/EMh1FmsFac

— Liora Yukla (@LiogaYukla) February 19, 2017

On Sunday, Trump “explained” via Twitter that his statement was in reference to a Fox News segment that claimed that immigration has led to a dramatic increase in crime in Sweden. But today, Swedish police officers who were interviewed in the segment called Ami Horowitz, the man who interviewed them, a “madman” and said that they answered completely different questions than what Fox aired.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The resignation of Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser and the subsequent revelations that Trump aides communicated with Russia during the campaign have raised a lot of questions in Washington. Clearly some sort of relationship exists between Russia and Trump–or at least his orbit of advisers and aides. But how deep does it go? How nefarious does it get? And, perhaps most importantly, what will happen next?

For one, the FBI is continuing to review the communications between Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Flynn was pressured to resign after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his calls with Kislyak (they talked about U.S. sanctions, but Flynn told Pence they did not).

It is unclear if Trump, or any other top administration officials, directed Flynn to discuss the sanctions with Kislyak, or if Flynn acted of his own accord. But Trump, for one, is not happy about the leaks coming out of his administration:

The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by “intelligence” like candy. Very un-American!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

On Tuesday, top Senate Republicans hinted that they would be calling for an investigation into the relationship between Trump, his aides, and Russia. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said a probe is “highly likely.” Two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), also called for an investigation.

“We are aggressively going to continue the oversight responsibilities of the committee as it relates to not only the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, but again any contacts by any campaign individuals that might have happened with Russian government officials,” Burr said on Tuesday.

Republican Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Roy Blunt (MO) echoed the call for a Senate investigation, which would likely include a subpoena for Flynn to testify. Republicans in the House, however, struck a different tone Tuesday.

“I’ll leave it up to the administration to describe the circumstances surrounding what brought [Flynn] to this point,” said Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Ryan did not call for a House Intelligence Committee investigation.

The decision to launch a House investigation into the Russia-Trump Administration relationship is unilaterally controlled by one man: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the House Intelligence Committee Chairman. In contrast with many of his Republican colleagues, his counterparts in the Senate, and Democrats, Nunes sees a bigger problem than Trump’s potential Russia ties.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” Nunes said on Tuesday, referring to the FBI’s recording Flynn’s call with Kislyak. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

In other words, Nunes likely won’t be launching a House probe any time soon.

The opaque, yet unmistakable, ties between Trump and Russia first came to light in the summer of 2016. In July, he flippantly implored Russia to dig deeper into Hillary Clinton’s emails. In August, his campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort, quit amid reports about his past business dealings with Ukrainian government officials who were backed by the Kremlin. And in the waning months following Trump’s election win, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that Russia–perhaps directed by President Vladimir Putin–interfered in the election with the goal of netting Trump a victory.

Then, just over a week before Inauguration Day, reports of a salacious dossier on Trump compiled by a former British intelligence officer began to leak. The dossier claimed that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russian officials during the campaign in their hacking of Democratic operatives’ emails.

While U.S. intelligence officials have made some progress on corroborating the claims in the dossier, nothing too incriminating has been confirmed yet. They are continuing to probe the dossier, as well as Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), never one to mince words, called Russian interference in the U.S. “very disturbing” in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. He added: “Any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price.”

Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Russia: What Will Happen Next? appeared first on Law Street.

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, after less than one month of service. Last week, U.S. officials said that in his phone calls with the Russian ambassador in late December, Flynn discussed the sanctions President Barack Obama levied on the Kremlin after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded it interfered in the U.S. election. Flynn reportedly cautioned Kislyak against a harsh response, and suggested the sanctions could change under President Donald Trump, who was set to take office a few weeks later.

Though Trump’s team publicly supported Flynn last week and even early Monday, the external pressure proved too heavy. “I am tendering my resignation, honored to have served our nation and the American people in such a distinguished way,” Flynn wrote in his resignation letter, which the White House sent to reporters. On Tuesday morning, Trump gave his take on the matter via Twitter:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

While the White House publicly supported Flynn–Trump’s Counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday morning said he had the “full confidence” of the president–privately, things were different. For one, Vice President Mike Pence was apparently incensed that Flynn had lied to him about the content of his calls with Kislyak. Because he was led to believe Flynn and Kislyak discussed nothing out of the ordinary, Pence publicly defended Flynn last week.

In his letter, Flynn said he “held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors” during the transition. “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.”

Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr. will temporarily replace Flynn until the White House chooses a permanent replacement. Kellogg is a retired Vietnam War veteran with decades of military experience. The leading candidate to replace Flynn is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, according to an anonymous source that is close to the Trump Administration. Former CIA Director David Petraeus and Kellogg are also in the running.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a fervent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a statement early Tuesday on Flynn’s resignation, which he said was “a troubling indication of the dysfunction of the current national security apparatus.” McCain, who also chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, continued:

General Flynn’s resignation also raises further questions about the Trump administration’s intentions toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including statements by the President suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to our NATO allies, and attempted interference in American elections.

According to a report by The Washington Post, the White House has known about Flynn’s potentially damaging phone calls for at least a month. Sally Yates, the acting attorney general who Trump fired after she refused to enforce his travel ban, told the administration that Flynn misled Pence about the content of his communications with Kislyak. Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan echoed the Justice Department’s warning.

Yates and the intelligence leaders worried that Russia could use the content of the calls to blackmail him in the future. If Russia wanted something, for instance, they could tell Flynn that they would expose the true nature of the calls unless he capitulated to Russia’s demands. But it took a public outcry and external pressure to finally uproot Flynn from his post, though according to administration officials, it was not easy for Trump to nudge Flynn to finally resign, because of the loyalty he showed throughout the campaign.

Even as he was heading out the door, Flynn showered praise on the Trump Administration. In his resignation letter, Flynn wrote: “this team will go down in history as one of the greatest presidencies in U.S. history, and I firmly believe the American people will be well served as they all work together to help Make American Great Again.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Flynn is Out: What You Need to Know About his Resignation appeared first on Law Street.

During the transition period, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn reportedly discussed President Barack Obama’s sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador. According to current and former U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials, Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, the ambassador, exchanged texts and at least five phone calls in the moments before and the day after Obama announced his actions on Russia, which were in retaliation for its election hacking. Flynn and White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, repeatedly denied that the two men discussed the sanctions. 

In an interview with The Washington Post, Flynn also denied he and Kislyak spoke about the sanctions, which Obama announced on December 29. However, Flynn, through a spokesman, slightly backtracked on Thursday. Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up,” the spokesman said.

This saga began on December 29, when Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S., and shuttered two Russian-owned compounds in New York and Maryland. The sanctions were a response to the U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia meddled in the election by hacking email correspondences between Democratic Party officials. According to U.S. officials who have reviewed intelligence reports and diplomatic cables, Kislyak requested a phone call with Flynn when news of the impending sanctions began to leak.

On January 13, President Donald Trump’s Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Flynn and Kislyak coordinated the logistics of a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But U.S. officials are now saying that the sanctions were also a topic of conversation. Flynn told Kislyak that Moscow should refrain from responding to the sanctions too harshly. Flynn reassured Kislyak that the sanctions would be reviewed once Trump was in the White House. “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” a former U.S. official told the Post.

On December 30, when Putin announced he would not retaliate, everyone seemed surprised but Trump. “Great move on the delay,” he said in a Twitter message. “I always knew [Putin] was very smart.”

White House officials have denied that any impropriety took place during the phone calls. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS last month. He also said Trump’s team had no contact with Russia during the campaign. Flynn has raised concerns that he has a more-than-cordial relationship with Russia and its president. In 2015, Flynn sat next to Putin at a banquet in Moscow for the state-owned television network Russia Today. 

While Trump has tempered his seemingly pro-Russia stance since the campaign–he recently said the sanctions will remain in place–many worry that Flynn maintains too favorable of a relationship with Russian officials. There is also the question of whether he broke federal law by discussing the sanctions with Kislyak. The Logan Act of 1799 bars U.S. citizens from interfering in foreign affairs “with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government.” It is unclear what qualifies as a breach of that statue; it has never been acted on in court. The FBI, however, is investigating the correspondences between Flynn and Kislyak.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Michael Flynn Speak with Russia About Sanctions During Transition? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, December 29, President Barack Obama placed sanctions on Russia for its alleged hacking of several American institutions. While the sanctions themselves are not unprecedented–the U.S. had sanctioned Russia two years earlier–they point to another unfortunate episode in an increasingly contentious relationship between the two nations. This relationship has eroded as these former adversaries have clashed over Crimea, the nation of Georgia, Syria, and U.S. presidential elections, all within the past decade. While some recent developments suggest the relationship may start to improve, much of the future remains uncertain. Read on to see how the U.S.-Russia relationship has developed over the years, where exactly it stands now, and what it will look like in the future.

The United States and the Empire of Russia

The relationship between the United States and Russia, then the Russian Empire, dates back to before the U.S. government was even firmly established. During the American Revolutionary War, Russia ultimately decided to remain neutral and not offer any support to the British despite being a British ally at the time. The next time the two nations went to war, in the War of 1812, Russia was once again involved as it offered to serve as a mediator. While the offer was declined by the British, a relationship between Russia and the United States was forming.

Although the relationship had initially been positive, a degree of tension arose between the two nations when the Holy Alliance–Russia, Austria, and Prussia–threatened to intercede in Central and Latin America, a perceived violation of the U.S. sphere of influence established by the Monroe Doctrine. The issue was ultimately resolved and no serious conflict resulted. Russia would get back in America’s good graces when it nominally supported the United States during the Civil War, including sending ships to the American East and West Coasts. While historians contend this move was actually to avoid having those ships blocked or destroyed by British and French troops during the Crimean War, and although Russia never provided physical support, the presence of the Russian sailors was positive.

Perhaps the most significant interaction between the two, prior to World War II, was the purchase of Alaska, completed in 1867. Russia was keen to sell the land because it was too far away to administer and also because it needed money following the Crimean War. The United States initiated the purchase in 1859 but held off on actually buying the land until 1867 following the Civil War. The sale price was $7.2 million and was initially viewed as a mistake until large mineral deposits were discovered.

The United States and Russia continued their relationship into the 20th century during several important events. The first was the United States getting Russia and several European empires to agree to an Open Door Policy in China, which ensured its territorial integrity. The second was the United States, under Theodore Roosevelt, mediating the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

Even when the relationship was strained, the U.S. offered substantial aid to Russia following the outbreak of World War I and later during a massive famine in 1921-1923. However, the United States, along with other Allied governments, also sent troops in to undermine the new communist regime following their takeover and subsequent withdrawal from World War I. When the USSR was declared in 1922, all diplomatic ties were severed.

World War II and the Cold War

The United States did eventually reestablish diplomatic ties with the USSR in 1933. During World War II, the two countries would become allies, with the USSR receiving supplies from the U.S. as part of the Lend-Lease program and later when both countries fought the Axis Powers. These two nations, along with France, China, and the U.K. would also become the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council following the war.

That was the high point, however, and for the next 45 years or so, the relationship was increasingly tense during the Cold War. This was particularly true with the “Iron Curtain” descending on Eastern Europe in 1947 and America introducing its policy of containment. The two sides then squared off in a stalemate, which was occasionally punctuated by major events like the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Both countries also engaged in a heated space race with the USSR launching the first satellite in 1957 and United States becoming the first and only country to land a man on the moon in 1969.

Tensions normalized somewhat in the 1970s with the first talks on reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles and for cooperation in space. However, they flared once more in the 1980s with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The decade closed, though, with resumed talks on disarmament. The 1990s began with a bang, or more specifically a coup in 1991. The coup failed and so did the USSR soon after, breaking into 15 countries later that year. The video below looks at the history of the Cold War:

After the Thaw

The fall of the Soviet Union was greeted hopefully by the United States with the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, aimed at collecting nuclear material, infamously named “loose nukes,” from the former Soviet Republics. The two also collaborated again on the space program, culminating with the International Space Station.

Relations began to cool again after both George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin came to power, particularly when President Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. This was followed by Russian opposition to the Iraq war, U.S. support for Kosovo gaining independence, and an American anti-missile defense system proposed for Poland. Relations between the two countries declined precipitously following the 2008 invasion of South Ossetia and the subsequent war between Russia and Georgia.

Following this episode, the then-incoming Obama Administration called for a policy “reset” in 2009. Things certainly seemed promising with the New START agreement that called for nuclear arms reduction between the United States and Russia in 2010, along with Russia agreeing to new sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. From there, however, the situation took a turn for the worse again, when Russia supported Bashar al-Assad in Syria, alleged Russian spies were detained in the United States, and Russia cracked down on human rights in 2012 following Vladimir Putin’s election as president. Russia also expelled USAID from the country and made all NGOs register.

Although both countries came to some agreements to strengthen sanctions on North Korea following its nuclear weapons test in 2013, relations continued to deteriorate when Russia granted asylum to Edward Snowden later that year. This intensified significantly with Russia’s seizure and subsequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, as well as its support for separatists in Eastern Ukraine. These actions led the U.S. to place economic sanctions on Russia and expel it from the G8.

Most recently, the United States and Russia have continued to bicker over the Syrian conflict and Russian support for the Assad regime. However, the greatest spat appears to have come in the wake of the recent election when several U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had interfered in the presidential election through targeted hacking and leaking. This news caused President Obama to increase sanctions and expel 35 Russian nationals from the country. The CIA updated its assessment to conclude that not only did Russia interfere in the election, it did so to help elect Donald Trump.

Going Forward

While Russia and the U.S. have shared a tense relationship for more than a decade, the two countries see signs of hope with the election of Donald Trump. President Trump has seemed to confirm this with what he has already said concerning Russia. For evidence, one need look only as far as President Obama’s recent sanctions against Russia and President Trump’s subsequent praise of Vladimir Putin’s intelligence for not responding in kind. The following video looks at the potential relationship with Donald Trump as president:

President Trump indicated that he hopes to warm relations between the two countries not just with his words but also with his recent actions–namely, by nominating Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State. Tillerson was formerly the CEO of Exxon Mobile and has a lot of business experience working with the Russian government. In fact, Tillerson was once awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin himself. While all of Tillerson’s experience with the country comes from his work in the private sector–acting on behalf of Exxon Mobil rather than the American government–early indications suggest that Russia is pleased with his selection.

Nevertheless, the U.S.-Russia relationship is dictated by more than just the president and his cabinet and that is where things start to get complicated. While Trump sang Putin’s praises for exercising restraint, Republican members of Congress were happy to see additional sanctions placed on Russia, which many considered overdue. In some cases, such as with Senator John McCain, the sanctions were not enough and he pledged to work for even tougher measures. Thus the jury remains out on the future of the relationship; however, the opportunity for improvement appears to be there.

Conclusion

The relationship between Russia and the United States has ebbed and flowed. At first, like many other countries in Europe, Russia treated the United States as a trading partner but not much else. However, with the dawn of the twentieth century and the ascension of the United States as one of the preeminent powers in the world, Russia began to take notice. This situation came to a head following World War II when they were the only two superpowers left standing, prompting competition for ideological control of the world.

However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, early indications seemed to suggest the United States and Russia could finally work together and form a more collaborative relationship. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case, as the early 21st century featured more disagreement and mutual antagonism. With the rise of Vladimir Putin and his sustained grip on power, the situation has only deteriorated further. While newly elected President Trump has suggested a closer partnership, it remains to be seen if that will stand the test of his term or if Congressional Republicans will even allow it. In the meantime, the United States and Russia will continue their long, circling dance, interacting when necessary and quarreling regularly.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Story Behind the U.S.-Russia Relationship appeared first on Law Street.

The town of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine is preparing for evacuation this week as the town has lost electricity and water. After clashes between the Ukrainian army and pro-Russia rebels, at least ten people are dead and dozens have been wounded.

Reports conflict on the exact death toll and more than twenty civilians and soldiers may have died in the past several days. Heavy shelling has decimated the region, with more than 2,300 explosions taking place in a 24-hour period. Both sides have claimed the other has been using Grad rocket systems, an imprecise weapon which disperses multiple rockets across a broad area. This shelling is a blatant violation of the Minsk agreements of 2014, which halted war in the Donbass region (adjacent to Avdiivka), as well as the ceasefire declared earlier this year by Russian separatists.

As temperatures plummet below zero, the citizens of Avdiivka are trapped in homes without any heat supply, unsure if the shelling will begin again during the week. A state of emergency has been declared across the region and unless utilities are restored to the town immediately, the government will evacuate thousands from their homes.

Avdiivka is a somber reminder of the daily struggle for peace in Ukraine, an ongoing battle that many fear will crumble under the Trump administration. If Trump cuts Kiev out of peace negotiations with Russia in order to bolster his own relationship with the Russian establishment, he could undo years of the Ukrainian government’s efforts to unify and stabilize the country. Tenuous connections are being made between the phone call with Trump and Putin the day before the shelling in Avdiivka and a sense of Russian support for escalating violence in Ukraine.

With Trump seemingly positioning himself as friendly to Russia, Putin will likely not feel the same sting that he felt under the Obama Administration, which leveled multiple economic sanctions against Russia in an attempt to dissuade further military action in Ukraine. President Obama also stationed U.S. troops in Poland before leaving office, citing Russian expansionist doctrine as a threat to Polish autonomy.

There have been no indications that the Trump Administration plans to enact sanctions against Russia or to provide military support for the Ukrainian military as it battles against the pro-Russia rebel forces. The White House has not issued a formal statement but instead directed a request for comment toward the State Department, which cited the Minsk agreements and called for a ceasefire. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg appealed to Russia to exert its influence over the rebels and to request a return to the ceasefire. The UN Security Council has also called for the reinstatement of the ceasefire. However, reports that the rebels are setting up artillery positions in the city center of Donetsk and a significant spike in the amount of shelling in Donetsk this week suggest that the Minsk agreements may already be in tatters. If the Trump Administration continues to turn a blind eye to the crisis, Avdiivka may be just the beginning of the darkest chapter of the Ukrainian war.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Tragedy in Avdiivka: Violence Tearing Through Eastern Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: today marks the beginning of #BlackHistoryMonth. Twitter created a special bot to highlight the occasion, where you learn facts, see content from black creators, and learn about events near you. Check it out, and then read on for today’s rants!

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Pick For the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch

President Donald Trump’s choice for the vacant Supreme Court seat is Judge Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has similar views to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch, 49, has clerked for two Supreme Court Justices and spent time in D.C. when he was younger; his mother was a high-level official under President Ronald Reagan. He began his legal career by practicing law in D.C. for a decade. Gorsuch is an originalist, which essentially means he believes in interpreting the Constitution as its words were originally understood.

President Trump picks Antonin Scalia 2.0 https://t.co/9MTVuUZtV2 pic.twitter.com/cu1mGkPWAJ

— POLITICO (@politico) February 1, 2017

Now, Republicans are very happy to potentially gain a new conservative justice. But it is likely that Senate Democrats will filibuster, as the Republicans refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for the position for almost a year. Cue more drama.

via GIPHY

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: #DeleteUber was trending over the weekend as the news was dominated by chaos and confusion over the Trump Administration travel ban. If you’re wondering what that hashtag stands for, check this out. Then read on for the latest rants.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Travel Ban Causes Chaos and Protests

On Friday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. The order came abruptly and caused immense chaos at airports around the country, as people arriving from the affected countries were detained. Serious protests erupted, mainly at airports, and the move has been sharply condemned by, well, most people internationally.

It will probably have serious consequences in many ways. American academic institutions, hospitals, and businesses rely on experts and professionals from other countries. Iraq has already said it will retaliate. And an online petition in the U.K., aiming to keep Trump from making a state visit, quickly got over a million signatures.

IMAGE: Protests at airports across the United States pic.twitter.com/7OEqC9HtaT

— The Int’l Spectator (@spectatorindex) January 29, 2017

Initially, the ban also applied to green card holders and people with dual citizenship. Stories about students being stranded after a vacation or people unable to get home flooded the media over the weekend. An Iraqi man who worked as a translator for the U.S. military for a decade was detained for 18 hours at JFK Airport in New York.

As of now, it appears that no one is being detained or held at an airport anymore and there have been exemptions for 392 green card holders who have been allowed into the country. Fifteen attorneys general have issued a statement condemning Trump’s actions, calling it an “unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful Executive Order.” There is still confusion over what the order will actually mean, but the courts, big companies like Google and Facebook, celebrities, and ordinary citizens are all fighting back.

The synagogue where President Trump’s grandchild goes to preschool has condemned his travel ban https://t.co/jpunSV0ReA pic.twitter.com/0GbC3AM3ZG

— CNN International (@cnni) January 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Doomsday Clock is ticking.

No, not literally. But on Thursday, a group of scientists moved the hands of the symbolic clock 30 seconds closer to midnight as a result of threats posed by climate change and President Donald Trump.

So what is this clock, if not an instrument used to tell time?

It was created in 1947 by scientists involved in the Manhattan Project–an effort led by the United States to develop atomic weapons during World War II–to warn people about potential disasters caused by nuclear war. The closer it is to midnight, the greater the possibility of an impending catastrophe.

The hands now sit at 2.5 minutes from midnight, the closest they have been since 1953, when they were moved to 2 minutes from midnight as a result of Russia and the United States testing hydrogen bombs during the Cold War.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which oversees the clock, said in a release that “world leaders have failed to come to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats: nuclear weapons and climate change.”

Specifically, the Bulletin cited Trump’s “disturbing comments” about nuclear weapons, dismissal of climate change, and the rise of “strident nationalism” as factors that affected the decision to change the time.

A statement from the Bulletin’s Science and Security board referenced growing nuclear arsenals in North Korea and Russia, as well as in Pakistan and India where relations have been tense for decades. Although it praised the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal to limit nuclear programs in Iran, the board questioned how long the deal would last under Trump’s administration.

Additionally, the statement criticized the lack of progress made at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference, following the Paris Accord.

Another issue the board took into account was the risk posed by new, autonomous technologies, like self-driving cars. The scientists described a troubling hypothetical scenario in which such machinery could be used for weapons that  “make ‘kill’ decisions without human input or supervision.” The statement also warned of threats to democracy, like fake news and election hacking.

So how do we turn the clock back?

The board called upon leaders across the world, including Trump, to consider expert opinions and scientific evidence as they make decisions and create policies regarding the environment and use of nuclear weapons.

But it also urged average citizens to pressure their leaders, particularly on social media, to reduce nuclear arm programs, commit to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and consider the consequences of new technologies.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does it Mean When the Doomsday Clock Ticks Closer to Midnight? appeared first on Law Street.

Russian Deputy Minister Yelena Mizulina submitted a bill to the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, that would decriminalize some acts of domestic violence. If passed, the law would protect abusers found guilty of domestic abuse for the first time, as long as the attack did not cause serious harm and excluded rape.

The ultra-conservative lawmaker, who  claimed the bill defends “traditional family culture,” said people should not be jailed or considered a criminal for “a slap.” Unsurprisingly, Mizulina is also the author of the “gay propaganda bill,” which has greatly restricted the rights of LBGTQ people. This law was similarly justified by claims that it defended traditional families.

The Duma, dominated by President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, overwhelmingly supported the legislation, dubbed the “slapping bill” by Russian media. Of the Duma’s 450 MPs, 368 voted in favor of the law after its first reading. The law stands in opposition to one passed last July that criminalized acts of violence against family members. This complete 180 is believed to be a means of appeasing the ultra-conservative faction within United Russia.

While there is little data available on domestic violence in Russia, a report by the ANNA National Centre for the Prevention of Violence estimates that violence occurs in one in four households, two-thirds of murders are domestic, 14,000 women a year are killed by their husbands or other relatives, and up to 40 percent of violent crimes are family related. Meanwhile, the city of Moscow only has one state-funded refuge for victims of domestic violence.

The bill has outraged many in Russia but the government has already moved to silence opposition. Groups wishing to protest in Russia must file for permits. While activists requested permission to protest, their requests for permits were denied on the grounds that a protest would disrupt traffic and pedestrians.

The sizable United Russia majority is likely to push the bill through subsequent votes with ease before they send it to the upper chamber for a final vote.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aims to Decriminalize Some Domestic Violence in Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Senator vs. Senator: Cory Booker Slams Jeff Sessions

Popular New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker made history yesterday, when he became the first sitting U.S. senator to testify against the nomination of another sitting U.S. senator: Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for AG. Yesterday, Booker said Sessions has “not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job: to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all of our citizens.”

.@CoryBooker testifies against Jeff Sessions: “our country demands a more courageous empathy” pic.twitter.com/Tnr3t9OyPM

— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBookerOffice) January 11, 2017

Booker’s move drew criticism from Republicans. Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) said that Booker just wanted some time in the spotlight. Others saw it as a sign that Booker may throw his hat into the ring for 2020.

can we just fast-forward to whenever I get to vote for Cory Booker for president?

— Daniel Kanter (@Danielkanter) January 11, 2017

Civil rights icon Representative John Lewis and NAACP President Cornell William Brooks also testified against Sessions. Brooks said that Sessions has shown “disrespect, and even disdain for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this country.”

But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham responded to those claims, saying that the NAACP is biased and favors Democrats in its Civil Rights Federal Legislative Scorecards. In short: Sessions’ confirmation has turned into a bit of a melee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump is taking shots at the intelligence community and the “mainstream media,” yet again, after BuzzFeed News published a 35-page report Tuesday, containing unverified and salacious allegations about Trump’s ties to the Russian government.

The dossier in question, which was said to have been compiled by a former British intelligence officer hired by Trump’s political opponents, has reportedly been circulating among some lawmakers, journalists, and intelligence officials for months.

CNN reported Tuesday that President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump received a two-page synopsis of the opposition research last week, warning of Russia’s efforts to compromise Trump.

Buzzfeed was unable to confirm the document’s contents, but decided to publish it in full anyways “so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.”

The collection of memos allege that Russia has been “cultivating, supporting, and assisting” Trump for at least five years. It also claims that in 2013 Trump employed a number of prostitutes to perform a perverse “golden shower” display in front of him, on the same bed the Obamas slept in at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow, and that the Russian intelligence agency FSB reportedly recorded the encounter.

Critics have debated the ethics of whether or not Buzzfeed was in the right to have published the secret dossier in full, without verifying its contents. Ben Smith, Buzzfeed’s Editor-in-Chief, defended the publication’s decision, offering this explanation:

Here’s the note I sent to @buzzfeednews staff this evening pic.twitter.com/OcAloWzVzb

— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) January 11, 2017

Trump responded to the article on Twitter, with his characteristic capitalized ferocity.

FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

He later added:

Russia just said the unverified report paid for by political opponents is “A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FABRICATION, UTTER NONSENSE.” Very unfair!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

I win an election easily, a great “movement” is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017

During Trump’s first press conference as president-elect Wednesday morning, he categorically denied the document’s validity, calling it “fake news” and “phony stuff.” Trump also denied allegations that he watched a “golden shower” display at the Russian Ritz Carlton, claiming “I’m very much a germaphobe. Believe me.”

Trump did admit, however, for the first time, that Russia was behind the DNC hack. “I think it was Russia,” said Trump, before backpedaling a few minutes later to say that perhaps it was another country.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Rebukes Buzzfeed Report, Russian Ties appeared first on Law Street.

Months after learning of Russia’s cyberattack on the email networks of U.S. political operatives, President Barack Obama announced new sanctions on Thursday, targeting specific actors and institutions that played a role in the hack. Signed while he was on vacation in Hawaii, Obama’s executive action calls for the ejection of 35 Russian intelligence operatives from the U.S. It also levies sanctions and travel bans on four top officials from the GRU, a Russian intelligence service U.S. officials believe was behind the Russian cyberattack.

“All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions,” Obama said in a statement, adding that the order “provides additional authority for responding to certain cyber activity that seeks to interfere with or undermine our election processes and institutions, or those of our allies or partners.” Some of the sanctions however, are more symbolic than substantive, as Russian intelligence officials from the GRU scarcely travel to the U.S., and rarely hold assets on U.S. soil.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry Commissioner for Human Rights said the sanctions were “futile and counterproductive,” and demonstrate “the total disorientation of the outgoing US administration.” The Russian embassy in London took to Twitter to air its grievances over Obama’s measures:

President Obama expels 35 diplomats in Cold War deja vu. As everybody, incl people, will be glad to see the last of this hapless Adm. pic.twitter.com/mleqA16H8D

— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) December 29, 2016

Obama’s response could have an effect on how President-elect Donald Trump deals with the Russian hacking. U.S. intelligence agencies agree that the Kremlin was behind the email hacks in the months leading up to Election Day. The CIA and the FBI recently concluded that the motivation behind the intrusion was to put Trump in the White House. And while a bi-partisan group of Congressmen have called for a congressional investigation into the cyberattack, Trump has largely played down its role in his win; he even called the claims “ridiculous.”

A joint analysis report issued Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI found that Russia conducted hacks in the summer of 2015, and the spring of 2016. The report said the operations targeted “government organizations, critical infrastructure entities, think tanks, universities, political organizations, and corporations leading to the theft of information.” If Trump lifts Obama’s order, he would be contradicting the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies, a move that could lead to friction in Congress.

While vacationing at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida on Wednesday, Trump was asked by reporters about Obama’s forthcoming response. “I think we ought to get on with our lives,” he said. “I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I’m not sure we have the kind, the security we need.”

Meanwhile, some U.S. officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, said there could be more a private, covert response in the near future. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged the need to “punch back against Russia” in a statement. He added: “I hope the incoming Trump administration, which has been far too close to Russia throughout the campaign and transition, won’t think for one second about weakening these new sanctions or our existing regime.” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the sanctions were “overdue” and an “appropriate way to end eight years of failed policy with Russia.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Responds to Russian Cyberattack with Sanctions and Ejections appeared first on Law Street.

It’s the day before New Year’s Eve, and 2016 is about to be officially over. If you’re happy to see it go, check out this parody horror movie trailer someone made about the past year. This is the last RantCrush of 2016 but we’ll see you again on January 3, 2017. Happy New Year! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The U.S.-Russia Relationship Status: It’s Complicated

President Barack Obama was not happy when it became clear that Russia had in fact tampered with the U.S. election. Yesterday afternoon, he ordered 35 Russian diplomats, residing in Washington and San Francisco, to leave the country. He also imposed sanctions on Russia and closed two Russian compounds in New York and Maryland. These actions were reportedly part of a series of consequences for the Russian election hacking and interference. But U.S. officials also blamed Russian harassment of American diplomats and officials in Moscow.

“The actions would amount to the strongest American response ever taken to a state-sponsored cyberattack.” https://t.co/TI9P1G7quj

— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) December 29, 2016

Then came reports that Russia would reciprocate by expelling the same number of American diplomats. But only hours after that proclamation, President Vladimir Putin said that he wouldn’t expel any American diplomats, which was a surprising announcement considering the diplomatic tradition of reciprocal punishment. He said that he wants to restore the Russian-American relationship once President-elect Donald Trump takes power. It remains to be seen what he actually means by that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a ceasefire deal for the Syrian government and some rebel factions during a speech in Moscow on Thursday. The deal does not include the Kurdish groups that control swaths of territory in the north, or certain Islamist groups, including the Islamic State (ISIS), which holds patches of land throughout the country. Putin acknowledged that the truce is “fragile,” but signaled peace talks could take place next month in Kazakhstan. The ceasefire is set to take effect Thursday at midnight.

Negotiations for the agreement have been going on for the past few days between Syria, Russia, and Turkey. Two parties that are usually privy to such talks were noticeably excluded: the U.S. and the United Nations. Both have failed to broker sustainable ceasefire agreements over the course of the six-year conflict, so Syria, its foremost ally Russia, and Turkey decided it was time to forge a consensus agreement without them.

Under the deal, fighting will come to a halt in areas controlled by the government, including the recently conquered city of Aleppo, and rebel-held territory in the northern province of Idlib. Russia will guarantee the Syrian army’s compliance, along with Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, while Turkey will guarantee compliance from the rebel groups. All sides expressed optimism that the latest ceasefire will succeed. With rebel-held parts of Aleppo retaken by government forces this month, rebels have less leverage than they had when previous agreements were forged.

Reflecting the tangled web of alliances in Syria, and the muddy definition of “rebel group,” Russia and the Free Syria Army, an umbrella group for the opposition, gave conflicting statements on the rebel participants included in the ceasefire. Russia said seven distinct rebel groups supported the ceasefire, excluding ISIS and other hard-line jihadist groups, but it included Ahrar al-Sham, a group with ties to Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. The Free Syria Army said 13 rebel groups would participate in the deal.

A statement from the Syrian Army said the ceasefire agreement followed “the victories and successes that our armed forces accomplished in more than one place,” likely referring to its decisive and swift takeover of Aleppo earlier this month. Furthering the fragility of the agreement, Turkey demanded Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant group that the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, evacuate Syria.

And although the Obama administration was not invited to take part in the talks that preceded the agreement, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said “after the Donald Trump administration takes office, it will also be able to join these efforts.” The U.S. State Department called the ceasefire a “positive development.” Steffan de Mistura, the UN envoy for Syria, said the agreement “should contribute to inclusive and productive intra-Syrian negotiations to be convened under UN auspices.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Putin Announces Ceasefire for Syrian Government and Rebel Groups appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, during the opening of an exhibit at an arts center in Ankara, Turkey, an off-duty police officer shot and killed the Russian Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov. Witnesses said the man, who wore a suit and tie during the attack, yelled: “Don’t forget about Aleppo, don’t forget about Syria” and “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great.” The assailant, before he was shot and killed by Turkish Special Forces, also wounded three other people.

A reporter with Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper said the gunman shot into the air, and then shot Karlov in the back. Turkey’s police forces swarmed the arts center, and promptly evacuated the attendees, many of whom crouched in the corner of the exhibition hall. The walls of the hall were covered in photographs from the “Russia as seen by Turks” exhibit, which opened on Monday with a speech from Karlov, minutes before he was killed.

The moment before: The Russian Ambassador to Turkey looks at a painting at a gallery in Ankara earlier today. Behind him, his assassin… pic.twitter.com/sZyJsTnAYo

— Tunku Varadarajan (@tunkuv) December 19, 2016

Melih Gokcek, the mayor of Ankara, Turkey’s capital, said the attack was intended “to ruin Turkey-Russia relations.” Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry said the diplomat “will remain in our hearts forever,” adding: “Terrorism will not pass! We will fight it resolutely.” The motive for the attack is unclear at this time. A top-ranking member of Russia’s parliament, Leonid Slutsky, said relations between the two powers will not weaken because of this incident. “There are differences between us,” he said. “It’s a horrendous tragedy, but relations between our states will not suffer.”

Soon after the attack, CNN Turk reported Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone. One possible motive for the killing: the unraveling of Aleppo, Syria, where government forces, heavily backed by Russia, mowed down the city in a matter of weeks, killing  hundreds of civilians and displacing thousands more.

Turkey and Russia back different sides in the Syrian conflict, but brokered a ceasefire agreement and collaborated to evacuate rebel fighters and civilians out of Aleppo. On its state-run news channel, Syria condemned Monday’s “cowardly terrorist act.” Karlov began his diplomatic career in 1976, and became Russia’s top diplomat to Turkey in 2013. According to his biography page on the Russian Embassy website, Karlov spoke English and Korean. He is survived by his wife and son.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Off-Duty Policeman Kills Russian Ambassador to Turkey appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, there was a meeting between the heads of the country’s leading intelligence agencies: FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan. The gathering’s subject matter: Russia’s hacking of email networks during the presidential election. On Friday, an official with direct knowledge of the meeting said that the agencies now agree that Russia’s hacking operation had the intention of putting President-elect Donald Trump in the White House.

When the CIA first announced its assessment that Russia had indeed hacked into both the Democratic and Republican email networks, only leaked the Democrat’s emails, and aimed to aid Trump, the FBI was hesitant to come to the same conclusion. Trump has called the CIA’s claims “ridiculous,” and continues to deflect any notion that he was aided by Russia.

The official close to the FBI said that the bureau was timid at first because officials entertained other motives for the Russian hacks: Perhaps Russia was trying to undermine Clinton’s position if she were to be elected, or maybe it was a personal rebuke as a result of her dicey past with Putin? Eventually, the FBI agreed that Russia’s actions were motivated by putting Trump in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, Trump’s opponent during the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, told Democratic Party donors on Friday that the Russian breach was not only directed by President Vladimir Putin, but that the episode was a personal attack on her. She said Putin has a “personal beef” with her, alluding to her statement five years ago that Russia’s parliamentary elections were”rigged.” Clinton said: “Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election.”

But Clinton also called the Russian hacks “an attack against our country,” not just her campaign. “We are well beyond normal political concerns here,” she said. “This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.” President Barack Obama, in his final news conference of the year, defended his handling of the Russian hacks. He said he even delivered this stern command to Putin when they met in September: “Cut it out.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FBI Now Agrees with the CIA: Russia Intended to Help Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone! Last night, Trevor Noah came up with a pretty good summary of the year, saying: “2016 started with Zika and then turned bad.” But satire is the best medicine, so watching Noah’s clip could help. Hope you have a great weekend and see you on Monday! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Is This America? NC Republicans Attempt a Legislative Coup

You might have thought that American politics couldn’t get any messier right now. But in North Carolina, the GOP has basically staged a coup. When it became clear on November 9 that Pat McCrory was losing the governor’s seat, he claimed the results were too close to call, with Democrat Roy Cooper only 4,300 votes ahead. He then demanded a statewide recount and claimed that there was voter fraud, before admitting defeat on December 5. But now the GOP is trying to undermine the results by introducing two bills, HB 17 and SB 4, which would essentially strip Cooper of a lot of power.

North Carolina Republicans Make Brazen Bid for Permanent Power After Losing Governor’s Race https://t.co/VFFwNLaSpx pic.twitter.com/iNXPiSmRVQ

— Patrick (@cahulaan) December 15, 2016

The bills would prevent the new governor from making some cabinet appointments, restrict how many Democratic lawmakers could be hired, and basically ensure Republican rule continued. And last night, the NC House passed HB 17, so it’s now up to the NC Senate to decide what to do.

Denying the results of a democratic election is alarming. As Slate writes, “What’s happening in North Carolina is not politics as usual. It is an extraordinarily disturbing legislative coup, a flagrant effort to maintain one-party rule by rejecting democratic norms and revoking the will of the voters.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Finally! The East Coast is getting some snow and that holiday feeling is everywhere. As the year comes to a close, many of us are reflecting on what we learned and what happened this year. So, what did 2016 meme to you? Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

It’s All About Russia Right Now

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed that Donald Trump and the GOP have known that Russia was trying to interfere in the election for a while–possibly even before October. Earnest suggested that Trump’s repeated invitations for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails meant that he knew what was going on. “It was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack-and-leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns,” Earnest said.

Presidential Spokesman Josh Earnest: Trump may have known Russia behind hacking before Election Day https://t.co/rINAuUMEGp

— Peter Eisner (@PeterEisner) December 14, 2016

It is now believed that Vladimir Putin himself was directly involved in the data breach because of a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. But Putin may have also wanted to undermine America’s rep as a global leader. And according to investigators, he’s likely a fan of the way that Trump views Russia.

After all these revelations, Trump, instead of demanding an investigation into why a foreign nation would interfere with our election, questioned why the White House only mentioned this issue after Hillary Clinton lost.

If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Aleppo, the once-vibrant World Heritage city in northwest Syria is in ruins, its residents trapped, its buildings folded over, its streets smoldering, littered with decaying bodies. A ceasefire was brokered by Russia and Turkey on Tuesday, aimed at allowing civilians and rebel fighters to be evacuated to the rebel-held city of Idlib, or to government-held territory in Aleppo. But by Wednesday afternoon, that small glimmer of hope was snuffed out as Turkish officials and activists on the ground reported more airstrikes and shelling.

Civilians who had gathered their belongings on Tuesday, hoping to pack into buses and flee the crumbling city, were stuck, with as many as 50,000 trapped in a small eastern pocket of Aleppo still held by rebel forces. It is unclear who exactly initiated or participated in Wednesday’s attacks. Turkey’s Foreign Minister said the Syrian regime and “some forces” were responsible, possibly alluding to Russia and Iran, two of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s closest allies.

It is unclear how many residents were able to flee Aleppo before it was razed and absorbed by the government. Russia says at least 100,000 people left; the UN put the figure at 37,000. Bana, the seven-year-old girl who began tweeting from Aleppo in September, appears to be still trapped in the city with her mother. On Tuesday, Bana tweeted: “This is my last moment to either live or die.” On Wednesday, Fatemah, Bana’s mother, pleaded with the international community to intervene:

Dear world, there’s intense bombing right now. Why are you silent? Why? Why? Why? Fear is killing me & my kids. – Fatemah #Aleppo

— Bana Alabed (@AlabedBana) December 14, 2016

Syrian forces entered the eastern, rebel-held flank of Aleppo on November 27, and quickly began gobbling up neighborhoods, and indiscriminately bombing apartments, buildings, and markets. The United Nations reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed since the government launched its offensive. When government forces announced their uncontested control of the entire city on Tuesday, a ceasefire was reached, and an evacuation plan, for rebels and civilians alike, was laid out.

Rebel fighters were to be bussed to rebel-held areas, either in Idlib to the west, or in rural, isolated areas throughout the country. Civilians had an option: to join the rebels or to be ushered into government hands. The evacuation process was set to begin before dawn on Wednesday morning, but buses were stalled and airstrikes and shelling eventually continued. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group with activists on the ground, said 6,000 civilians had been conscripted by the Syrian government, forced to join the army.

“I hope you can remember us.”

This teacher in Aleppo shares a harrowing “last call” video as government forces take control of the city. pic.twitter.com/2CMzZplvav

— AJ+ (@ajplus) December 13, 2016

Others were simply executed. The UN reported that on Tuesday, Syrian troops and Iraqi militant groups killed 82 civilians, including at least 11 women and 13 children. Speaking to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the international body’s “immediate task is to do all we can to stop the carnage.” He added: “Aleppo should represent the end of the quest for military victory, not the start of a broader military campaign in a country already ravaged beyond all recognition by five years of war.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ceasefire in Aleppo Breaks Down: What’s Happening on the Ground? appeared first on Law Street.

Though he has toyed with a number of candidates with various levels of government experience in choosing the next secretary of state, in the end President-elect Donald Trump selected a man with a résumé more in line with his own. His pick is Rex Tillerson, the CEO of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil. Tillerson, 64, has no experience in public service–he is the model “outsider” that Trump has sought out in assembling his cabinet–and has spent his entire four-decade career with Exxon.

As the nation’s top diplomat, Tillerson will have to reconcile the deep business ties he has formed with Russia. Under Tillerson’s leadership, Exxon agreed to billions of dollars worth of contracts with Rosneft, a Kremlin-backed oil outfit, to drill in Siberia and the Black Sea. Those deals were frozen, however, when the U.S. slapped heavy sanctions on Russia, after it intervened in Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.

Last weekend, as Tillerson emerged as the leading candidate, a number of Republican senators expressed alarm over his extensive business dealings with Russia, whose hacks into the email servers of U.S. political operatives were done with the intention of aiding Trump, the CIA said. On Saturday, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), said Tillerson’s relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a matter of concern to me.” He added: “Vladimir Putin is a thug, bully and a murderer, and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying.”

McCain wasn’t the only senator to question Tillerson’s relationship to Russia, and it seems the business magnate is in for a tense Senate confirmation hearing. On Sunday, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), tweeted: “Being a ‘friend of Vladimir’ is not an attribute I am hoping for from a #SecretaryOfState.” Putin awarded Tillerson with the Order of Friendship in 2013. While that is not necessarily a rare honor, or even one that indicates an unusual personal relationship with Russia or Putin, it’s Tillerson’s business dealings, specifically the ones that hinge on U.S. sanctions being lifted, that most trouble his skeptics.

But for Trump, those same dealings seem to have attracted him to Tillerson. “He’s much more than a business executive; he’s a world-class player,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday. “He knows many of the players, and he knows them well. He does massive deals in Russia — for the company, not for himself.” Tweeting on Tuesday morning, Trump doubled down on his support of Tillerson’s massive network of business deals, which span six continents and 50 countries, including the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan and Qatar:

The thing I like best about Rex Tillerson is that he has vast experience at dealing successfully with all types of foreign governments.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 13, 2016

Tillerson, a native of Wichita Falls, Texas, has been at the fore of Exxon’s shift from being a company that denied climate change to one that cleaned up its practices and even advocated for a carbon tax. He also helped the company reduce its emissions. And in 2012, Tillerson played a key role in allowing openly gay children to join the Boy Scouts, an organization which he was a member of and remains actively engaged in.

Though he beat out Mitt Romney, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) for the position, Tillerson will likely face tough questioning from the Senate, and will have trouble getting confirmed if three or more Republicans vote to block him. Aside from Rubio and McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also expressed concern about Trump’s appointee: “I expect the US-Russian relationship to be front and center in his confirmation process,” he said, adding that his Order of Friendship from Putin is “unnerving.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is Rex Tillerson? appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump may have dismissed the CIA report that Russia’s hacking was intended to aid his election efforts, but a bipartisan cohort of  politicians banded together to condemn the Kremlin’s actions over the weekend. Many have also called for a “bipartisan investigation” into the matter. Four senators–two from each party–released a joint statement on Sunday in response to the CIA’s conclusion that the hacks were pointedly aimed at putting Trump in the White House. 

“We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security,” said the statement from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI).

The senators said that the CIA’s report “should alarm every American,” adding that the hacks “cut to the heart of our free society.” McCain and Schumer appeared on “CBS This Morning” on Monday, reiterating their concern over the hacks. Contradicting Trump’s Twitter flurry denying the CIA’s report, McCain said: “there is no doubt about the hacking. Let’s establish that.”

Trump continued his Twitter tirade on Monday morning:

Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

He continued:

Unless you catch “hackers” in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn’t this brought up before election?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

Russia’s hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s email servers, and its assist to Wikileaks, which in turn unleashed the damaging emails, has been on the CIA’s radar since at least July. But last week, the agency concluded that the Russians also hacked into the Republican National Committee’s servers, but held back on releasing what they had dug up. Based on a new analysis of previously known, and largely circumstantial evidence, the CIA concluded Russia intended to help Trump get elected over Hillary Clinton.

Trump and Clinton presented Russia with two very different futures, depending on which candidate U.S. voters elected into office. As secretary of state, Clinton clashed with Russian President Vladimir Putin several times. For instance, he blamed her for instigating anti-Putin protests in Moscow in 2011. Trump on the other hand, has shown nothing but admiration for Putin on the campaign trail. Trump has praised Putin as “a strong leader,” and has questioned the effectiveness of NATO, a key check against Russian aggression in Baltic states in Europe.

While some top-ranking Republicans have spoken out against the Russians, others have remained largely silent. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a statement on Sunday, saying “foreign intervention in our elections is unacceptable” but also added that he “rejects any politicization of intelligence matters” and did not call for a deeper probe into the matter. But for McCain, Schumer, Graham, and Reed, Russia’s meddling “cannot become a partisan issue.” They said in their statement: “The stakes are too high for our country.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bipartisan Group of Politicians Express Outrage Over Russian Hacking appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, Monday! If you’re on the East Coast like me it’s foggy and bleak out there, and the news about the Russian hackers is enough to make anyone want to crawl back into bed. But our last story for today is hopefully enough to cheer you up, so read on and have a good start to your week! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Doesn’t Believe that Russia Tried to Influence the Election

On Saturday, the CIA concluded that many Democrats’ suspicions were true: Russian authorities did attempt to influence the U.S. election. More specifically, they wanted to help Donald Trump win. Several U.S. intelligence agencies found that the Kremlin provided Wikileaks with thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And when Wikileaks published them online, the negative media attention helped propel Trump to victory.

Don’t let Trumps twitter rants distract from the real news: THE RUSSIANS INTERVENED IN OUR ELECTION TO HELP TRUMP WIN. #russianhacking

— Laura Benanti (@LauraBenanti) December 10, 2016

But on Sunday, Trump said that he simply didn’t believe the news and that the Democrats are just angry because he won. His team also called his victory “one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history,” when in fact, it was one of the closest elections ever.

Also on Sunday, Trump said he would not be getting the daily intelligence briefing that most presidents receive just, you know, to keep track of the world. But Trump doesn’t love the briefings–in fact, he thinks they’re too repetitive. “You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years,” he said.

Even some Republicans are shocked:

So wait…the CIA says Russia messed with our election to help Trump win and Trump attacks…the CIA?

Not Russia? He goes after the CIA?

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) December 10, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

American intelligence officials say that they have concluded that “Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump.”

There’s still a lot that is unclear about the hacks. According to the same senior officials, Russians also hacked into the RNC, in addition to the DNC, but apparently never released any information they found there. The intelligence officials also have said that many of the hacked documents were given to WikiLeaks for dissemination. According to the Washington Post:

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now ‘quite clear’ that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

This is all concerning news, but what may be most concerning is that President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care. Trump slammed the CIA over these reports, saying:

These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’

It’s important to note that Trump’s assertion is not exactly true–most of the officials that claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are long gone. And Trump continues to deny that Russia could have been involved in his win.

Putin got just what he wanted: Trump as POTUS and America turning against itself over this intrusion rather than standing together vs Russia

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) December 10, 2016

Obama ordered an investigation into Russian involvement in the general election, and Russia denies any wrongdoing. Hopefully further investigations will answer some of these questions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Intelligence Officials Say Russia Worked to Help Trump Win the Election appeared first on Law Street.

The wife of Vladimir Putin’s chief spokesman Dmitry Peskov faces criticism from around the world after performing a Holocaust-themed ice skating routine on the Russian reality show “Ice Age.”

Former Olympic figure skating champion Tatiana Navka and her partner Andrey Burkovskiy donned Holocaust-era prisoner uniforms that were each fitted with a yellow Star of David for the performance.  The pair skated to Israeli singer Achinoam “Noa” Nini’s song “Beautiful That Way,” which was featured in the 1997 Oscar-winning Italian film, “Life is Beautiful.”

The film tells the story of a father who employs his fertile imagination to shield his son from the horrors of internment in a Nazi concentration camp. Navka posted a collage to Instagram highlighting moments from the performance after the show aired.  She explained that the routine was “based on one of my favorite movies” and noted the importance of Holocaust education for children.

Посмотрите обязательно! Один из моих любимых номеров!По мотивам одного из моих любимых фильмов ” Жизнь прекрасна”! Покажите этот фильм своим детям, обязательно☝️ #ледниковыйпериод @tatiana_navka @aburkovskiy PS : Наши дети должны знать и помнить о том страшном времени, которого надеюсь-даст Бог, они никогда не узнают!

A photo posted by Tatiana Navka (@tatiana_navka) on Nov 26, 2016 at 11:22am PST

The routine ended on a gruesome note as Navka stands alone grieving, while Burkovskiy is heard being shot behind her.

The Russian celebrity ice-skating show works similarly to the United States program “Dancing with the Stars” or the UK’s “Dancing on Ice.” The routine seemed to be well-received by audience members, but international backlash followed shortly after the routine aired.

Director of International Affairs at Australia’s Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Jeremy Jones, told CNN that he found the act to have been “unbelievably tasteless.”

“The lack of thought that would have to go into making that decision is almost mindblowing,” said Jones. “Long after they’re forgotten as ice skaters they’ll be remember as people who sunk to such depths to get some celebrity.”

The segment also drew considerable amounts of criticism online as Twitter exploded with negative reactions to the performance.

This might be offensive if they hadn’t take such great care to recreate all the wonderful ice dancing going on at Aushwitz at the time. https://t.co/Nz0iDHqili

— Michael Ian Black (@michaelianblack) November 27, 2016

Producer: Let’s play word association to find a theme for your routine. I’ll start: Ice skating.
Navka: Holocaust
Producer: …Genius

— Lara L-S (@larasouthwell) November 27, 2016

Jones told CNN that he hoped the backlash to the routine would serve as a reminder to the world of the Holocaust’s horrors.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Figure Skater Sparks Outrage With Holocaust-Themed Routine appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Ukrainian forces arrested two men in the Crimean peninsula, Ensign Maxim Evgenyevich Odintsov and Junior Sergeant Alexander Vyacheslavovich Baranov. According to Ukrainian leadership, the men are deserters who defected to the Russian military in 2014 but according to the Russian defense ministry, the pair are Russian servicemen who have been illegally detained. And no one is quite sure what’s going on.

According to a Russian Black Sea Fleets official, the two men were “lured” into Ukraine, incentivized by the promise of receiving higher education certificates. Ukraine’s Security Service has argued that it apprehended the men after they crossed the checkpoint into Ukrainian-controlled territory while Russia is claiming that the men were kidnapped and dragged back across the border. A video was released last week displaying the detentions at the checkpoint followed by the interrogations of the two men, during which one admits to having served in the Ukrainian military–although it is unclear whether that admission was made under duress. Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, accused Ukraine of “illegal provocation” and added to the Russian narrative that the confession of the captured soldier was forced rather than genuine. As the Russian army mobilizes at an ever-increasing rate to control Crimea, Ukraine has sought to crack down on deserters. Of the estimated 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers who were in Crimea at the time of annexation, only approximately 6,010 have returned to the mainland to fight for Ukraine in the de facto war sparked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

It remains to be seen whether the two men in question will be detained in Ukraine for the long term or returned to Russia (or at least Russian controlled Crimea) by diplomatic means. If they are truly Ukrainian deserters, they will undergo criminal trials in Ukraine. However, if they are determined to be political prisoners or illegally detained, there may be an opportunity for a prisoner exchange–several Ukrainian citizens have been held illegally by Russian forces in occupied Crimea. Frantz Klintsevich, a Russian member of parliament, stated that he believes the two men were kidnapped expressly to serve as bargaining chips in a prisoner exchange. The last high profile prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine took place in May, when Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko (captured by rebels and taken to Russia as prisoner of war) was exchanged for two Russian soldiers captured while collecting intelligence in Eastern Ukraine.

Alternatively, the Russians may aim to retrieve the two men by force–which is the true concern that has cast an international spotlight over the capture of these individuals. Neither man appears to be an especially valuable intelligence asset but if Russian forces successfully frame this as a kidnapping, they may justify violent action in order to retrieve their soldiers. Although the evidence presented by the Ukrainian Security Service has so far verified the claim that these men were legally arrested at the checkpoint, Vladimir Putin has condemned the arrest. Putin has spent the past several months building out the narrative he created this summer, when he claimed that Ukraine was planning terrorist attacks against the Russian forces in Crimea, painting Ukraine as untrustworthy and threatening.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Deserters or Victims?: The Mysterious Soldiers Captured in Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

So…I Guess Nike’s Stock is Up?

Executives from Boston-based sportswear company New Balance told the Wall Street Journal that they believe Donald Trump will get things moving in the right direction. Consumers reacted with fury and by setting their shoes on fire.

@SoleCollector @newbalance good to know. I made a little bonfire tonight pic.twitter.com/yOdCTbQgac

— skreetware (@milftears) November 10, 2016

Hundreds of people posted pictures of their burning shoes or of throwing them in the garbage. Some others said they would keep buying stuff from NB because the company opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. But the ones who dropped their support of the brand were more visual.

@SoleCollector @newbalance pic.twitter.com/i8IdsxzMu4

— gay boots (@omaha_trash) November 10, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Talk Spanish To Me, Tim Kaine

As the election continues to make us groan, Tim Kaine continues to impress us. He can play the harmonica, he’s insanely charismatic and, get this…he can speak Spanish like a boss. Kaine made history by delivering a stump speech entirely in Spanish at a community center in Arizona.

After Trump’s “bad hombres” and constant alienation of bilingual and multilingual families, Tim Kaine sought to rally key voters by actually speaking their language and treating them with respect.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 4, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The World’s Scariest GOTV Strategy?

A historically black church in Greenville, Mississippi was set on fire late Tuesday night and vandalized with the words “Vote Trump” spray-painted on the façade. Most of the damage was to the main building and no people were hurt. But the community is in shock over what reminds many of hateful attacks in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Black Church in Mississippi Burned Down, ‘Vote Trump’ Painted on It https://t.co/vTcPtZs72F pic.twitter.com/HUBpCy8PFB

— CitizenSlant (@CitizenSlant) November 2, 2016

Many fear that this is only the beginning of what could happen if Trump is elected president. But at the same time some crazy people think it was staged by Democrats to place blame on the Republicans.

Just like the 1960’s, #Democrats are burning churches to scare and intimidate Black Voters who are voting for Trump https://t.co/SSm317UFfL

— P. J. (@Portosj81J) November 2, 2016

The Trump campaign made sure to dissociate itself from that message.

Trump campaign statement on Mississippi church arson pic.twitter.com/d6PnyVuHBR

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 2, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 3, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Wikileaks dumped a new batch of emails on Wednesday that provide a peek into the behind-the-scenes correspondence between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the State Department as The New York Times prepared to break the story on Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state. They also show the initial scramble Clinton’s team went through as the story was about to hit the media. The emails come from the same trove belonging to Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta that Wikileaks has been steadily leaking on a daily basis. Russia is widely believed to be behind the hacks.

In an email dated March 1, 2015, a State Department press aide, Lauren Hickey, sent the following message to a department contact (Heather Samuelson, a former Clinton aide who has come under fire) and group of Clinton’s aides: “Hi guys – Jen just cleared. She made the highlighted change — just rephrased a line about NARA updates state is undertaking. Yes on your point re records – done below. And yes will let you know — should be in the new few minutes,” Hickey wrote, referencing Clinton’s Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri.

State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the leaked emails on Wednesday, but said the effort to release accurate information to the media has “at times required communicating with her representatives to ensure accuracy.”

In another email thread, dated March 17, Clinton aides discussed how best to respond to questions sent over by New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt. “Jen when we talked over the weekend you noted that it was fairly irresponsible for them to cherry pick leaked emails and write it up as representative,” wrote campaign aide Nick Merrill, who also works in the Office of Strategic Communications at the State Department. He added that some of Schmidt’s questions were “a little ridiculous to say the least.”

The same email chain shows the initial defensive stance the Clinton team took. Aide Philippe Reines wrote: “There’s a lot to respond to here, but first and foremost the premise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with anyone having personal email addresses or her emailing someone’s private account or vice versa. Maybe she was wishing (longtime aide) Jake (Sullivan) a happy birthday. Or I was sending her a note about her mom. … We’re allowed to have personal lives.”

Palmieri, meanwhile, foreshadowing the pall this would cast over Clinton’s campaign for months to come, wrote: “Strikes me as a big problem that the NYT is having selected emails leaked to them and I think we should do a call to discuss the proper way to handle.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Leaked Emails Show Communication Between State Department and Clinton Aides appeared first on Law Street.

Maskirovka is Russian for “something masked,” and it’s also the name of the number one strategy for psychological warfare used by Russia. Recently workers constructed a new piece in the maskirovka collection in a field outside of Moscow–an inflatable fighter jet that looks completely genuine from as close as 300 yards. According to Maria A. Oparina, the director of the company that produces the inflatable decoys, the demand has been growing quickly during the past year. Exactly how many they make is classified, but 80 people are employed full-time and most of them work making inflatable planes or weapons. These decoys are made to confuse and distract enemies, who have to spend valuable time figuring out whether the threat is real or not.

“Nobody ever wins honestly.” On Russia’s inflatable tanks, jets and missile launchers: https://t.co/Aovfj7JxFH pic.twitter.com/Is1VJIJ1k5

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 12, 2016

The relationship between Russia and the U.S. has deteriorated fast over the past couple of months with the failed ceasefire with Syria, accusations that Russian hackers have tried affecting the election by hacking voter databases, the release of Hillary Clinton emails from Wikileaks, and a cancelled visit from Putin to France.

And on Wednesday, Russian officials said they received an order from Putin to fly home any family members living abroad. They were told to take their kids out of foreign schools immediately, according to local media. This move has people discussing if we’re on the brink of another global war. “This is all part of the package of measures to prepare elites to some ‘big war,’” said political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky.

First Putin Orders Nation Wide Civil Defense Exercise & Now this. What’s Putin Planning & Preparing? https://t.co/UDJEY0M4a1 via @MailOnline

— Bharatavarsha (@T_deserteagle) October 12, 2016

Last month Russia was accused of attacking a humanitarian convoy in Syria, but denied it and blamed terrorists. “Just when we think it cannot get any worse, the power of depravity sinks lower,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said about the attack. Russia’s denial did not seem very genuine as it, after blaming terrorists, blamed the U.S. and then said the convoy must have caught on fire by itself.

According to Major General Alexander Vladimirov, an authority on maskirovka, the practice is as old as time. We have had to disguise ourselves when hunting ever since the Stone Age. “All human history can be portrayed as the history of deception,” he said. And in Russia, it is common that maps are inaccurate, in case they end up in the hands of a spy. But is that really the same thing as sending fake convoys to take over a territory by scaring opponents off?

Greenwald: In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots #Newsweek #KurtEichenwaldhttps://t.co/xfv8YqyauU

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 11, 2016

One of the most recent occasions when Russia used this tactic was in Crimea two years ago, when masked soldiers were sent there in military vehicles to “volunteer” and do “humanitarian” work. Later it was revealed that most of the trucks were empty. When asked about it on TV, President Vladimir Putin denied that the soldiers were Russian and said that the men could have bought fake uniforms in any ordinary store. But five weeks later when the Russian annexation of Crimea was a fact he admitted that they had indeed been Russian forces.

The concept of maskirovka is to keep the enemy guessing and wondering, and also to include an element of surprise. Examples of Russia’s use of it are easy to find: when soldiers looking like tourists sailed to Syria in 1983 to aid the country in the Lebanese civil war, when a big group of young men flew on a normal Aeroflot flight to Prague but then seized the airport, or when Russia crashed drones over Georgia on purpose in 2008, pretending they were poorly built, until one of them exploded when Georgian officers tried to remove them.

The latest moves by the Kremlin has everyone wondering what is going on and what plans are in the making.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Russia Uses Inflatable Airplanes for Psychological Warfare appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, in an interview with the Associated Press, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations told of an episode that could prove to further the theory that Donald Trump has some sort of ties to the Kremlin. Vitaly Churkin, the ambassador, said that he lodged an aggressive complaint to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on September 13 about negative comments made by the U.N. human rights commissioner in April. Essentially, a top Russian diplomat went to bat for Trump.

During a speech in Cleveland in April, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights decried the “bigotry” of Trump, and the dangerous road his positions might pave: “Less than 150 miles away from where I speak, a front-running candidate to be president of this country declared, just a few months ago, his enthusiastic support for torture,” Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the high commissioner, said, referencing Trump’s pro-waterboarding remarks in Ohio in November 2015.

Churkin told the AP that Zeid’s criticisms of several European politicians–particularly far-right ones who are stoking anti-immigrant fears–as well as Trump, were out of bounds. “Prince Zeid is overstepping his limits from time to time and we’re unhappy about it,” Churkin said. “He should stick to his file, which is important enough.”

Russia formally rebuking negative comments made about a U.S. politician is unusual enough, but given the fact that Moscow seems to have a stake in Trump defeating Hillary Clinton in November, Churkin’s actions are especially interesting.

Clinton’s senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan weighed in on the Kremlin’s latest favor for Trump: “This is not only strange – it’s scary,” he said. “A major party candidate for the presidency of the United States is being protected by the Kremlin. Wow.”

Trump’s relationship with Moscow has been questioned since he started praising Russian President Vladimir Putin. He suggested Russia hack whatever they could of Clinton’s deleted emails she sent from a private server while she was secretary of state. And he has also questioned NATO, a key check on the Kremlin’s power in Europe, hinting that the bloc could see less U.S. involvement if he were president.

While Russia steadfastly denies playing favorites in the election, it is hard to imagine a top Russian diplomat would defend any criticism of Clinton.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Russia Criticize the U.N. for Condemning Donald Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Major Burn Alert: Joe Biden Doesn’t Think Trump Can Carry His Golf Clubs

After Trump’s attack on Hillary Clinton, in which he said she doesn’t have the physical stamina to be president or take on ISIS, Vice President Joe Biden attacked Trump’s own stamina.

“I’ll bet he couldn’t carry his bag 18 holes on one of his own golf courses, speaking of energy,” Biden said to CNN on Tuesday morning.

Trump has been mocking Clinton for stumbling when she was suffering from pneumonia, while he himself is deemed overweight, which he revealed in an interview with Dr. Oz in September.

Biden also commented on Trump’s recent middle-of-the-night Twitter activity when he—again—attacked former Miss Universe Alicia Machado: “I think the real issue here–can you imagine the president getting up at 3:30 in the morning and tweeting vitriol?” Biden said. We’ll see what Trump has to say to these comments:

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 4, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Comments from diplomats on Thursday, as well as developments on the ground in Aleppo, Syria signal an increasing divide between the U.S. and Russia, just one week after a ceasefire brokered by the two powers fell through. Responding to remarks made by State Department spokesman John Kirby on Wednesday, a Russian diplomat and military general echoed suspicions that the U.S. is supporting an “international terrorist alliance.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. is “on the verge of suspending the discussion” of cooperation with Russia in Syria.

Recent developments in Aleppo, which is in a bloody tug-of-war between rebels and the government, are bleak as well: in its intensifying campaign to retake rebel-held areas in the city’s eastern sphere, government airstrikes have killed hundreds over the past week, and took out two major hospitals on Wednesday. Access to medical supplies–and food–is all but blocked, and the city has only 30 doctors left.

The relationship between Moscow and Washington is as bad as it has been since Russia joined the fight, in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, nearly one year ago. On Wednesday, Kirby said if U.S. and Russia stop cooperating in Syria, extremist groups will carry out “attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags.”

This, two Kremlin representatives said, proved the U.S. supports “terrorists.”

“We can’t assess those statements as anything else but a call, a directive for action,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. A spokesman of Russia’s Defense Ministry said Kirby’s comments were “the most frank confession by the U.S. side so far that the whole ‘opposition’ ostensibly fighting a ‘civil war’ in Syria is a U.S.-controlled international terrorist alliance.”

Because of the dwindling possibility of a cooperative strategy with Russia in combating the Islamic State in Syria, an enemy to all sides, U.S. officials are considering alternative responses to Assad’s barrage in Aleppo. Military options are on the table, a U.S. official privy to the discussions told Reuters.

But even with the frayed relationship between the U.S. and Russia, a spokesman of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin is still open to co-operate with the U.S. He also blamed the U.S. for the moderate rebel groups who failed to comply with the ceasefire by distancing themselves from jihadist groups.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As the Battle for Aleppo Rages, Trust Between U.S. and Russia Reaches New Low appeared first on Law Street.

A new Dutch probe into the downed Malaysian Airlines passenger jet that crashed in Ukraine in 2014, leading to the death of all 298 passengers, concluded that the missile used to shoot it down was Russian in origin. Investigators also said that Russia participated in the cover-up afterwards. The report mainly confirmed existing speculation that Russia was somehow linked to the attack and is part of international investigators’ attempts to collect enough hard evidence to build a case against Russia.

“Possibly they will bring charges of murder–and possibly even charges of war crimes,” said al-Jazeera’s Neave Barker who was at the news conference in Nieuwegein, Netherlands.

The incident only increased tensions between Russia and the West, and victims’ families are impatient for details about the truth.

“As a family we are impatient. We want to know what happened, how it happened and why? We want those responsible to face justice,” said Silene Fredriksz to media before the news conference. Her 23-year-old son and his girlfriend were on the plane.

The Evidence

The jet had taken off from Amsterdam and was heading toward Kuala Lumpur when it was unexpectedly shot down in July 2014. Though investigators didn’t say explicitly that Russia ordered the attack or named any individuals, the results of the probe show that the missile system, called Buk or SA-11, was delivered from Russia after a request from Russian-backed separatists just hours before it was used. After a missile had been fired and the plane wreck crashed in a field, the missile system was returned to Russia. Investigators made it clear that their intention is to find who is responsible, name suspects and potentially press criminal charges.

All 298 people on board, most of them Dutch citizens, were killed https://t.co/kBSIRtDuJ9

— Al Jazeera News (@AJENews) September 28, 2016

Among the evidence in the report was the testimony of a Russian rebel who allegedly guarded the missile system when it was sent back to Russia after completing its mission. The discovery of a missile nose cone and fin was also an important factor. One piece of evidence that was revealed last year was a piece of shrapnel in one of the pilots’ bodies, with characteristics unique to the exact type of Buk missiles that Russia uses; that particular model is not used by Ukraine.

In phone conversations included in the evidence, separatists were heard requesting the missile system because they wanted to defend themselves against Ukrainian air attacks. They received word that they would get it the same night. The Buk system was brought in by trucks across the Russian border. Prosecutors have figured out the exact route the missile was transported, where it was fired, and how it got back to Russia.

Russia’s Stance

Additional recordings of phone conversations showed the reaction from a militant to his superior when he realized it was not a Ukrainian plane but a passenger jet: “It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.”

Shortly after the plane was downed, a separatist leader named Igor Girkin appeared to be boasting about having shot down a Ukrainian military plane on a Russian social media website. He also wrote “We warned them–don’t fly in our sky.” The post was soon deleted.

Russia denies all involvement with the crash and calls the accusations “speculation, unqualified and unprofessional information.” Russian officials also have some interesting versions of what they think happened, including a theory that the CIA stuffed some hundred bodies in a drone and crashed it in Ukraine to discredit Russia. Another one is that Ukraine aimed to shoot down Russian president Putin’s plane but accidentally hit the Malaysian Airlines plane instead.

But even if prosecutors find the responsible individuals, what can they really do about it? Russia’s government prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to trial in foreign countries. It is also unclear where, if any specific suspects are found and named, they would go to trial.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Probe Shows Missile that Downed Malaysia Airlines Flight is Linked to Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, has for months been the staging ground for some of the country’s most intense fighting over its five-year civil war. Since the ceasefire brokered by the U.S. and Russia crumbled last week, Aleppo has been getting mowed down by government airstrikes, killing roughly 200 people, in what residents and rescue workers are calling the most severe surge in the city yet. On Tuesday, the neighborhood of Farafra–in the rebel-held eastern half of Aleppo–was captured by government forces, as the government pushes to control the entire city.

Reports from the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights indicate the fighting has spread to the city’s historic quarter, one of the world’s oldest settlements and home to a mosque that dates back to the 8th century. The mosque, Umayyad Mosque, a UNESCO World Heritage site, lost its minaret due to the fighting in 2013. The Syrian Observatory also said government airstrikes killed 11 people in the eastern half  of the city, while rebels shelled the government-held villages in the western half, Nubal and Zahraa.

The past week has seen President Bashar al-Assad’s government use, for the first time, bunker-busting bombs that obliterate buildings and collapse underground bunkers.

“Bunker-busting bombs, more suited to destroying military installations, are now destroying homes, decimating bomb shelters, crippling, maiming, killing dozens, if not hundreds,” said Matthew Rycroft, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations at an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting on Syria on Sunday.

VIDEO: Drone footage shows the scale of destruction caused by air strikes in Aleppo, #Syria. – @Reuters pic.twitter.com/zOcAdfbMEQ

— Conflict News (@Conflicts) September 27, 2016

Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. Secretary-General, also condemned Assad’s use of bunker-busters: “They are demolishing ordinary people looking for any last refuge of safety,” he said. “International law is clear: The systematic use of indiscriminate weapons in densely populated areas is a war crime.”

During that meeting, which was spearheaded by the U.S. and Britain, council members blasted Assad for committing war crimes. Russia, Syria’s main ally in the fight against the Islamic State and Syrian rebel groups, was lambasted for abetting Assad in his cruelty.

The fight is showing few signs of abating anytime soon. A Syrian military general told the Associated Press that the campaign in Aleppo, which has left thousands of residents trapped in the city with dwindling supplies of food and water, will continue until all “terrorists” are “wiped out.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aleppo is Pounded as Government Forces Press Toward City’s Historic Quarter appeared first on Law Street.

In what may signal the crumbling of the latest–and perhaps final–ceasefire arrangement in Syria under the Obama administration, the Syrian government on Monday voiced its renewed commitment to the fight. But America’s chief negotiator in the week-long deal, Secretary of State John Kerry, said the end of the ceasefire isn’t up to the Syrian government. Only the two main architects of the fragile agreement, the U.S. and Russia, could officially declare its end.

In effect since last Monday, the ceasefire called for a halting of airstrikes or ground attacks for the following parties: Syrian government forces, the rebel parties opposed to the regime, Russia, and the U.S. Two terrorist groups, the Islamic State and a rebel group previously affiliated with al-Qaeda, were exempt from the ceasefire.

The early parts of last week saw a decrease in reported attacks and casualties, but that began to change by the latter part of the week. Tensions flared anew when on Saturday, a U.S.-led coalition airstrike killed 60 Syrian soldiers by the Russians’ count. The U.S. Central Command said the strikes were aimed at ISIS positions, and amounted to an “intelligence failure.” The U.S. expressed its regret for its unintentional breach of the ceasefire. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad termed the attack a “flagrant aggression” while implying the U.S. was covertly supporting ISIS, the one common enemy of all parties engaged in the ceasefire.

On Monday, Assad said in a statement that his regime will “continue fulfilling its national duties in fighting terrorism in order to bring back security and stability.” Syria deems all rebel groups terrorists, even the moderate cells the U.S. supports and trains. Assad pointed to those groups as undermining the agreement.

It seems Kerry was unaware of Assad’s claim that the ceasefire had ended. “It would be good if they didn’t talk first to the press but if they talked to the people who are actually negotiating this,” he said. “We just began today to see real movement of humanitarian goods, and let’s see where we are. We’re happy to have a conversation with them.”

Humanitarian relief to Syria’s most besieged cities was a key element of the deal. Assad initially refused to sign off on U.N. aid convoys trying to provide food and other supplies to civilians outside of Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. He has since authorized aid deliveries, but the U.N. said access to areas that need aid are nearly inaccessible because of fighting, a lack of security, and administrative delays.

The Red Cross did say that it was able to deliver food, water, and hygiene supplies for up to 84,000 people in Talbiseh in Homs province. Citizens in Aleppo, caught in between the rebel-held east and the regime-held west, have yet to receive aid. A U.N. aid convoy is caught in a buffer zone near the Turkey-Syria border, just north of Aleppo, where as many as 250,000 citizens wait for food and other supplies.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Syria Signals End to Ceasefire While U.S. and Russia Express Hope it Will Last appeared first on Law Street.

There may be fewer casualties as a result of the pause in fighting in Syria this week, but there are also starving men, women, and children who continue to suffer because of Bashar al-Assad, the president of the combusting nation. In a briefing with reporters in Geneva on Thursday, the U.N. mediator for Syria said the Assad government has failed to authorize letters that aid convoys need to pass through checkpoints. As a result, the vital aid millions of Syrians hoped to receive during the week-long ceasefire has yet to arrive.

“It’s particularly regrettable because we are losing time,” Staffan de Mistura, the mediator, said. Beginning Monday, the ceasefire has largely held. Jointly implemented by the United States and Russia, the intention is to test whether fighting can remain paused for a week.

If it can, the United States, which opposes Assad’s government, and Russia, Assad’s ally, will begin cooperating in the fight against an enemy shared by all sides, including the rebel groups fighting Assad’s regime: the Islamic State. The ceasefire agreement does not include ISIS or other terrorist groups, such as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front.

But the cessation of hostilities agreement was also intended to crack open a window through which U.N. trucks could pass through, bringing aid to the most devastated pockets in Syria–including areas near Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. That part of the ceasefire has been a failure, and it’s unclear if a joint U.S.-Russia campaign hinges on the humanitarian relief portion of the deal. Assad is in charge of authorizing the letters that aid groups need to proceed.

“Can well-fed, grown men please stop putting political, bureaucratic, and procedural roadblocks for brave humanitarian workers that are willing and able to go to serve women, children, wounded civilians in besieged areas?” said Jan Egeland, the U.N. special adviser on humanitarian affairs.

And while combat has halted in much of the country, casualties were still recorded since the arrangement went into effect. On Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported airstrikes in ISIS-held territory in an eastern province. At least seven civilians were killed, and 30 more were injured. Of the four buildings that were hit with the strikes, one was a school, the group said.

A day earlier, Russia said it killed 250 ISIS fighters near the desert city of Palmyra.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Breach of Ceasefire, Syrian Government Has Yet to Authorize Aid Convoys appeared first on Law Street.

With 1 million confirmed cases, Russia is experiencing an HIV/AIDS epidemic, and it seems like no one knows how to handle it. The response from the Russian government is conservative and prejudiced, and puts blame on the affected people for lacking morals.

Rising Epidemic

According to a UNAIDS report from July 2016, Eastern Europe and central Asia make up the only region in the world where AIDS continues to rise rapidly. More than 80 percent of new cases in that region were in Russia. Even though the majority of cases affect key populations, such as drug users and gay men, it also spreads quickly through the rest of the population, especially heterosexual women, because condoms are somewhat difficult to come by.

“Condoms have practically been banned because they lead to people having sex, and sex is risky,” said Dr. Orlova-Morozova, head of Moscow Regional Hospital’s AIDS department, to ABC. The hospital currently has 38,000 patients with HIV or AIDS. He said that there is not enough money for medicine, so they have to choose who to treat and turn away many.

Rejected by Society

This view on HIV/AIDS is so conservative and biased it is hard to believe. A poster on the hospital wall where Dr. Orlova-Morozova works says: “The majority of cases of HIV/AIDS are due to the weaknesses and improper behavior on behalf of the infected person.” People who are HIV positive often lose their jobs, their friends, and are pushed out from society.

Under President Putin’s rule, life in Russia has shifted back toward a moral standard that was commonplace during the Soviet Union era, and religious leaders have a lot of influence. The approach commonly adopted is ‘Family, fidelity and faith.’ According to LaSky, an outreach organization for gay men in Moscow, there was a “scientific” paper at a recent AIDS convention that was called “How prayer can cure HIV.”

The government has banned sex education in schools and it is punishable by law to even mention sex or AIDS to children under 15 years of age if you’re a teacher. It is estimated that over half of the HIV cases in Russia are spread via intravenous drug use. But despite the fact that methadone treatment is the most successful way of treating drug addiction according to WHO, methadone therapy has been illegal since Putin came to power. There is also no way to hand out sterile needles.

Distrust of the Government

The hospitals can’t even help everyone they would want to–people with foreign citizenships living in Russia are not entitled to free medical help. A man that ABC talked to, called Sasha, was born in Uzbekistan but lived in Moscow when he discovered he was HIV positive. To get free care he would have to go back home, where homosexuality is illegal. He can’t even work to make his own money for treatment, since he would have to prove he’s HIV-free to get a job in Russia.

Social worker Maksim Malyshev thinks it is the government’s attitude that is the problem.

In my view, the problem of HIV infection in Russia exists because the people whose job it is to find ways of preventing HIV in Russia are doing a crap job. They are living in some kind of fantasy world of their own, and they have no desire to listen about science-based methods and to the specialists who are working on this problem.

Evgeny Sorokoumov, project manager for LaSky, agrees, saying, “Putin wants to show the world that our country is strong. No one needs us. We can just die.”

The UNAIDS report concludes by stating that changes in behavior, comprehensive sex education, and distribution of condoms are important measures to prevent any further spread of HIV. But in Russia’s case, it seems to be the will that is lacking, not just the way.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Faces AIDS Epidemic, Government Blames Moral Lapses appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Burning Man Bourgeoisie Raided By Revolutionaries

Burning Man, an annual music festival focused on peace and love has been certifiably ruined after some Burners claim “hooligans” sabotaged their experience by cutting power lines and raiding their camp of luxury goods.

Traditionally, Burning Man, founded in 1986, was intended to be in the spirit of “radical self-reliance,” living off the land, and finding harmony with strangers. However, the event has become overrun with the spawn of the megarich who have come to enjoy Burning Man as some sort of elitist, exclusive desert resort. They glamp their way in and out of the place.

Revolution against ‘rich parasites’ at utopian Burning Man Festival as ‘hooligans’ attack luxury camp https://t.co/wAiuRCKt6n

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 4, 2016

A lot of traditionalists believe those campers who were attacked deserved it because they are erasing the core of what Burning Man was supposed to be.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Moscow is claiming that a Russian airstrike killed ISIS spokesman and key figure Abu Mohammed al-Adnani in Syria on Tuesday. According to Russia’s defense ministry, he was one of 40 rebels who were killed by Russian bomber planes in Maaratat-Umm Khaush, in the Aleppo province.

The U.S., on the other hand, calls the claim preposterous–one U.S. defense official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, that “Russia’s claim is a joke.”

The U.S. also conducted an airstrike targeting al-Adnani on Tuesday, but has not confirmed whether he was killed. One official said of Russia’s claims to CNN: “It would be laughable but for the very real humanitarian suffering Russia has inflicted.” He added: “We conducted a strike that targeted al-Adnani. We are assessing the results of that strike.”

The official spokesman of ISIS and one of its most senior members has died https://t.co/tXFjE27j1Q pic.twitter.com/646KFp3oLF

— CNN International (@cnni) August 31, 2016

On Tuesday, ISIS announced on its own news agency Amaq that al-Adnani had died during an inspection of military operations. The cause of death was not revealed, but ISIS members said they are determined to seek revenge. They said:

To the filthy and coward nonbelievers and to the holders of the Christ emblem, we bring the good news, which will keep them awake, that a new generation in the Islamic State … that loves death more than life … this generation will only grow steadfast on the path to Jihad, stay determined to seek revenge and be violent toward them.

If al-Adnani is dead, it would mean a significant blow to the terrorist organization. He was one of the remaining founding members and a visible one in his role as ISIS spokesman. He’s been responsible for attacks abroad–Al-Adnani was probably the commander behind the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, and has been encouraging lone wolf attacks on civilians. He was also the right hand of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“He absolutely tried to maximize every opportunity to instill fear in Syria and Iraq and the international community and send fighters overseas to attack,” said CNN correspondent and diplomatic editor Nic Robertson.

Recent advances by Iraq and its allies toward the city of Mosul, where ISIS has its most important foothold, combined with the U.S. coalition cutting ISIS off from the border of Turkey has put pressure on the group. A U.S. counter terrorism official said that if al-Adnani is indeed dead, it would hurt the Islamic State “in the area that increasingly concerns us as the group loses more and more of its caliphate and its financial base … and turns to mounting and inspiring more attacks in Europe, Southeast Asia and elsewhere.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Takes Responsibility For Killing ISIS Spokesman, U.S. Calls Claim a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

The lobbying firm run by Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort conducted business in support of Ukraine’s pro-Russia political party that governed the country from 2012 to 2014. According to emails the Associated Press obtained, Manafort’s firm aimed to sway American public opinion in favor of Viktor Yanukovych’s government, through positive coverage in U.S. media outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The firm also tried to undermine American sympathy for opposition politician and democracy advocate Yulia Tymoshenko who was imprisoned by Yanukovych’s government.

As Law Street Media reported earlier this week, Paul Manafort was mentioned in a list of names that received big cash payments from the Ukrainian government, with $12.7 million earmarked for him. Rick Gates, now his deputy, was at the time working for Manafort’s political consulting firm, DMP International LLC. He directed the work of two Washington-based lobbying firms, Mercury LLC and Podesta Group Inc., in trying to bring about a positive impression of the Ukrainian government.

The emails show that Gates personally scheduled appointments between the Ukrainian foreign minister and American politicians. The foreign minister, according to the emails, did not want to use his own embassy in the U.S. for any coordination of meetings. Gates was also assigned the task of undermining support for Yulia Tymoshenko, even as the U.S. pressured the Ukraine government to free her.

Trump said Tuesday night that if he becomes president he would make sure officials would not be allowed to accept speaking fees from “corporations with a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving office or from any entity tied to a foreign government,” a proposal that seemed to be directed at the Clintons. But now it is clear that two of Trump’s own campaign advisers failed to report their activities as foreign agents, as they are required to by federal law. Not only that, but they specifically denied ever having been involved in such work, a felony that is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Exactly what role Manafort played in the lobbying operations is not clear, other than being the boss of Gates at DMP International. Both he and Gates have previously said that they did not conduct any direct lobbying, and only introduced the two Washington-based firms to a European non-profit which then took over. But the content of the emails seem to contradict that.

Manafort and Gates have been in charge of Trump’s campaign since the spring of 2015, which makes their earlier lobbying activities especially noteworthy. This brings a lot of questions to the surface and coincides with criticism of Trump’s relationship to Russia.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Advisers Led Covert Lobbying Scheme for Ukraine’s Pro-Russian Government appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that frustrated the U.S. and has some questioning its adherence to international law, Russia began using a base in Iran to launch airstrikes against targets in Syria on Tuesday. Russia confirmed Wednesday that it launched additional strikes from Iran’s Shahid Nojeh Air Base in Hamedan Province for the second straight day. The U.S. State Department condemned Russia’s actions as “unfortunate, but not surprising,” and added it could be violating a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution by utilizing an Iranian air base.

For roughly the past year, Russia has been supporting the Syrian government with airstrikes against the Islamic State, which continues to maintain a presence in the heavily fractured country. Critics say Russia is bolstering Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, in his quest to exterminate any rebel groups who oppose his rule by deliberately destroying hospitals in rebel-held regions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Syria’s five-year civil war, and millions more have fled the country, seeking asylum in Europe and elsewhere.

Russia said it’s using Iran’s air base strictly to refuel its jets. “In the case we’re discussing there has been no supply, sale or transfer of warplanes to Iran,” said Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister. Lavrov was responding to Mark Toner, the State Department spokesman who insinuated that Russia is breaching UNSC Resolution 2231, which prohibits the supply, sale, or transfer of combat aircraft to Iran without Security Council approval. “The Russian Air Force uses these warplanes with Iran’s approval in order to take part in the counter-terrorism operation,” Lavrov added.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said that Russia did alert U.S. forces of the move to launch jets from Iran, but that didn’t stop the U.S. from questioning the Kremlin’s use of an Iranian airbase as unlawful. On Wednesday, a spokesman for Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, expressed Russia’s exasperation at suggestions that it’s breaching international law. “It’s hard to resist a recommendation for some State Department representatives to check their logic and knowledge of fundamental documents of international law,” he said, referencing Resolution 2231.

The clash underscores the knotted nature of alliances and adversaries that is crippling any semblance of peace in Syria. Russia is providing military support to the Syrian government, which is also backed by Iran. Those three nations, as well as the U.S. and its primary allies, have a common enemy: ISIS. Assad, the Syrian strongman who has exterminated large swaths of his citizenry, is also pitted against a collection of rebel groups who threaten his hold on power.

Emblematic of the violence that is tearing apart the country at the moment, Aleppo, one of Syria’s largest cities, saw seven civilians killed by rebel-launched airstrikes on Wednesday, according to Syria’s state-run news agency. Nine more were injured. Aleppo is split between the rebel-held east and the government-held west. It’s hospitals are being targeted by the Assad regime. Civilians are effectively trapped. On Wednesday, the United Nations warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Aleppo should conditions remain the same or worsen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Launches Airstrikes from Iran for Second Straight Day appeared first on Law Street.