Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Sri Lanka: Waste management needs holistic social intervention

When a country lacks genuine good governance; government administration becomes weak. Politicians become misled as they do not receive from a passive, poorly disciplined and unprincipled bureaucracy appropriate advice for social development. Political commitment to implement the pledges they made to the people when they came to power, has vanished.


by Lionel Bopage-

( June 10, 2017, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) In an environment where affluent families are dominant, garbage becomes waste though it may then become an important source of income for some of the poor people living in urban areas. It is said that in countries such as Sri Lanka, one percent of the urban population, that is at least about 15 million people survive by separating what can be reused from the waste that others dispose of.

Arjuna’s ‘ghost of greed’ haunts official residence after Arjuna is thrown out from Ports Authority !


LEN logo(Lanka-e-News - 10.June.2017, 4.25PM)  Folk tradition states , when a greedy earthling dies,  because of his avarice and attachment to his abode , he returns to dwell in that abode as a ghost.

Arjuna the former Ports minister who was thrown out from that post has become  such a ghost , based on reports reaching Lanka e news. This is  because  poor Arjuna who thought he  could be the minister of Ports forever , and therefore refurbished his official residence recently spending many millions of rupees ,  has still not left the premises even after he was got rid of from the Ports.

Arjuna who took  over the ministry of petroleum resources , has still not quit  his former official residence in spite of the fact he has an official residence at the new ministry . In that  Ports official residence it is the Ports employees who are still working . Besides , the electricity and water bills are paid by the Port authority meaning that it  is corruption out and out. 
Official residences  are allocated to ministers who have no houses in Colombo . Whereas Arjuna has a number of houses in Colombo , hence his using the official residence in this wrongful manner is tantamount to corruption.
Arjuna after commencing work as the new minister of Ports and as its chairman , a number of corrupt  dealings  of Arjuna and ex  chairman of ports authority , Dhammika  when they were at the Ports authority have been suspended. It is learnt the amount involved is over Rs. 1 billion . A full report on that shall be revealed later.
For the  courageous truthful forces of the Ports which chased out Arjuna and his family , chasing out Arjuna from the Ports official residence is simple- they need only a few hours , but because the new minister Mahinda had objected , they are  holding on.
Lanka e news deems it is its duty to warn Arjuna to leave the official residence honorably , otherwise worse humiliation is in store for him than that he faced when he was thrown out from the Ports ministry.
Meanwhile Arjuna’s cousin brother  who was an ineradicable weed at the Ports has also come to the petroleum ministry . Natha Gunasekera the cousin brother of Arjuna had gone to the petroleum ministry and played havoc threatening the security personnel , and opening the doors forcibly , based on reports.
---------------------------
by     (2017-06-10 10:59:04)

Ex-intelligence chief to CID, FCID over murders, thefts

Ex-intelligence chief to CID, FCID over murders, thefts

Jun 10, 2017

Former head of the national intelligence service Maj. Gen. Kapila Hendawitharana has been summoned by the CID and the FCID on the basis of the revelations made by military officials arrested over abductions, disappearances and murders during the Mahinda Rajapkasa regime and top state officials accused of financial fraud, while under interrogation. Accordingly, he will appear before the FCID tomorrow (12) and will be summoned by the CID as well within the next fortnight.

Hendawitharana has been accused of getting involved in politics in support of the then government while serving as head of the national intelligence service.
 
Meanwhile, the FCID is investigating a Rs. 01 million credited to Hendawitharana’s bank account by S.S. Kuhandan, who is the head of ASK cable television service in the north and the east, and Rs. 3.2 credited from various locations to his Bank of Ceylon account. Also, after the FCID informed courts about several instances of money being deposited in foreign banks, Colombo additional magistrate Nishantha Peiris permitted the investigation of all bank accounts of Hendawitharana.
 
Shalika Wimalasena

Video: Checkpoint 300


8 June 2017
“This is our life: difficult and full of problems.”
So says one of the thousands of Palestinian laborers who queue before dawn each day to pass through Checkpoint 300, separating the occupied West Bank cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem.
The Israeli military checkpoint is the main crossing point for Palestinians from all over the southern West Bank who work in Israel.
Palestinians in the West Bank must hold an Israeli permit to cross the checkpoint. They are not allowed free movement into Israel.
There are around 100 fixed checkpoints like Checkpoint 300 in the West Bank.
Video by Ahmad Al-Bazz, Haidi Motola and Anne Paq/Activestills.

Duterte’s War on Terror Also Looks Like a War on Civilians

Duterte’s War on Terror Also Looks Like a War on Civilians


No automatic alt text available.BY JESSE CHASE-LUBITZ-JUNE 9, 2017

The Philippine army is making some headway in its fight to defeat groups allied with the Islamic State that have besieged Marawi City, on the southern island of Mindanao. But just as in the extrajudicial war on drugs unleashed last year by president Rodrigo Duterte, in this war it is civilians who are paying the price.

In the last three weeks, Mindanao, the southernmost major island in the Philippine archipelago, has been plunged into a chaotic counterterrorism campaign after two terrorist groups joined forces in late May to assault the main city, Marawi.

This isn’t entirely a new challenge for Manila. Abu Sayyaf, considered to be the Islamic State’s Southeast Asia chapter, has tormented the Philippines since 1991. The Maute group is a more recently formed hard-line insurgent force consisting of about 100 militants. Ominously, both Abu Sayyaf and the Maute have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

To deal with the insurgent threat, Duterte — who in the past year has praised Hitler, insulted Barack Obama and the Pope, joked about rape, and bragged about personally killing people — is bringing his trademark tact and finely measured touch.

On June 6, Duterte told soldiers battling the Islamic groups, “I am not ordering you to take an ordinary police action. I am ordering you to crush our enemy. When I say crush them, you have to destroy everything, including lives. Rebellion is no joking matter.”

There have been some successes. After three weeks of clashes, the head of military command Maj. Gen. Carlito Galvez told Reuters that militants have pulled back from three neighborhoods in Marawi. The Philippine army announced today it has enlisted Facebook to shut down accounts used to spread misinformation about the account.

But there is little solace for civilians literally caught in the crossfire. Most residents have reportedly fled the city of 200,000, while at least another 1,000 remain either trapped and hiding in their homes, or being used as human shields. These civilians have no running water, electricity, or food.
Those who have managed to flee the Islamic State affiliates are not yet free from worry. The only secure place left is a large provincial government compound on the outskirts of the city which houses all other freed Marawi citizens.

Another source of worry: Duterte declared martial law throughout the island of Mindanao, with initial plans to keep it in place for two months. That meant that the civilian government was replaced with armed forces and that civil liberties are suspended.

Recently, however, Duterte has toyed not just with maintaining martial law in Mindanao, but expanding it nationwide. That would harken back to Ferdinand Marcos, a former president and dictator of the Philippines who kept the country under martial law for a decade starting in 1972. During that time Marcos carried out extrajudicial killings, torture, and mass arrests.

Duterte, somewhat unsurprisingly, has pined for Marcos’s years, and compared it to his own time in office. According to Human Rights Watch, Duterte said “Martial law is martial law. It will not be any different from what the president, Marcos did.”

Duterte’s take-no-prisoners approach — whether on diplomacy, the drug war, or the war on terrorism — is very much worth keeping in mind, especially as the United States attempts to calibrate the type of place it will ultimately occupy in the Asia-Pacific region. The Philippines, like Japan, is an American treaty ally — potentially putting U.S. forces on the line to defend Duterte’s policies.
Photo credit: NOEL CELIS/AFP/Getty Images

Correction, June 9, 2017: Reuters reported that most of Marawi City’s 200,000 residents have fled. A previous version of this article mistakenly said that 200,000 fled.
India may have to help resolve Nepal’s constitutional conundrum 
Untitled-3

logoSaturday, 10 June 2017

India, which has always played a critical role in Nepalese politics, may have to play a role in helping the new Government of Nepal headed by Nepali Congress (NC) Leader Sher Bahadur Deuba to meet his constitutional obligation to hold the local bodies’ elections on 28 June, and provincial and federal elections by January 2018.

More specifically, India could help clear the stumbling block put by the Madhesis, a large community of Indian origin people living in the thickly populated Terai or plains region of Nepal. Untitled-4

The Madhesis, who feel discriminated against under the new constitution and want it amended to increase their representation in the elected bodies and in the Government, boycotted the first phase of the local body elections held in three provinces on 14 May and have threatened to boycott the second and the last phase of the polls to be held in four provinces on 28 June also, if their demands for constitutional amendments are not met before that.

The Madhesi boycott of the second phase could have a telling effect on the political prospects of the India-friendly Nepali Congress-Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) alliance, NC-CPN (MC) alliance for short, which is running the Government now.

But the man directly affected will be the NC Chief, Sher Bahadur Deuba, who took over as Prime Minister from his coalition partner, CPN-(MC) Chief, Pushpa Kalmal Dahal alias Prachanda, this Wednesday.

In case of a boycott, the pro-Chinese CPN (Unified Marxist Leninist) or CPN (UML) for short, led by K.P. Sharma Oli, will gain. If that happens, the political clout of CPN (UML) will increase to help it put up a good fight in the parliamentary elections in early 2018.

The pro-Chinese party had already emerged as a powerful force in the first phase of the local body elections. It topped the list, though it was second if the seats secured got by the coalition partners, NC and CPN (MC), are combined.

Madhesi participation in the second phase will upset the CPN (UML)’s chances. There are Madhesi parties to vote for, but many Madhesis may vote for NC or CPN (MC) as these parties have been amenable on the question of constitutional changes and are also friendlier to India than the CPN (UML).

In fact, the CPN (UML) has out rightly rejected further constitutional amendments to satisfy the Madhesis. That party also looks at the Madhesis as India’s proxies in Nepal and is hostile to their political and economic demands.

If any party can persuade the Madhesis to participate in the June 28 polls, it is India. India had supported them in their earlier agitations over the last few decades. However, this is not an easy task as India had tried to get them to participate in the first phase and failed. The Madhesi parties strongly felt that unless they put heavy political pressure on the main Nepalese political parties, their demands will never be met.
Untitled-2

The Madhesis want three districts in Eastern Nepal (Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa) and two in Western Nepal (Kanchanpur and Kailali) to merge with Madhesi-populated provinces. But other communities oppose these demands, especially the influential Nepalese Brahmins and Nepalese Kshtriyas. All major parties are also opposed.

During the India-backed Madhesh Andolan (Madhesi agitation), 11 policeman and a two-year-old child of a policeman, were killed by Madhesi protesters. Since then, anti-Indian sentiments have risen in Nepal.


The other issue agitating the Madhesis, is delimitation of electoral constituencies. The new 2015 Constitution reduces the weight given to proportional representation. The Terai region, where the Madhesis live predominantly, accounts for 51% of Nepal’s population, but it got only 75 out of a total of 165 seats under the First Past the Post System, instead of 83, as per its population. The Madhesis want a change in the system which will reflect their size. But the other political parties argue that if population size is given primacy, sparsely populated hilly districts will be adversely affected.

The NC-CPN (MC) Government has been saying that these issues can be considered by a Federal Commission. India would like them to look at the issue in a broader perspective and show more flexibility. But the Madhesis want their demands met here and now.

The Madhesis must also realise that the NC-CPN (MC) Government does not have the required numbers in parliament to carry out constitutional amendments, given the CPN (UML)’s opposition to these demands.

In the Parliament of 593 seats, NC has 207; CPN (MC) has 82, the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RP) 37; and CPN (UML) has 181. A number of smaller parties account for the remainder.

The Prime Minister has to keep his flock together also. The formation of a Council of Ministers is problematic. A faction of the NC led by Ram Chandra Paudel nearly boycotted the swearing-in of Deuba on Wednesday. Paudel complained that Deuba had not discussed ministerial portfolio distribution with the party Working Committee or even the parliamentary party.

The Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) complained that Deuba had promised to consult it before announcing a seven member cabinet on Wednesday, but did not. As on date, there is no one from RPP among the seven. The fringe groups in the coalition are also demanding their pound of flesh. The main constituents, NC and CPN (MC), are themselves not sure how many and what portfolios each will get.

Instability has been a dominant feature of Nepalese politics. The country has had 10 Prime Ministers in the last 10 years. Deuba himself has been Prime Minister three times before under unstable conditions.

His first term (1995-97) was marked by Maoist violence. His second term (2001-2002) ended abruptly when the King sacked him for alleged incompetence in tackling the Maoists; and his third term (2004-2025) ended in his ouster by a military coup engineered by the King.

India's plan to develop key Iranian port faces U.S. headwinds


By Nidhi Verma and Sanjeev Miglani | NEW DELHI

Western manufacturers are shying away from supplying equipment for an Iranian port that India is developing for fear the United States may reimpose sanctions on Tehran, Indian officials say, dealing a blow to New Delhi's strategic ambitions in the region.

Lying on the Gulf of Oman along the approaches to the Straits of Hormuz, the port of Chabahar is central to India's hopes to crack open a transport corridor to Central Asia and Afghanistan that bypasses arch-rival Pakistan.

Graphic on Silk Road: bit.ly/2rdsFDt

India committed $500 million to speed development of the port after sanctions on Iran were lifted following a deal struck between major powers and Tehran to curb its nuclear program in 2015.

But the state-owned Indian firm that is developing Chabahar is yet to award a single tender for supplying equipment such as cranes and forklifts, according to two government sources tracking India's biggest overseas infrastructure push.


U.S. President Donald Trump denounced the nuclear agreement on the campaign trail, and since taking office in January has accused Iran of being a threat to countries across the Middle East.
Swiss engineering group Liebherr and Finland's Konecranes (KCRA.HE) and Cargotec (CGCBV.HE) have told India Ports Global Pvt Ltd, which is developing the deep water port, they were unable to take part in the bids as their banks were not ready to facilitate transactions involving Iran due to the uncertainty over U.S. policy, the two officials said in separate conversations with Reuters.

These firms dominate the market for customized equipment to develop jetties and container terminals. One official said the first tender was floated in September, but attracted few bidders because of the fear of renewed sanctions. That fear has intensified since January.

"Now the situation is that we are running after suppliers," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of matter.

A Konecranes spokeswoman declined to comment beyond confirming the company was not involved in the project.

Cargotec and Liebherr did not respond to requests for comment.

Some tenders have been floated three times since September because they failed to attract bidders. A Chinese firm, ZPMC, has since come forward to supply some equipment, the same Indian official said.

THREAT OF SANCTIONS

Trump has called the agreement between Iran and six major world powers restricting Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting of sanctions "the worst deal ever negotiated".

Last month his administration extended relief on Washington's broadest and most punitive sanctions, while carrying out a wider policy review on how to deal with the Islamic Republic.

Uncertainty over U.S. policy is already causing long delays in contracts that Iran has sought with international firms to develop its oil fields and buy planes for its aging airlines.

The lifting of United Nations and European Union sanctions in 2016 partly reconnected Iran with the international financial system crucial to trade.

But large international bankers with exposure to the United States remain unwilling to facilitate Iranian deals for fear of running afoul of narrower, unilateral U.S. sanctions that remain outside the nuclear deal and uncertainty over whether wider sanctions relief will continue.

India's ambassador to Iran said the process of procuring equipment for the Chabahar port was under way and that some of the customized cranes needed take up to 20 months to build. The banking situation was slowing improving, he added.

"Tenders are re-floated for a variety of reasons including technical specifications not being met, etc. Banking channels, in recent months, have in fact somewhat eased," Saurabh Kumar said in an emailed response to Reuters from Tehran. "If some companies do not participate, it really is their business."

India has been pushing for the development of Chabahar port for more than a decade as a hub for its trade links to the resource-rich countries of central Asia and Afghanistan. Access to those countries is currently complicated by India's fraught relationship with Pakistan.

Bureaucratic delays, difficult negotiations with Iran and the risk of incurring Washington's displeasure during the financial embargo in Tehran had meant there was little progress on the port until now.

But, prodded in part by China's development of Gwadar port, which lies barely 100 km (60 miles) from Chabahar on the Pakistani coast, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has unveiled massive investment plans centered around the Iranian port, offering to help build railways,
roads and fertilizer plants that could eventually amount to $15 billion.

So far, even an initial credit line of $150 million that India wants to extend to Iran for development of Chabahar has remained a non-starter as Tehran has not been able to do its part of work.

"They have not sought the loan from us because they haven't awarded the tenders, either because of lack of participation or banking problems," said the second government official.

Ambassador Kumar said the Iran had indicated it would be sending proposals shortly to tap the credit line.

Meena Singh Roy, who heads the West Asia center at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, a New Delhi think-tank, said increasing tension between Washington and Tehran would have an impact on the port project.

"The Chabahar Project has strategic significance for India," she said. "However ... nothing much seems to be moving due to new uncertainties in the region."

(Additional reporting by Tuomas Forsell in HELSINKI; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Saturday, June 10, 2017

China: Military to be vigilant as two US bombers fly over S.China Sea


bombers-940x580  U.S. Air Force bombers conduct training with U.S. Navy in South China Sea. Image via US Pacific Command.

10th June 2017

CHINA said on Friday it was monitoring U.S. military activities in the South China Sea, after two U.S. bombers conducted training flights over the disputed waters.

The U.S. Pacific Command said on its website that two U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers flew a 10-hour training mission from Guam over the South China Sea on Thursday, in conjunction with the Navy’s USS Sterett guided-missile destroyer.

The exercise comes after a U.S. warship in late May carried out a “maneuvering drill” within 12 nautical miles of an artificial island built up by China in the South China Sea.

The U.S. military conducts such “freedom of navigation” patrols to show China it is not entitled to territorial waters there, U.S. officials said at the time.

The latest exercise was part of Pacific Command’s “continuous bomber presence” programme, but it did not give details on where it was conducted, and did not refer to it as a freedom-of-navigation operation.


“China always maintains vigilance and effective monitoring of the relevant country’s military activities in the South China Sea,” the ministry said in a statement, referring to the United States.

“China’s military will resolutely safeguard national sovereignty, security and regional peace and stability,” it said.

China claims nearly all of the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion in ship-borne trade passes each year, a stance contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam.

The United States has criticized China’s construction of islands and build-up of military facilities there, concerned they could be used to restrict free movement and extend China’s strategic reach.

U.S. allies and partners in the region had grown anxious as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had held off on carrying out South China Sea operations during its first few months in office. – Reuters

Donald Trump '100%' willing to testify about Comey conversations

 Trump rejects Comey’s testimony: ‘No collusion. No obstruction. He’s a leaker’
 and  in Washington-Friday 9 June 2017

Donald Trump has declared he is “100%” willing to testify under oath about his interactions with James Comey, insisting the former FBI director was untruthful during his testimony on Capitol Hill.
The US president vehemently denied allegations that he asked Comey to pledge loyalty and drop an investigation into a senior aide. But Trump refused to confirm or deny that recordings of the pair’s conversations exist.

The remarks came a day after Comey testified under oath that the president liedabout his firing and the FBI, in an effort to undermine the agency’s investigation into possible collusion between Trump aides and Russia.

“No collusion, no obstruction, he’s a leaker,” Trump told reporters in the White House rose garden on Friday. “We were very, very happy, and, frankly, James Comey confirmed a lot of what I said, and some of the things that he said just weren’t true.”

But later in the joint press conference with the Romanian president Klaus Iohannis, Trump was challenged by ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl. First Karl asked about Comey’s claim that Trump asked him to let go an investigation into national security adviser Michael Flynn. “I will tell you, I didn’t say that,” the president replied. “And there’d be nothing wrong if I did say that, according to everybody that I’ve read today, but I did not say that.”

Trump also denied seeking a pledge of loyalty, as Comey claimed had happened when the men dined at the White House in January. Karl then asked if Trump would be willing to speak under oath to give his version of those events.

“One hundred per cent,” said the president. “I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say, ‘I want you to pledge allegiance.’ Who would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of it: I hardly know the man, it doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.”

Trump said he would be “glad” to tell the same thing to special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in the presidential election. But Trump remained elusive on the subject of tapes.

He had tweeted on 12 May: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Comey said on Thursday he hoped there were tapes and he would be happy for them to be released.

Asked on Friday if such tapes exist, Trump built suspense by saying: “Well, I’ll tell you about that maybe some time in the very near future.”

As reporters shouted in protest, he promised them in “a short period of time”, merely feeding the frenzy. One reporter shouted: “Are there tapes, sir?” He replied: “Oh, you’re going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer, don’t worry.”

Soon after he spoke, the House intelligence committee announced that it had written to White House counsel Don McGahn to request that, if any recordings or memoranda of Comey’s conversations with Trump exist, they be produced to the committee by 23 June.

The press conference was not Trump’s first public comment on Thursday’s Senate intelligence committee hearing. That came on Twitter early on Friday morning. “Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication … and WOW, Comey is a leaker!” he posted.

Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team was confirmed to be preparing to file a complaint against Comey for sharing his memos of meetings with the president with the New York Times.

After Comey’s testimony, Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz said in a brief statement to the press the former FBI director had “admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorised disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president”.

The legal complaint will be filed with the office of the inspector general for the Department of Justice early next week, according to a source close to the legal team who did not want to speak on the record before the complaint was filed.

The legal team will also send a complaint to the Senate judiciary committee regarding Comey’s testimony before that panel last month – as well as his testimony before the intelligence committee – to clarify on the record what Trump’s legal team views as discrepancies and falsehoods in the displaced FBIdirector’s testimony.

Richard Painter, a White House ethics counsel under George W Bush, said such an action would only amplify the notion that Trump was trying to impede the investigation. “Trying to get DOJ to go after Comey – a material witness – over ‘leak’ is yet more obstruction of Justice,” he tweeted.

Trump has long history of threatening legal action but failing to follow through.On Thursday, Kasowitz said the the president’s team would “leave it to the appropriate authorities” to determine whether Comey’s actions warranted further investigation.

It’s unclear what action the justice department might be able to take against Comey, who was no longer employed by it at the time. It’s also uncertain whether a formal complaint to the Senate judiciary committee would prompt a meaningful response.

Moreover, several experts agree that Comey did not violate any laws by sharing his personal memos with a friend to be made public and that his actions did not constitute the “unauthorized disclosure of privileged information”.

“It is not a ‘violation’ of executive privilege to voluntarily disclose materials that could be protected by the privilege, no matter what Kasowitz says,” Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, wrote in the Washington Post. “Nor is such a voluntary disclosure illegal.”
At least one Democratic senator, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, suggested Trump should now testify before Congress himself. “This is not just another silly tweet,” Schatz tweeted. “It is essential for our country that the president offer his testimony to Congress about what exactly happened.”

In an interview on Friday, Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, an ex officio member of the Senate intelligence committee, said he expected Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed in the wake of Comey’s firing to take over the Russia inquiry, to depose the president as part of the investigation.

Comey, who was fired by Trump on 9 May, told the Senate intelligence committee he believed the president fired him “because of the Russia investigation. I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. That is a very big deal.”


 Highlights from former FBI director Comey’s testimony

Comey confirmed that he detailed in memos several conversations in which the president asked him to drop his inquiry into former national security adviser Michael Flynn – saying “I hope you can let this go” – and sought a pledge of loyalty that Comey deemed inappropriate, given FBI independence.
Comey also branded Trump a liar and said the president had mischaracterized their conversations to justify his abrupt dismissal.

“The administration chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI, by saying that the organisation was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader,” Comey said. “Those were lies, plain and simple, and I’m so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them, and I’m so sorry the American people were told them.”


Comey said he told Trump on three occasions he was not personally under investigation. Federal investigators have cautioned that their inquiry into contacts between Trump and Moscow remains inconclusive, but Trump’s lawyers and supporters nonetheless seized on that piece of information to claim the president had been cleared of wrongdoing.

Comey also suggested that Mueller was investigating whether Trump’s actions amounted to obstruction of justice.

Comey said he asked a friend, a member of the law department of Columbia University, to give to the New York Times details of his memos about his interactions with Trump, “because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel”. Mueller was appointed as special counsel on 17 May.

Comey explained that he documented each meeting with Trump because he thought the president might be dishonest about what transpired.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” he said of their first conversation at Trump Tower in New York in January.
Trump issued a second tweet just before 7am, writing about what is reportedly his favored morning show: “Great reporting by @foxandfriends and so many others. Thank you!”

What links Brexit, dark money and a Saudi prince?


The UK's general election result has put claims of controversial Saudi Brexit funding back in the spotlight

Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party Arlene Foster addresses journalists in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on 9 June 2017 (REUTERS)

Saturday 10 June 2017
Theresa's May reliance on the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to form a government has prompted fresh calls for the Northern Irish party to reveal the source of a controversial six-figure donation that supported the campaign for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (EU), amid unverified claims the donation could be linked to figures in Saudi Arabia's intelligence services.
The role of the right-wing DUP has risen to prominence in UK after Prime Minister Theresa May’s ruling Conservative Party failed to win a majority in Thursday's general election. She now needs to rely on the support of the Northern Irish party's 10 members of parliament to remain in power.
The £434,000 ($554,00) in pro-Brexit donations was given to the DUP by a mysterious political organisation called the Constitutional Research (CRC) Council, ahead of last June’s referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU or leave  - dubbed the "Brexit" option.
More than £280,000 ($375,000) was then used to buy a four-page advertising supplement in the Metro freesheet newspaper in mainland Britain - it is not distributed in Northern Ireland where the DUP operates - urging readers to vote to leave the EU.
The DUP's political opponents have questioned the original source of the CRC donation amid concerns the donation may have breached rules set out by the Electoral Commission, the UK regulator that governs donations and elections.
The CRC is chaired by Richard Cook, a former chair of the Conservative Party in Scotland, and it has emerged that Cook founded a company in 2013 with Saudi Prince Nawwaf bin Adbul Aziz, according to documents at Companies House.
Prince Nawwaf, who died in 2015, was a former director general of the Saudi government's intelligence agency and was the father of the current Saudi ambassador to the UK, website Open Democracy reported. The company he founded in 2013, Five Stars Investment, was dissolved in 2014.
Cook is understood to have rejected the claims as "laughable," and there is no evidence that the money was provided by Saudi intelligence.
The identities of party donors are normally withheld in the Northern Ireland under legislation dating from the Troubles, three decades of nationalistic and sectarian conflict that ended in 1998, but the DUP yielded to growing pressure in February when it revealed that the donation came from CRC.
Electoral Commission rules say that "regulated donees can only accept a donation of more than £500 made to them in connection with their political activities if it is from a 'permissible' donor'".  Donations above that amount "cannot be accepted" if a donor is impermissible or cannot be identified.
Little is known about the CRC, including its membership or who funds it. Cook has previously said that after helping to fund Brexit, the Constitutional Research Council now turn its attention to funding efforts to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.
Cook is also reported to be close to Danish businessman Peter Haestrup, who has repeatedly been linked to a gun-running case described by Indian authorities as “the biggest crime in the country's history".
Haestrup has never been charged with any crimes linked to the case.
The DUP has made no comment on the donation since the election, but last month it said the donation from the CRC "complied fully" with Electoral Commission requirements.
Last month, Sir Jeffery Donaldson, who was the DUP's Brexit campaign manager, told Irish media: "We are satisfied that the Constitutional Research Council is a bona fide organisation and that has been confirmed with the acceptance of the donation and the requirements."
He added: "We are satisfied that the money has been raised in a legitimate way and the Electoral Commission has accepted our return."
The UK government is due this month to start negotiations with the EU on quitting the 28-country grouping, in line with the referendum result.
Middle East Eye has contacted the DUP for comment.

Pressure in Britain builds on Theresa May to step aside as her top aides resign, her party plots her possible ouster

 British Prime Minister Theresa May faces more challenges after failing to win a majority in Thursday's election, as her two top advisors Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy quit. (Reuters)


The pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May to step aside following a humiliating election result grew Saturday, with her two top aides resigning, a leading newspaper pronouncing her “fatally wounded” and a former minister acknowledging that Tories were plotting possible replacements via the messaging service WhatsApp.

The aides who resigned, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, May’s fiercely loyal co-chiefs of staff, had been widely blamed within the prime minister’s Conservative Party for the lackluster campaign that ended with the Tories losing their majority in Parliament.

Their departures were seen Saturday as a Downing Street bid to stave off a far more dramatic resignation: that of the prime minister herself.

But it was unclear whether it would be enough, with some Conservatives acknowledging that May has effectively become a lame-duck leader following a vote that was supposed to give her a resounding mandate for the next five years, but instead morphed into a stinging rejection that could end her premiership within days.

[The U.K. election, explained: How to make sense of Britain’s latest vote]

Prime Minister Theresa May lost her majority in Parliament, but the day also provided its fair share of odd-ball moments. (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)

May has insisted she will not step aside, and will instead form a new government that will lead the country through the treacherous currents of the Brexit talks to come.

Several senior members of her Conservative Party have backed her, saying the country can’t afford the chaos of starting to pick a new leader only days before negotiations with European leaders are to kick off.

But other senior Tories have been conspicuous in their silence, and behind the scenes the party has been engaged in fevered debate over whether to push for May’s ouster — if not now, then perhaps in several months after Britain’s E.U. divorce talks have launched.

If May does move out of 10 Downing Street, it would be the second time in the past year that Britain has been left leaderless after a Tory prime minister gambled and lost in calling a national vote.
May came to office last summer after her predecessor, David Cameron, called a referendum on an exit from the European Union, a move he opposed. The referendum passed, and Cameron resigned the next morning.

The question of whether May will stay on is taking longer to answer — at least in part because no one expected her to lose Thursday, and therefore no one in her party had prepared for the possibility of trying to topple her.

Downing Street announced Saturday night that the Conservatives had agreed in principle to a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland that will give May an extremely narrow majority in Parliament. While that technically means she has the necessary votes to carry on, she will have to step down if enough Tories move against her.

See photos of the scene in Britain during a snap election


June 8, 2017 Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May leaves with her husband, Philip, after voting in Maidenhead, England. Alastair Grant/AP

The Conservatives have a long history of unsentimentally sacking their leaders — Margaret Thatcher among them — when they have become more liability than asset.

In an indication of just how quickly the mood in the Tory inner sanctum was turning against May, a former senior Downing Street aide told the BBC Saturday morning that May’s office had been “dysfunctional” and “toxic.”

Katie Perrior, who was until recently the prime minister’s director of communications, also implied that May was out of her depth after being elevated from home secretary to prime minister last July.
“Trying to make that change to Number 10 was more difficult than she possibly anticipated,” Perrior said.

Perrior called May “a good person,” but blamed Hill and Timothy, who have been the prime minister’s closest advisers and were at the heart of a Downing Street operation that many in the party saw as controlling and exclusionary.

The BBC reported that May had been warned by senior Tory lawmakers that unless Hill and Timothy were ousted, the prime minister would face an internal party challenge to her leadership by Monday morning.

In her resignation statement, Hill said she had “no doubt at all that Theresa May will continue to serve and work hard as prime minister – and do it brilliantly.”

The exits of Hill and Timothy were publicly cheered by Tory lawmaker Nigel Evans, who wrote on Twitter that “resignations of advisors must be the start - inclusive style of governance must follow.”
But others dismissed the move as a stalling tactic that doesn’t address the real problem in May’s government: May herself.

Until the early hours of Friday, when the disastrous results came into focus, she had enjoyed overwhelming popularity among the Tory rank-and-file. But that seems to have already changed.

An unscientific poll of party members by the ConservativeHome website, a popular gathering spot for Tory activists, showed that 60 percent wanted May to step down.

The mood was reflected in the Saturday papers, which made for grim reading for May after the shock of Friday, with even her most fawning outlets piling on blame.

The Daily Mail, an anti-immigrant, nationalist tabloid that has spent the past year cheering on May, published a photo of a graven-faced prime minister along with the headline “Tories Turn on Theresa.”

The Times of London, a beacon of establishment conservatism that had enthusiastically endorsed the prime minister, published an editorial arguing that she had created “a national emergency” by misjudging the mood of the country and that she was now left “fatally wounded.”

“If she does not realize this it is another grave misjudgment,” the paper wrote. “More likely, she is steeling herself to provide what continuity she can as her party girds itself for an election to replace her.”

That seemed to be well underway Saturday. Former minister Ed Vaizey told the BBC that he supports May staying on, but that Tories were discussing possible replacements. Asked whether members were calling one another to plot May’s ouster this weekend, he denied it.

“That’s so 20th century,” he said. “It’s all on WhatsApp.”

Few Tories have publicly demanded that she step aside. But the defenses of the prime minister have been notably muted. Most have argued less that May is the right person for the job than that now – with Brexit talks only days away -- is not the right time for her to step down.

“Voters do not want further months of uncertainty and upheaval,” William Hague, a former party leader and former foreign secretary, wrote in the Telegraph. “They want to see ministers getting on with the job, while acknowledging democracy and their constrained circumstances.”

Other top Conservatives – including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson – have been all but invisible since the election, prompting speculation that they are at least considering launching a challenge to May.

Phillip Lee, a junior minister under May, said in an interview that he did not believe she should step down, but that the government would have to respond to the voters’ will by changing its direction on crucial issues — including Brexit, where he said a softer approach may be required than the hard break May has pitched.

“Voters don’t accept what we put before them,” he said. “We need to think again and come back with a fresh approach.”

Lee said he did not sense “a strong push to remove her now” among Tory lawmakers. But, he acknowledged, “maybe I’m in the wrong WhatsApp group.”

Under Conservative Party rules, it takes support from at least 48 out of the party’s 318 parliamentarians to trigger a leadership contest. The selection process would last months, with the party’s lawmakers first winnowing the field to two and then rank-and-file members choosing between the finalists, one of whom would become the new prime minister.

May was quiet on Saturday, a day after delivering a defiant speech in front of Downing Street in which she vowed to carry on and made no mention of the crushing election results delivered only hours earlier.

On Saturday evening, the prime minister’s office announced a new chief of staff -- former minister Gavin Barwell — and at least the basis for a deal in which the Democratic Unionists will support May, but not formally join her government.

May has said she intends to press ahead with Brexit talks, which are due to begin June 19 and need to be completed by March 2019.

E.U. leaders have been impatient to start the negotiations, a point underlined by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday, who said there would be no delay – political upheaval in London not withstanding.


“In the next few days these talks will begin,” she told reporters while on a visit to Mexico. “We will defend the interests of the 27 member states, and Britain will defend its own interests.”