Tag Archives: document

US

Special master in Trump document probe signals intent to move quickly

Leave a comment

The independent arbiter tasked with inspecting documents seized in an FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida home said Tuesday he intends to push briskly through the review process and appeared skeptical of the Trump team’s reluctance to say whether it believed the records had been declassified.

“We’re going to proceed with what I call responsible dispatch,” Raymond Dearie, a veteran Brooklyn judge, told lawyers for Trump and the Justice Department in their first meeting since his appointment last week as a so-called special master.

The purpose of the meeting was to sort out next steps in a review process expected to slow by weeks, if not months, the criminal investigation into the retention of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House. As special master, Dearie will be responsible for sifting through the thousands of documents recovered during the Aug. 8 FBI search and segregating those protected by claims of executive privilege or attorney-client privilege.

Though Trump’s lawyers had requested the appointment of a special master to ensure an independent review of the documents, one of the former president’s attorneys, James Trusty, made clear they were concerned that Dearie’s proposed deadlines were too ambitious.

The lawyers are also resisting Dearie’s request for information about whether the seized records had been declassified, as Trump has maintained. In a letter to Dearie on Monday night, the lawyers said that issue could be part of Trump’s defense in the event of an indictment.

But Dearie appeared unsatisfied with that position. He said if Trump’s lawyers will not actually assert that the records have been declassified and the Justice Department instead makes an acceptable case that they remain classified, then “as far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”

A sketch shows Judge Raymond Dearie and lawyers for the Justice Department and former President Donald Trump in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2022.

Jane Rosenberg


Trusty said the Trump team should not be forced at this point to disclose a possible defense based on the idea that the records had been declassified. He denied that the lawyers were trying to engage in “gamesmanship” but instead believed it was a process that required “baby steps.”

But Dearie at one point observed: “I guess my view of it is, you can’t have your cake and eat it” too.

Trump has maintained without evidence that all of the records were declassified; his lawyers have not echoed that claim, though they have repeatedly asserted that a president has absolute authority to declassify information, and they said in a separate filing Tuesday that the Justice Department had not proven that the records remained classified.

“As someone who has been president of the United States, he has unfettered access along with unfettered declassification authority,” Trusty said Tuesday.

The resistance to the judge’s request was notable because it was Trump’s lawyers, not the Justice Department, who had requested the appointment of a special master and because the recalcitrance included an acknowledgment that the probe could be building toward an indictment.

In the letter, Trump’s lawyers said the time for addressing that question would be if they pressed forward with demands for the Justice Department to return some of the property taken from Mar-a-Lago.

“Otherwise, the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment,” they wrote.

The Trump team also asked the judge to consider pushing back all of the deadlines for his review. That work includes inspecting the roughly 11,000 documents, including about 100 marked as classified, that were taken during the FBI’s search.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who granted the Trump team’s request for a special master, had set a Nov. 30 deadline for Dearie’s review and instructed him to prioritize his inspection of classified records. The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to halt Cannon’s order requiring it to provide him with classified documents for his review. That appeal is pending.

Dearie, a Ronald Reagan appointee whose name is on the atrium of his Brooklyn courthouse, made clear during Tuesday’s meeting that he intended to meet the deadlines, saying there was “little time” to complete the assigned tasks.

Julie Edelstein, a Justice Department lawyer, said she was hopeful that the department could get the documents digitized and provided to Trump’s lawyers by early next week. She noted that the department had given the legal team a list of five vendors approved by the government for the purposes of scanning, hosting and otherwise processing the seized records.

After some haggling, Dearie instructed Trump’s lawyers to choose a vendor by Friday.

Earlier Tuesday, the Trump legal team urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to leave in place Cannon’s order temporarily barring the Justice Department’s use of the classified records for its criminal investigation while Dearie completes his review. The department has said that order has impeded its investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s lawyers called those concerns overblown, saying investigators could still do other work on the probe even without scrutinizing the seized records.

“Ultimately, any brief delay to the criminal investigation will not irreparably harm the Government,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The injunction does not preclude the Government from conducting a criminal investigation, it merely delays the investigation for a short period while a neutral third party reviews the documents in question.”

Read original article here

US

Mar-a-Lago: Special master appointed to oversee classified document review as judge rejects DOJ’s request to resume criminal probe

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

A Brooklyn-based federal judge was selected on Thursday to serve as an independent arbiter to review the materials seized in the FBI’s search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida home.

The special master will be Senior Judge Raymond Dearie, who was put forward as a possible candidate for the special master role by Trump, who had sued in court to obtain the review. The Justice Department also endorsed Dearie’s appointment.

US District Judge Aileen Cannon also rejected the Justice Department’s bid to resume its criminal investigation into classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago last month. The denial sets the stage for the department’s dispute with Trump over the search to move quickly to an appeals court and potentially the US Supreme Court.

An intelligence community review of the documents has been paused since last week when Cannon ordered the criminal investigation to stop for the moment. DOJ says the two reviews cannot be separated and plans to appeal.

The denial of the government’s request was the latest example of Cannon, nominated by Trump in 2020, showing extreme skepticism to the Justice Department’s handling of records it says should be in the government’s hands because they own them.

Cannon gave the special master a deadline of November 30 to finish his review of potentially privileged documents.

The schedule delays the review’s ending until after the midterm congressional elections – essentially guaranteeing the Mar-a-Lago investigation will move slowly for the next two months, unless a higher court steps in. The appeals process could mean the fight over the documents goes on into the 2024 presidential election cycle.

Dearie sits on the district court for the Eastern District of Brooklyn, where he has taken senior status – meaning his workload has been lightened significantly as he nears the end of his time on the federal bench.

He was appointed as a judge by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and was for a time the chief judge of the Brooklyn-based district court. He also served a seven-year term, concluding in 2019, on the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In his role as a FISA judge, Dearie was one of the judges who approved one of the Justice Department’s request to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page as part of the federal inquiry into Russia 2016 election interference.

The department’s process for securing FISA warrants for Page was riddled with errors and sloppiness, a DOJ inspector general review later found. The IG’s review pointed to omissions and mistakes in the FBI’s court filings supporting the FISA applications, including in filings submitted to Dearie.

Trump has railed over how the FISA warrants against Page were obtained, making his recommendation of Dearie to review the Mar-a-Lago search notable. Legal observers across the ideological spectrum, including vocal Trump critics, also backed the choice.

Cannon on Thursday also rejected several other requests the Justice Department made about how the special master review should proceed. She shoved off the Justice Department’s argument about the national security risks that would come with pausing the criminal investigation into the classified documents – in a break with how judges usually view such claims by the government.

However, she also seemed to create a vague and undefined loophole for the Justice Department to take some steps in the criminal investigation if those steps were necessary and inextricable from the assessment that the intelligence community on the national security risks around disclosure of the documents.

That possible wiggle room aside, her order – if left intact by higher courts – stands to slow down the criminal investigation by at least several weeks.

In her ruling, Cannon said she was unconvinced that pausing the criminal investigation’s review of the documents would cause irreparable harm.

The department argued that the intelligence community’s assessment of national security risks – which Cannon previously said could go forward – was being impeded by the hold she had put on the criminal probe’s use of the documents.

“First, there has been no actual suggestion by the Government of any identifiable emergency or imminent disclosure of classified information arising from Plaintiff’s allegedly unlawful retention of the seized property. Instead, and unfortunately, the unwarranted disclosures that float in the background have been leaks to the media after the underlying seizure,” she wrote.

She also rejected the argument the department had made that the intelligence community assessment could not be decoupled from the criminal probe.

While it may be “easier” Cannon said, “for the Government’s criminal investigative work to proceed in tandem with the Security Assessments,” the Justice Department had not convinced her that the intelligence community’s assessment was being impeded by it.

Pointing to examples that prosecutors had offered of how the national security assessment would rely on the criminal probe’s work, Cannon said that the prosecutors “do not firmly maintain that the described processes are inextricably intertwined, and instead rely heavily on hypothetical scenarios and generalized explanations that do not establish irreparable injury.”

Still, while she rebuffed the department’s claims that the two reviews were inseparable, she seemed to acknowledge that there were situations in which the intelligence community assessment might rely on investigative activity happening in the criminal probe, and she vaguely seemed to give the Justice Department wiggle room to take those steps.

Cannon wrote that “to the extent that the Security Assessments truly are, in fact, inextricable from criminal investigative use of the seized materials, the Court makes clear Order does not enjoin the Government from taking actions necessary for the Security Assessment.”

She did not spell out what sort of criminal investigative activity would be acceptable for that purpose, saying only in a footnote she would trust the government to decide when the tasks of the intelligence review and criminal probe were truly “inextricable.”

Denying a DOJ request that the special master view conclude by mid-October, Cannon set a November 30 deadline for the process – putting it on timeline closer to the 90 days the Trump team proposed be given to the review.

Cannon is also allowing Trump’s lawyers to review – in a highly controlled setting – the documents marked as classified. The Justice Department had wanted those documents excluded from the special master process entirely. In another rebuff to DOJ, the judge is also instructing the special master to review all of the documents that were seized,.

The judge however sided with the DOJ in how the special master is compensated, ordering that Trump pay the costs, rather than split it 50-50 with Justice Department, as Trump had proposed.

Trump filed the lawsuit seeking the special master two weeks after the Justice Department executed the search on his Florida residence and resort. Prosecutors are investigating at least three potential crimes: violations of the Espionage Act, illegal handling of government records and obstruction of justice.

During the search, according to court filings, investigators seized more than 100 documents marked as classified, which were obtained after Trump’s representatives were served a subpoena in May demanding they return to the government all such documents. When the FBI traveled to Mar-a-Lago in June to collect the documents, one of his lawyers signed a certification asserting the subpoena had been complied with.

Trump, in his filings in the special master case, argued that his constitutional rights had teen trampled upon with the August 8 search, though Cannon herself had previously said she did not agree that the judicially authorized search amounted to a “callous disregard” of the former President’s rights.

According to her order on September 5 initially granting Trump’s request for a special master review, Cannon decided it was necessary to bolster public trust in the search and because Trump, as a former president, faced increased risks of reputational harm if an indictment was wrongfully brought against him.

Trump claimed on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Thursday that he declassified the government records that were taken to Mar-a-Lago, but that’s not an argument that he’s made in any legal setting.

Cannon’s order on Thursday also raised doubts all the documents with classification markings were actually classified.

“The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” she said, referring to the Justice Department’s assertions that the documents are presumably classified and that Trump could not possibly have a possessory interest in any of them.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

World

Russia blocks final document at nuclear treaty conference

Leave a comment

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia late Friday blocked agreement on the final document of a four-week review of the U.N. treaty considered the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament which criticized its military takeover of Europe’s largest nuclear plant soon after Russian troops invaded Ukraine, an act that has raised fears of a nuclear disaster.

Igor Vishnevetsky, deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department, told the delayed final meeting of the conference reviewing the 50-year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that “unfortunately there is no consensus on this document.” He insisted that many countries — not just Russia — didn’t agree with “a whole host of issues” in the 36-page last draft.

The final document needed approval of all countries at the conference that are parties to the treaty aimed at curbing the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately achieving a world without them.

Argentine Ambassador Gustavo Zlauvinen, president of the conference, said the final draft represented his best efforts to address divergent views and the expectations of the parties “for a progressive outcome” at a moment in history when “our world is increasingly wracked by conflicts, and, most alarmingly, the ever growing prospect of the unthinkable nuclear war.”

But after Vishnevetsky spoke, Zlauvinen told delegates, “I see that at this point, the conference is not in a position to achieve agreement on its substantive work.”

The NPT review conference is supposed to be held every five years but was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This marked the second failure of its 191 state parties to produce an outcome document. The last review conference in 2015 ended without an agreement because of serious differences over establishing a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

Those differences haven’t gone away but are being discussed, and the draft outcome documents obtained by The Associated Press would have reaffirmed the importance of establishing a nuclear-free Mideast zone. So, this was not viewed as a major stumbling block this year.

The issue that changed the dynamics of the conference was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, which brought Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warning that Russia is a “potent” nuclear power and that any attempt to interfere would lead to “consequences you have never seen.” He also put Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert.

Putin has since rolled back, saying that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” a message reiterated by a senior Russian official on the opening day of the NPT conference on Aug. 2.

But the Russian leader’s initial threat and the occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in southeastern Ukraine as well as the takeover of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, scene of the world’s worst nuclear disaster in 1986, renewed global fears of another nuclear emergency.

The four references in the draft final document to the Zaporizhzhia plant, where Russia and Ukraine accuse each other of shelling, would have had the parties to the NPT express “grave concern for the military activities” at or near the facility and other nuclear plants.

It also would have recognized Ukraine’s loss of control and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inability to ensure the plant’s nuclear material is safeguarded. It supported IAEA efforts to visit Zaporizhzhia to ensure there is no diversion of its nuclear materials, a trip the agency’s director is hoping to organize in the coming days.

The draft also expressed “grave concern” at the safety of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities, in particular Zaporizhzia, and stressed “the paramount importance of ensuring control by Ukraine’s competent authorities.”

After the conference’s failure to adopt the document, dozens of countries took the floor to express their views.

Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the Nonaligned Movement comprising 120 developing countries, expressed disappointment at the failure, calling the final document “of utmost importance.”

Yann Hwang, France’s ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, read a statement on behalf of 56 countries and the European Union reaffirming unwavering support to Ukraine and deploring Russia’s “dangerous nuclear rhetoric, actions and provocative statements about raising its nuclear alert level.”

The countries expressed deep concern that Russia is undermining international peace and the objectives of the NPT “by waging its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.”

Russia’s deputy delegation head, Andrei Belousov, said the conference had become “a political hostage” to countries that were “poisoning discussions” with political language on Ukraine and were determined “to settle scores with Russia by raising issues that are not directly related to the treaty.”

“These states, namely Ukraine and the backers of the Kyiv regime, bear full responsibility for the absence of a final positive result,” he said.

Adam Scheinman, the U.S. special representative for nuclear nonproliferation, noted the final draft never named Russia, and he said it understated the situation at the Zaporizhzhia plant “and failed to acknowledge what we all know to be true — that the risk of radiological disaster only exists because of Russia’s war of choice.”

“Russia is the reason we do not have consensus today,” he said. “The last-minute changes that Russia sought were not of a minor character. They were intended to shield Russia’s obvious intent to wipe Ukraine off the map.”

Under the NPT’s provisions, the five original nuclear powers — the United States, China, Russia (then the Soviet Union), Britain and France — agreed to negotiate toward eliminating their arsenals someday and nations without nuclear weapons promised not to acquire them in exchange for a guarantee to be able to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The draft final document would have expressed deep concern “that the threat of nuclear weapons use today is higher than at any time since the heights of the Cold War and at the deteriorated international security environment.” It would also have committed parties to the treaty “to making every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again.”

Rebecca Johnson, a British nuclear analyst and co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, said that “after weeks of negotiations at a time of war, unprecedented global risks and heightened nuclear threats, it is clearer than ever now that nuclear abolition is urgent and necessary.”

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said: “This NPT conference represents a missed opportunity to strengthen the treaty and global security by agreeing to a specific action plan with benchmarks and timeframes that is essential to effectively address the growing dangers of nuclear arms racing and nuclear weapons use.”

Read original article here

US

Unsealed document in Mar-a-Lago search sharpens focus on Trump as possible subject of criminal probe

Leave a comment

US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart on Thursday released several procedural court documents related to the FBI’s search of Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. The newly unsealed document was part of the application for the warrant and was among several largely procedural documents the judge unsealed Thursday.

Previously, the search warrant documents only listed the federal statutes, including the broad law known as the Espionage Act. And the documents released so far have made clear that Trump and others around him face potential legal exposure, including for possible obstruction of justice.

But the specific language on “willful retention” could point to the role of the former President, who would have been authorized to possess national defense documents while in office but not once he decamped to his private club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida.

In the filings, prosecutors also argued that they needed to keep secret their search warrant paperwork before the search last Monday, “because the integrity of the ongoing investigation might be compromised, and evidence might be destroyed.”

The filings include the Department of Justice’s motion to seal the warrant documents, the order granting that sealing request and the criminal cover sheet.

The cover sheet also specifies that the Justice Department applied to search Mar-a-Lago believing they could find both evidence of these crimes and get back illegally possessed items.

Also Thursday, Reinhart set in motion the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the affidavit for the search at Mar-a-Lago.

The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next week about how extensively investigators want to keep confidential the document that describes their investigative steps and methods leading to the need for the search.

Reinhart said he wasn’t convinced yet that the entire affidavit should remain undisclosed to the public.

“I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be fully sealed” based on the record he has now, Reinhart said, adding that there are “portions” that could be unsealed.

Prosecutors will have the opportunity to propose redactions and explain why each piece of information needs to be kept from the public eye, Reinhart said. Those proposals will be due on August 25.

Read original article here

US

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago searched by FBI in document investigation

Leave a comment

The former President confirmed that FBI agents were at Mar-a-Lago and said “they even broke into my safe.” He was at Trump Tower in New York when the search warrant was executed in Florida, a person familiar told CNN.

“My beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents,” Trump said in a statement Monday evening.

The extraordinary move to search the home of a former president raises the stakes for the Justice Department and comes as Trump’s legal problems continue on multiple fronts. Trump is also expected in the coming months to announce he will launch another bid for the White House in 2024.

The search began early Monday morning and law enforcement personnel appeared to be focused on the area of the club where Trump’s offices and personal quarters are, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The FBI’s search included examining where documents were kept, according to another person familiar with the investigation, and boxes of items were taken. Following the National Archives’ recovering of White House records from Mar-a-Lago in recent months, the FBI on Monday had to verify that nothing was left behind.

Trump’s son, Eric, told Fox host Sean Hannity that “the purpose of the raid, from what they said, was because the National Archives wanted to, you know, corroborate whether or not Donald Trump had any documents in his possession.”

Christina Bobb, Trump’s attorney, said the FBI seized documents. “President Trump and his legal team have been cooperative with FBI and DOJ officials every step of the way. The FBI did conduct an unannounced raid and seized paper,” Bobb said

There was communication between the FBI and US Secret Service before the search warrant was executed Monday, a person familiar with the matter said, allowing for the FBI to access the estate without any complications. There is only a small Secret Service footprint at Mar-a-Lago when Trump is not there.

CNN has reached out to the FBI for comment. The Justice Department declined to comment to CNN.

A White House official said it was not notified about the search. President Joe Biden, a senior administration official said, was unaware of the search of Mar-a-Lago until after it was reported on the news.

Investigation into documents

The National Archives, charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, has previously said at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort — including some that were classified.

In early June, a handful of investigators made a rare visit to the property seeking more information about potentially classified material from Trump’s time in the White House that had been taken to Florida. The four investigators, including Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department, sat down with two of Trump’s attorneys, Bobb and Evan Corcoran, according to a source present for the meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, Trump stopped by and greeted the investigators near a dining room. After he left, without answering any questions, the investigators asked the attorneys if they could see where Trump was storing the documents. The attorneys took the investigators to the basement room where the boxes of materials were being stored, and the investigators looked around the room before eventually leaving, according to the source.

A second source said that Trump came in to say hi and made small talk but left while the attorneys spoke with investigators. The source said some of the documents shown to investigators had top secret markings.

Five days later, on June 8, Trump’s attorneys received a letter from investigators asking them to further secure the room where the documents were stored. Aides subsequently added a padlock to the room.

In April and May, aides to Trump at Mar-a-Lago were interviewed by the FBI as part of the probe into the handling of presidential records, according to a source familiar with the matter.

“It is a federal crime to remove classified documents wrongly. And so if you are filling out that affidavit and you have to list the crime, you can list that as the crime,” said Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and a CNN senior legal analyst.

Honig told CNN’s Erin Burnett on “OutFront” that the timing of the search held with the longstanding department rule not to execute politically sensitive moves within 90 days of an election.

“Today is just about 90 days out exactly from the midterms, I think maybe 91 or 92 days out. That policy, that may be a reason why they did it today because they want to stay clear of that if they’re interpreting that as a 90 day rule,” he said.

Members of GOP back Trump

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel claimed in a statement that Democrats “continually weaponize the bureaucracy against Republicans,” and a number of Republican lawmakers came to the former President’s defense on social media.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, wrote that he had “seen enough.”

“Attorney General (Merrick) Garland: preserve your documents and clear your calendar. I’ve seen enough. The Department of Justice has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization,” the Republican leader wrote. “When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned.”

GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said that “we need answers NOW. The FBI must explain what they were doing today & why.”

But the chair of the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating Trump’s handling of documents, called on the Justice Department to “fully investigate” the former President’s handling of information.

“Presidents have a solemn duty to protect America’s national security, and allegations that former President Trump put our security at risk by mishandling classified information warrant the utmost scrutiny,” Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York said.

“Although details of today’s actions at Mar-a-Lago are still emerging, it is clear that the Department of Justice must fully investigate President Trump’s potentially grave mishandling of classified information.”

This story has been updated with additional details.

CNN’s Dana Bash, Zachary Cohen, Jeremy Diamond, Shawna Mizelle and Megan Trimble contributed to this report.



Read original article here

World

China seeks Pacific islands policing, security cooperation -document

Leave a comment

SYDNEY, May 25 (Reuters) – China will seek a region-wide deal with almost a dozen Pacific island countries covering policing, security and data communication cooperation when Foreign Minister Wang Yi hosts a meeting in Fiji next week, documents seen by Reuters show.

A draft communique and five-year action plan sent by China to 10 Pacific islands ahead of a meeting of foreign ministers on May 30 has prompted opposition from at least one of the invited nations, which says it showed China’s intent to control the region and “threatens regional stability”.

In a letter to 21 Pacific leaders seen by Reuters, the president of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), David Panuelo, said his country would argue the “pre-determined joint communique” should be rejected, because he feared it could spark a new “Cold War” between China and the West.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said the United States was aware of Wang Yi’s plans and was “concerned that these reported agreements may be negotiated in a rushed, non-transparent process.”

He said recent security agreements reached by China had been conducted with little regional consultation, provoking concern in the United States and across the region.

“We don’t believe that importing security forces from the PRC and their methods will help any Pacific Island country,” he said. “Doing so can only seek to fuel regional and international tension and increase concerns over Beijing’s expansion of its internal apparatus to the Pacific.”

Wang will visit eight Pacific island nations that China has diplomatic ties with between May 26 and June 4.

He arrives on Thursday in the Solomon Islands, which recently signed a security pact with China despite objections from Australia, the United States, Japan and New Zealand, all of which fear it could upset regional security and give China a military foothold in the Pacific.

China rejects this, saying the pact is focused on domestic policing and criticism by Western countries was interference in the Solomon Island’s sovereign decision-making. read more

Asked to respond to the letter, first reported by Reuters, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told a regular media briefing in Beijing that he was unaware of it, adding that China and South Pacific countries “are good friends and partners in mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit and common development”.

“I do not agree at all with the argument that cooperation between China and the South Pacific island countries will trigger a new Cold War,” he added.

Wang’s visit would “consolidate mutual political trust, expand practical cooperation, deepen people-to-people ties and jointly build a closer community of destiny among China’s Pacific island countries”.

The FSM government, which has a defence agreement with the United States as well as an economic cooperation agreement with China, declined to comment to Reuters on the letter.

Price, the U.S. State Department spokesman, said Washington respected the ability of regional countries to make sovereign decisions in the best interests of their people, while adding, referring to China:

“It’s worth noting that PRC has a pattern of offering shadowy, vague deals with little transparency or regional consultation in areas related to fishing, related to resource management, development assistance and more recently, even security practices.”

NEW VISION

A region-wide agreement covering security and trade between China and Pacific islands would represent a shift in Beijing’s focus from bilateral relations to dealing with the Pacific on a multilateral basis.

China circulated the China-Pacific Island Countries Common Development Vision draft document, as well as a five-year action plan, ahead of the Fiji meeting.

It states China and the Pacific islands will “strengthen exchanges and cooperation in the fields of traditional and non traditional security”.

“China will hold intermediate and high-level police training for Pacific Island Countries through bilateral and multilateral means,” the document says.

The action plan outlines a ministerial dialogue on law enforcement capacity and police cooperation in 2022, and China providing forensic laboratories.

The draft communique also pledges cooperation on data networks, cyber security, smart customs systems, and for Pacific islands to “take a balanced approach” on technological progress, economic development and national security.

Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei, which is barred from 5G networks run by several U.S allies, has been repeatedly thwarted in attempts to build submarine cables or run mobile networks in the Pacific by Australia and the United States, which have offered rival bids for the sensitive infrastructure, citing national security.

The communique also proposes a China-Pacific Islands Free Trade Area, and support for action on climate change and health.

In his letter to other leaders, Panuelo said the communique would draw Pacific islands that have diplomatic relations with China “very close into Beijing’s orbit, intrinsically tying the whole of our economies and societies to them”.

He highlighted the risk of being caught in conflict as tensions rise between the United States and China over Taiwan. read more

“The practical impacts, however, of Chinese control over our communications infrastructure, our ocean territory and the resources within them, and our security space, aside from impacts on our sovereignty, is that it increases the chances of China getting into conflict with Australia, Japan, the United States and New Zealand,” he said.

China’s provision of customs systems would lead to “biodata collection and mass surveillance of those residing in, entering and leaving our islands”, he added.

He was also critical of Australia’s lack of action on climate change.

New Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pledged this week to increase climate financing to Pacific islands, saying climate change was their main economic and security challenge. read more

“China has made its intentions clear,” Australia’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, said when asked about the Reuters report.

“So too are the intentions of the new Australian government. We want to help build a stronger Pacific family. We want to bring new energy and more resources to the Pacific.”

Wong, who travels to Fiji on Thursday, has pledged to increase opportunities for Pacific island citizens to work and migrate to Australia.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Kirsty Needham; Additional reporting by Martin Pollard in Beijing and Daphne Psaledakis, Simon Lewis and David Brunnstrom in Washington; Editing by Lincoln Feast, Bernard Orr

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Entertainment

Kanye West Wants Prenup With Kim Kardashian Thrown Out, But What’s Actually In The Document?

Leave a comment

Kim Kardashian filed for divorce from Kanye West in February 2021, and the legal proceedings are still in full swing. Kardashian has made it clear, via court documents, that she wants to legally end their marriage sooner rather than later. However, West has reportedly been prolonging the process, even occasionally saying that he hasn’t seen “the paperwork.” More recently, the rapper is asking that the prenuptial agreement the couple had in place be thrown out. At the same time, the information present within those documents has now been made known.

Ye is reportedly contesting the prenup in an effort to further delay the divorce, according to Radar. Kim Kardashian recently brought up the agreement amid her attempts to be declared legally single. In her argument, she explicitly made note of her ex’s apparent strategy to keep the legal process going. However, the rapper’s lawyer argues that “California premarital agreements entered on or after January 1, 2002, are presumptively invalid.” They also assert that a “presumption of invalidity” exists, that is until the agreement is “ratified” (or signed) by both sides or there’s a rebuttal of sorts in a courtroom.

With so much conflict being caused by the agreement, some may be wondering about the specifics. Well, Radar actually obtained the documents and managed to shed some light on a few details. The papers include legal jargon and financial figures, but they also feature personal details about the state of the two star’s lives at the time.

What Do The Documents Tell Us About Kim Kardashian And Kanye West’s Personal Lives At That Point?

In the agreement, it’s explained that the SKIMS head was “fully supporting herself at the time she began dating Kanye and is fully self-supporting as of the date of this Agreement.” There’s also mention of the fact that the Keeping Up with the Kardashians star previously wed Damon Thomas, “before their marriage ended in divorce in 2004.” The documents also detail the starlet’s subsequent marriage to Kris Humphries, which “was dissolved on or about April 19. 2013.” There was also mention of the “Eazy” rapper having never been married and started dating the reality TV star in 2012.

Apparently, Kimye began discussing the idea of a prenup in December 2013, after getting engaged in October of that same year. Kim Kardashian signed the papers on March 16th of that year. And the “Eazy” performer officially put down his John Hancock on the dotted line on March 20th while in Paris, France. When it came to negotiations both stars were represented by their own lawyers.

What Does The Prenup Reveal About Kim Kardashian And Kanye West’s Financial Standings Over A Decade Ago?

It would appear that the Kardashians star’s federal income tax return was $9.1 million, and her adjusted gross income on her 2012 federal income was $8.4 million. On the other hand, Ye’s income reportedly totaled $1.9 million in 2011 and $4.6 million in 2012. Apparently, both parties’ money came through their entertainment companies and not through the stars themselves. 

The deal also stated that any property acquired by either side during the marriage would be solely considered that person’s property. Anything bought jointly would be considered a community asset, and Kim Kardashian has claimed no such purchases were made. At the time, she owned a $9 million home in Los Angeles, and her soon-to-be husband, at that time, owned a house in California and a condo in New York. 

At the time the prenup was written up, the couple only had one child – daughter North. And the agreement included provisions regarding child support in case of a divorce:

Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be constructed as absolving either Party of the statutory obligation to support any child or children of the Parties. In the event of a separation or marriage dissolution, such’s Party’s obligations to support any child of the Parties shall be determined and governed under the law of the State of California.

Based on what was agreed upon in the prenup, Kim Kardashian reportedly doesn’t believe there’s room for arguments from Kanye West. He still seems set on sticking to his position, though, as he has in other aspects of the divorce. The fashion mogul recently stated that Kardashian’s petition to be declared single could lead to “adverse consequences.” He also claimed “double hearsay” when it comes to his wife’s accusations about his social media posts. As of right now, it’s hard to say how this legal situation might be resolved.

Read original article here

Health

US plans to roll out initial 10 million Covid-19 vaccine doses for children under 5 following FDA authorization, CDC document says

Leave a comment

The document, an updated pediatric Covid-19 vaccination planning guide, notes that “planning is for a sequenced rollout involving an initial total of approximately 10 million doses” and that providers and facilities that have ordered doses “must be able to receive vaccine shipment on Monday February 21.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee will meet February 15 to discuss Pfizer and BioNTech’s request for an emergency use authorization of their vaccine for children as young as 6 months. The virtual meeting will give scientists a chance to go over the available trial data and make a recommendation on whether the vaccine would be appropriate for this age group.

If the FDA then gives the green light, the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory group will convene and make its recommendation. The CDC director needs to sign off before shots can be administered to children in this age group.

Operationally, the United States will be ready to roll out the vaccine for children under 5 once the FDA and CDC make their recommendations, Jeff Zients, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, said at a news briefing Wednesday.

“We can start packing and shipping the vaccine once FDA makes its decision,” he said.

According to the planning document, the doses for children under 5 will have a maroon cap and be distributed in cartons of 100 doses: 10 vials, each containing 10 doses.

The anticipated dosing size is 3 micrograms of vaccine per dose, with an anticipated three doses in a vaccine series. Pfizer and BioNTech are currently seeking authorization for a two-dose vaccine but are continuing to test a three-dose regimen. They say they will submit the additional data on a third dose in the coming months.

“This vaccine is specifically formulated for these young kids. So we’re launching a new program especially for kids under 5. The planning process is well underway. CDC is working with states to help them prepare. We’ve secured enough vaccine supply for all kids in this age group, all 18 million. We have enough needles, syringes and kits, and these are all specially formulated or made for this age group to send alongside the vaccine,” Zients said Wednesday.

“We’re working closely with pediatricians and family doctors and children’s hospitals and pharmacies to make sure the vaccine is available at thousands of locations across the country,” he said. “So we will be prepared for those parents that are eager to get their kids vaccinated.”

The rollout of the coronavirus vaccine for children younger than 5 is expected to mirror the rollout for children ages 5 to 11 in October, Lori Tremmel Freeman, chief executive officer of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told CNN on Wednesday.

“There will be an emphasis on utilizing the current systems in place for the pharmacy program: registered pharmacies to get the vaccine as well as registered vaccine providers,” Freeman said, adding that children younger than 3 most likely could receive the vaccine at their pediatricians’ offices or other sites. Federal regulations do not allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to children under the age of 3.

State immunization boards are in conversation with providers to discuss who will be ready to receive the initial doses, said Claire Hannan, director of the Association of Immunization Managers.

“There’s obviously a lot of emphasis on making that vaccine available as soon as it’s authorized. But at the same time, especially with this age group, it’s not something that we want to rush,” Hannan said. “We want to make sure that the providers are comfortable with the product and they’ve had a chance to really look at the data.”

During the previous rollout of vaccine doses for children, about 35% to 40% of children ages 5 to 11 were vaccinated at pharmacies, according to data that NACCHO has received.

Because children 3 and under tend to visit the pediatrician regularly for well visits, Hannan said, there is an emphasis on incorporating the Covid-19 vaccine schedule into those visits. As a result, it might be a slower process than with other age groups.

Recognizing that some parents will be ready to vaccinate their children immediately upon authorization, Hannan said, state health and immunization authorities are identifying clinics and pediatricians who can take on children outside of their regular patient base.

“That is a challenge because pediatricians are stretched very thin right now,” she said, due to staffing shortages, flu season and Covid-19.

There are about 18 million children ages 6 months through 4 years in the United States who potentially will be eligible to get vaccinated against Covid-19.

Read original article here

Sports

Daniel Snyder could block release of probe details under deal with NFL, document shows

Leave a comment

What to read about the Washington Commanders

The congressional committee investigating the NFL’s handling of long-standing allegations of sexual harassment in the Washington offices has invited several former employees to tell their stories and answer questions about their experience during a roundtable discussion.

What went wrong for Washington in 2021? Four major issues stand out.

The Commanders have plenty of questions to answer before they start training camp. Here are the biggest roster questions as the offseason arrives.

Coach Ron Rivera’s third offseason at the helm of the Commanders will be all about the search for a franchise quarterback.

J.D. McKissic has found his place in the NFL, becoming a core playmaker and leader in his two seasons with Washington.

Read original article here

World

Djokovic Admits False Statement on Australia Travel Document

Leave a comment

MELBOURNE, Australia — Novak Djokovic, the top-ranked men’s tennis player, acknowledged on Wednesday that a travel document he presented to Australian border officials last week contained false information, as the country’s authorities continued to investigate whether he should be deported.

Mr. Djokovic also said that he had participated in an interview and a photo shoot last month in his native Serbia even after testing positive for the coronavirus, in an apparent breach of the country’s rules for infected people. Australian officials have said they are looking into whether Mr. Djokovic, who is unvaccinated, poses a risk to public health.

The tennis star’s comments came in a statement he released on social media that he said was intended to “clarify misinformation” about the weeks before he arrived in Melbourne for the Australian Open. He was detained for days by Australian border officials before being ordered released on Monday by a federal judge.

But Mr. Djokovic’s statement did not fully resolve a range of questions that have swirled over his quest to remain in Australia and seek a record 21st Grand Slam title. Among them are exactly when he learned of the positive test result and how his travel documents came to falsely assert that he had not traveled internationally in the 14 days before his arrival in Australia.

The statement posted on Instagram, which Mr. Djokovic said would be his last remarks about his ordeal in Australia, was released as the country’s immigration minister said he was still considering whether to exercise his personal powers to cancel the player’s visa again. Immigration officials were also investigating the discrepancies in the paperwork Mr. Djokovic presented as he tried to enter Australia last week with an exemption from a requirement for Covid-19 vaccinations.

Australian tennis officials granted that exemption on the basis of what Mr. Djokovic had said was a Covid infection he had in mid-December. He had come under criticism over images on social media showing him at events at the same time he was supposedly infected with the coronavirus.

Mr. Djokovic said on Wednesday that he had taken a P.C.R. test on Dec. 16 after some people at a basketball game he had attended two days earlier tested positive for the coronavirus. Despite having no symptoms, he also took a rapid antigen test “out of an abundance of caution,” he said, and it came back negative.

On Dec. 17, he said, as he was awaiting his P.C.R. result, he attended a tennis event in Belgrade, the Serbian capital, where he presented awards to children. He said that he took another rapid antigen test before attending that event, which came back negative, and that his P.C.R. test did not come back positive until after it had finished.

On Dec. 18, he went ahead with an interview and a photo shoot with the French sports newspaper L’Equipe “to fulfill a longstanding commitment,” he said.

“I felt obliged to go ahead and conduct the L’Equipe interview as I didn’t want to let the journalist down, but did ensure I socially distanced and wore a mask except when my photograph was taken,” Mr. Djokovic said.

“While I went home after the interview to isolate for the required period, on reflection, this was an error of judgment and I accept that I should have rescheduled this commitment,” he added.

It was not the first time Mr. Djokovic has had to apologize for dismissive actions he has taken during the pandemic. In mid-2020, as the virus raged in Europe and elsewhere, he held a tennis tournament after which he and several others tested positive.

While Mr. Djokovic said in his statement on Wednesday that he “had not received the notification of a positive PCR result” until Dec. 17 — after the event involving children — documents he provided to Australian officials as he tried to enter the country said that the result had been returned the day before.

A copy of his medical certificate for his positive P.C.R. test said that the test was taken at 1:05 p.m. on Dec. 16 and that the positive result was returned at 8:19 on the same day. In an affidavit provided to an Australian court, he said, “On 16 December 2021, I was tested and diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID).” It was unclear when exactly he learned of his purported positive test.

The Serbian prime minister, Ana Brnabic, said this week that had Mr. Djokovic known that he was positive for the coronavirus before attending the awards event on Dec. 17, he would have “clearly violated the rules” in Serbia.

But more information was required, she added, saying, “I don’t know when he received the test result, when he read it.”

When asked what would happen if Mr. Djokovic was found to have breached quarantine rules, she said the Serbian government would “deal with it.”

In his statement, Mr. Djokovic also addressed questions about the declaration he made on his visa paperwork that he had not traveled to any other countries in the 14 days before arriving in Australia. The paperwork warns of serious penalties for false answers to the question.

His declaration had seemed to be contradicted by social media posts showing him traveling between Spain and Serbia. On Wednesday, he said his agent had made an “administrative mistake in ticking the incorrect box.”

“This was a human error and certainly not deliberate,” he said, adding that his team on Wednesday had “provided additional information to the Australian government to clarify the matter.”

This means it is unlikely that the saga will be resolved quickly, with the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, indicating that he needed more time to consider the new information before deciding whether to cancel Mr. Djokovic’s visa again.

A spokesman for Mr. Hawke said that Mr. Djokovic’s lawyers had made “lengthy further submissions and supporting documentation said to be relevant to the possible cancellation of Mr. Djokovic’s visa.”

“Naturally, this will affect the time frame for a decision,” he added.



Read original article here