The iconic Star Wars actor Mark Hamill has become a voice in the controversial fight over net neutrality. So too have a Brooklyn DJ and the hacking group Anonymous.
Saturday, Hamill, know for playing Luke Skywalker, tweeted a takedown of the Federal Communications Commissioner, Ajit Pai.
Before the FCC voted Thursday to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality regulations, Pai appeared in a tongue-in-cheek video on conservative website Daily Caller demonstrating various activities that would still be possible after the net neutrality rules were repealed. Pai Instagrams his food, shops online, watches shows online, demonstrates "fandom" by play-fighting with a lightsaber and dances to the Harlem Shake.
The video was met with fierce criticism. Many objected to Pai making light of such a serious issue. With the repeal of net neutrality regulations, Internet access providers like Verizon and Comcast will able to charge different prices for different speeds of Internet access, which experts say could disproportionately affect those with lower incomes and small businesses. Technologists are also concerned it will stifle innovation.
Hamill's response to Pai elicited a response from Republican Congressman Ted Cruz, claiming that the actor did not understand the power dynamics of net neutrality regulation.
Ted Cruz
✔
@tedcruz
.@HammillHimself Luke, I know Hollywood can be confusing, but it was Vader who supported govt power over everything said & done on the Internet. That's why giant corps (Google, Facebook, Netflix) supported the FCC power grab of net neutrality. Reject the dark side: Free the net! https://twitter.com/hamillhimself/status/941984701085925376 …
1:25 AM - Dec 18, 2017
6,798 6,798 Replies 4,826 4,826 Retweets 14,230 14,230 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Hamill struck back, chastising Cruz: "Thanks for smarm-sp[l]aining it to me @tedcruz I know politics can be confusing, but you'd have more credibility if you spelled my name correctly. I mean IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU!" he tweeted.
Luke Skywalker isn't the only surprising character to become embroiled in controversy with the FCC Chairman.
Brooklyn-based DJ Harry Rodrigues, known as Baauer, created the Harlem Shake and Thursday, his label, Mad Decent, said it would be seeking legal recourse if the song was not removed from the Daily Caller video. The video still stands on the Daily Caller's website and on YouTube, though it was removed for seven hours.
MAD DECENT
✔
@maddecent
Official statement re the use of "Harlem Shake" in Daily Caller's video of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: neither Mad Decent nor Baauer approved this use nor do we approve of the message contained therein. We have issued a takedown will pursue further legal action if it is not removed.
7:38 AM - Dec 15, 2017
253 253 Replies 5,130 5,130 Retweets 16,658 16,658 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The hacker group Anonymous also threatened retaliation against the FCC and Pai specifically for their work repealing the net neutrality regulations.
Golkar Campakkan Ridwan Kamil, PKB Nyatakan Masih Setia
Partai Golkar resmi mencabut dukungan terhadap Ridwan Kamil (RK) di Pilgub Jabar 2018. PKB sebagai partai pendukung Ridwan Kamil menyatakan akan tetap setia untuk mendukung.
"PKB akan menjaga kebersamaan, akan menjaga kekompakan, kesolid-an koalisi yang ada. PKB akan tetap setia mengawal Ridwan Kamil sampai memenangkan di pelantikan," kata Ketua Desk Pilkada Nasional PKB, Daniel Johan saat dihubungi, Senin (18/12/2017).
Meski begitu, Daniel menyebut partainya akan menerima apapun keputusan yang dibuat oleh Golkar. Ia menuturkan, partainya tetap berharap untuk selalu menjadi bagian dari koalisi yang utuh.
"Kita sih berharap PKB tetap bagian dari koalisi yang utuh, tapi kalau sampai itu memang sudah menjadi keputusan finalnya Golkar, PKB tetap setia mengawal Ridwan Kamil," tuturnya.
Daniel bahkan berharap agar Golkar kembali mendukung Ridwan Kamil dan menguatkan koalisi kembali. "Ya, kita masih berharap (Golkar mendukung Ridwan Kamil). Kita solidkan koalisi sekarang sehingga tidak perlu pindah ke lain hati," tambah wakil ketua Komisi IV DPR itu.
Seperti diketahui, Golkar mencabut dukungan terhadap Ridwan Kamil dan Daniel Mutaqien di Pilgub Jabar 2018. Sejauh ini, masih ada tiga partai lagi yang mendukung Ridwan Kamil, yakni PPP, PKB, dan NasDem. (dtc)
"PKB akan menjaga kebersamaan, akan menjaga kekompakan, kesolid-an koalisi yang ada. PKB akan tetap setia mengawal Ridwan Kamil sampai memenangkan di pelantikan," kata Ketua Desk Pilkada Nasional PKB, Daniel Johan saat dihubungi, Senin (18/12/2017).
Meski begitu, Daniel menyebut partainya akan menerima apapun keputusan yang dibuat oleh Golkar. Ia menuturkan, partainya tetap berharap untuk selalu menjadi bagian dari koalisi yang utuh.
"Kita sih berharap PKB tetap bagian dari koalisi yang utuh, tapi kalau sampai itu memang sudah menjadi keputusan finalnya Golkar, PKB tetap setia mengawal Ridwan Kamil," tuturnya.
Daniel bahkan berharap agar Golkar kembali mendukung Ridwan Kamil dan menguatkan koalisi kembali. "Ya, kita masih berharap (Golkar mendukung Ridwan Kamil). Kita solidkan koalisi sekarang sehingga tidak perlu pindah ke lain hati," tambah wakil ketua Komisi IV DPR itu.
Seperti diketahui, Golkar mencabut dukungan terhadap Ridwan Kamil dan Daniel Mutaqien di Pilgub Jabar 2018. Sejauh ini, masih ada tiga partai lagi yang mendukung Ridwan Kamil, yakni PPP, PKB, dan NasDem. (dtc)
Jokowi Terima Surat Penegasan Dukungan Pencapresan dari Golkar
Presiden Joko Widodo hadir di Munaslub Partai Golkar. Jokowi menerima surat penegasan dukungan dari Golkar sebagai capres untuk Pilpres 2019.
Surat penegasan itu dibacakan oleh Korbid Kepartaian Kahar Muzakir di lokasi munaslub, JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017). Surat tersebut adalah pernyataan sikap penegasan kembali Jokowi sebagai Capres yang didukung Golkar di 2019.
"PG beserta jajaran mulai pusat daerah akan berjuang keras memenangkan Bapak Joko Widodo periode dua," ujar Kahar membacakan surat penegasan dukungan itu.
Ada pun bunyi surat yang dibacakan Kahar adalah sebagai berikut:
Pernyataan sikap penegasan kembali Bapak Jokowi sebagai capres di pilpres 2019
Parpol institusi memperjuangkan aspirasi rakyat. Selain menjadi peserta pemilu, memilih anggota DPR. Parpol mengusung pasangan presiden, calon presiden.
Partai Golkar mencermati seksama selama 3 tahun memimpin keberhasilan Joko Widodo telah dirasakan rata rakyat Indonesia sehingga mendapat apresiasi tingkat kepuasan yang tinggi.
Pileg, pilpres sudah semakin dekat, sesuai keputusan Rapimnas III Partai Golkar di bawah kepemimpinan ketum baru menegaskan kembali pencalonan Bapak Jokowi sebagai capres pada Pemilu dan Pilpres 2019.
Partai Golkar beserta jajaran mulai pusat daerah akan berjuang keras memenangkan Bapak Joko Widodo periode dua. Semoga Allah SWT Tuhan maha kuasa meridhoi.
Jakarta, 18 Desember 2017
DPP Partai Golkar seluruh peserta rapimnas, ketum ditandatangani Airlangga Hartarto dan Sekjen ditandatangani Idrus Marham.
Setelah surat penegasan dukungan dibacakan, Kahar meminta Jokowi maju ke atas panggung. Surat tersebut diberikan kepada Jokowi. dtc
Surat penegasan itu dibacakan oleh Korbid Kepartaian Kahar Muzakir di lokasi munaslub, JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017). Surat tersebut adalah pernyataan sikap penegasan kembali Jokowi sebagai Capres yang didukung Golkar di 2019.
"PG beserta jajaran mulai pusat daerah akan berjuang keras memenangkan Bapak Joko Widodo periode dua," ujar Kahar membacakan surat penegasan dukungan itu.
Ada pun bunyi surat yang dibacakan Kahar adalah sebagai berikut:
Pernyataan sikap penegasan kembali Bapak Jokowi sebagai capres di pilpres 2019
Parpol institusi memperjuangkan aspirasi rakyat. Selain menjadi peserta pemilu, memilih anggota DPR. Parpol mengusung pasangan presiden, calon presiden.
Partai Golkar mencermati seksama selama 3 tahun memimpin keberhasilan Joko Widodo telah dirasakan rata rakyat Indonesia sehingga mendapat apresiasi tingkat kepuasan yang tinggi.
Pileg, pilpres sudah semakin dekat, sesuai keputusan Rapimnas III Partai Golkar di bawah kepemimpinan ketum baru menegaskan kembali pencalonan Bapak Jokowi sebagai capres pada Pemilu dan Pilpres 2019.
Partai Golkar beserta jajaran mulai pusat daerah akan berjuang keras memenangkan Bapak Joko Widodo periode dua. Semoga Allah SWT Tuhan maha kuasa meridhoi.
Jakarta, 18 Desember 2017
DPP Partai Golkar seluruh peserta rapimnas, ketum ditandatangani Airlangga Hartarto dan Sekjen ditandatangani Idrus Marham.
Setelah surat penegasan dukungan dibacakan, Kahar meminta Jokowi maju ke atas panggung. Surat tersebut diberikan kepada Jokowi. dtc
Airlangga: Buka Lembaran Baru, Golkar akan Jadi Partai Bersih
Ketua Umum Partai Golkar Airlangga Hartarto menyebut saat ini partai berlambang pohon beringin itu bertekad membuka lembaran baru. Airlangga pun ingin Golkar kembali merebut kejayaan.
"Elektabilitas partai menurun ke titik terendah. Posisi Partai Golkar merosot ke posisi nomor tiga. Fakta ini tentu menempatkan kami dalam persimpangan jalan yang tajam, semua bertekad membuka lembaran baru," kata Airlangga dalam sambutannya pada Munaslub Partai Golkar di JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017).
"Kami akan bekerja keras dengan menjadi partai bersih dan berintegritas," Airlangga menegaskan.
Airlangga pun bertekad menjadikan Golkar sebagai partai papan atas kembali. Apalagi, menurut Airlangga, tahun-tahun ke depan merupakan tahun politik di Tanah Air.
"Golkar yakin kami kembali menjadi partai papan atas yang solid," ujar Airlangga.
Tampak hadir Presiden Joko Widodo (Jokowi), Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla (JK), presiden ke-3 RI BJ Habibie, presiden ke-5 RI sekaligus Ketua Umum PDI Perjuangan Megawati Soekarnoputri, Ketua MPR sekaligus Ketua Umum PAN Zulkifli Hasan, Ketua DPD sekaligus Ketua Umum Partai Hanura Oesman Sapta Odang, serta jajaran elite Partai Golkar. dtc
"Elektabilitas partai menurun ke titik terendah. Posisi Partai Golkar merosot ke posisi nomor tiga. Fakta ini tentu menempatkan kami dalam persimpangan jalan yang tajam, semua bertekad membuka lembaran baru," kata Airlangga dalam sambutannya pada Munaslub Partai Golkar di JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017).
"Kami akan bekerja keras dengan menjadi partai bersih dan berintegritas," Airlangga menegaskan.
Airlangga pun bertekad menjadikan Golkar sebagai partai papan atas kembali. Apalagi, menurut Airlangga, tahun-tahun ke depan merupakan tahun politik di Tanah Air.
"Golkar yakin kami kembali menjadi partai papan atas yang solid," ujar Airlangga.
Tampak hadir Presiden Joko Widodo (Jokowi), Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla (JK), presiden ke-3 RI BJ Habibie, presiden ke-5 RI sekaligus Ketua Umum PDI Perjuangan Megawati Soekarnoputri, Ketua MPR sekaligus Ketua Umum PAN Zulkifli Hasan, Ketua DPD sekaligus Ketua Umum Partai Hanura Oesman Sapta Odang, serta jajaran elite Partai Golkar. dtc
Jokowi: Saya Sempat Was-was Golkar Panas, Ternyata Hangat-hangat Kuku
Presiden Joko Widodo memberi sambutan di Munaslub Golkar. Jokowi pun mengaku sempat merasa khawatir dengan kondisi Golkar beberapa waktu lalu.
"Akhir November lalu saya sempat was-was, katanya Golkar sedang memanas, Golkar sempat menghangat," ujar Jokowi dalam sambutannya di lokasi munaslub, JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017).
Pada akhir November lalu, KPK menahan Setya Novanto dalam kasus korupsi e-KTP. Kondusi tersebut membuat internal Golkar menjolak. Permintaan agar pergantian ketua umum pun banyak berdatangan.
Setelah berbagai dinamika, internal Golkar pun sepakat untuk menggelar munaslub. Airlangga Hartarto mendapat mayoritas dukungan.
"Tapi setelah saya dalami, ternyata hanya hangat-hangat kuku, tidak sampai memanas," sebut Jokowi.
Presiden juga sempat menerima perwakilan DPD I Golkar yang meminta Jokowi merestui Airlangga sebagai ketum Golkar. Seperti diketahui, Airlangga merupakan menteri perindustrian di Kabinet Kerja Jokowi dan Wapres Jusuf Kalla.
"Oleh karena itu ketika saya menerima surat untuk minta bertemu dari DPD I Golkar, Saya sampaikan saya terima. Karena merupakan tamu istimewa saya," kata Jokowi.
Dalam munaslub ini, Jokowi juga menerima surat penegasan dukungan dari Golkar sebagai capres di Pilpres 2019. Golkar mendukung Jokowi untuk menjadi presiden dua periode. dtc
"Akhir November lalu saya sempat was-was, katanya Golkar sedang memanas, Golkar sempat menghangat," ujar Jokowi dalam sambutannya di lokasi munaslub, JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017).
Pada akhir November lalu, KPK menahan Setya Novanto dalam kasus korupsi e-KTP. Kondusi tersebut membuat internal Golkar menjolak. Permintaan agar pergantian ketua umum pun banyak berdatangan.
Setelah berbagai dinamika, internal Golkar pun sepakat untuk menggelar munaslub. Airlangga Hartarto mendapat mayoritas dukungan.
"Tapi setelah saya dalami, ternyata hanya hangat-hangat kuku, tidak sampai memanas," sebut Jokowi.
Presiden juga sempat menerima perwakilan DPD I Golkar yang meminta Jokowi merestui Airlangga sebagai ketum Golkar. Seperti diketahui, Airlangga merupakan menteri perindustrian di Kabinet Kerja Jokowi dan Wapres Jusuf Kalla.
"Oleh karena itu ketika saya menerima surat untuk minta bertemu dari DPD I Golkar, Saya sampaikan saya terima. Karena merupakan tamu istimewa saya," kata Jokowi.
Dalam munaslub ini, Jokowi juga menerima surat penegasan dukungan dari Golkar sebagai capres di Pilpres 2019. Golkar mendukung Jokowi untuk menjadi presiden dua periode. dtc
Presiden Jokowi: Partai Golkar Harus Solid
Presiden Joko Widodo (Jokowi) menyebut Partai Golkar harus solid. Jokowi mengatakan masih banyak pembangunan negeri yang perlu dilakukan bersama-sama.
"Masih banyak pekerjaan yang perlu kita lakukan bersama-sama, berkarya untuk mewujudkan Indonesia-sentris. Oleh karena itu, Partai Golkar harus solid, harus utuh," ucap Jokowi dalam sambutannya di Munaslub Partai Golkar di JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017).
"Jika Golkar gonjang ganjing, jika Golkar tidak solid, jika di internal Golkar ramai, ini tidak bagus untuk Golkar maupun untuk politik nasional," imbuh Jokowi.
Jokowi pun sempat menyinggung Partai Golkar sebagai partai yang selalu mendukung program pemerintah. Untuk itu, Jokowi menyampaikan ucapan terima kasih.
"Saya tahu Partai Golkar adalah partai besar dan selalu memberikan dukungan pada program strategis pemerintah," kata Jokowi.
"Saya dalam kesempatan berbahagia ini menyampaikan terima kasih," sambung Jokowi.
Dalam munaslub ini, Jokowi juga menerima surat penegasan dukungan dari Golkar sebagai capres di Pilpres 2019. Golkar mendukung Jokowi untuk menjadi presiden dua periode.
"Masih banyak pekerjaan yang perlu kita lakukan bersama-sama, berkarya untuk mewujudkan Indonesia-sentris. Oleh karena itu, Partai Golkar harus solid, harus utuh," ucap Jokowi dalam sambutannya di Munaslub Partai Golkar di JCC Senayan, Jakarta, Senin (18/12/2017).
"Jika Golkar gonjang ganjing, jika Golkar tidak solid, jika di internal Golkar ramai, ini tidak bagus untuk Golkar maupun untuk politik nasional," imbuh Jokowi.
Jokowi pun sempat menyinggung Partai Golkar sebagai partai yang selalu mendukung program pemerintah. Untuk itu, Jokowi menyampaikan ucapan terima kasih.
"Saya tahu Partai Golkar adalah partai besar dan selalu memberikan dukungan pada program strategis pemerintah," kata Jokowi.
"Saya dalam kesempatan berbahagia ini menyampaikan terima kasih," sambung Jokowi.
Dalam munaslub ini, Jokowi juga menerima surat penegasan dukungan dari Golkar sebagai capres di Pilpres 2019. Golkar mendukung Jokowi untuk menjadi presiden dua periode.
Israel strikes Hamas targets in Gaza after rocket attacks from Palestinian area
Militants step up rocket attacks since Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israeli capital
Samuel Osborne @SamuelOsborne93 12 hours ago27 comments
2K
Click to follow
The Independent Online
Palestinian Hamas supporters carry a model of a missile during a rally marking the 30th anniversary of Hamas movement, in the West Bank City of Nablus AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed
The Israeli military said it had carried out air strikes on a Hamas training compound in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks from the Palestinian territory.
Militants in Gaza have stepped up rocket attacks on Israel since Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the country's capital.
They have launched more than a dozen rockets into southern Israel over the last two weeks, the most intensive attacks since a seven-week-long Gaza war in 2014.
0:00
/
2:31
Donald Trump officially recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital
Two rockets were fired late on Sunday, one of them exploding inside an Israeli border community and the other hitting an open area, the military said. Another rocket launched early on Monday fell short inside Gaza, it said.
Three structures in a Hamas training camp were hit in the Israeli counter-strike, the military said. Neither side reported any casualties.
Israel has said it holds the Islamist militant group, which has controlled Gaza for over a decade, responsible for all rocket fire emanating from the territory.
Palestinians clash with Israeli troops during 'Day of Rage'
18
show all
Hamas usually evacuates such facilities when tensions rise, and Israel's choice of the low-profile target appeared to signal a desire to avoid more serious confrontation with the group.
"Israel does not seek escalation," Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said on Army Radio.
But Zeev Elkin, another member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet, said in an interview with the radio station that Israel's military response would "have to be harshened" if the rocket fire did not stop.
Additional reporting by agencies
Samuel Osborne @SamuelOsborne93 12 hours ago27 comments
2K
Click to follow
The Independent Online
Palestinian Hamas supporters carry a model of a missile during a rally marking the 30th anniversary of Hamas movement, in the West Bank City of Nablus AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed
The Israeli military said it had carried out air strikes on a Hamas training compound in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks from the Palestinian territory.
Militants in Gaza have stepped up rocket attacks on Israel since Donald Trump's decision to recognise Jerusalem as the country's capital.
They have launched more than a dozen rockets into southern Israel over the last two weeks, the most intensive attacks since a seven-week-long Gaza war in 2014.
0:00
/
2:31
Donald Trump officially recognises Jerusalem as Israel's capital
Two rockets were fired late on Sunday, one of them exploding inside an Israeli border community and the other hitting an open area, the military said. Another rocket launched early on Monday fell short inside Gaza, it said.
Three structures in a Hamas training camp were hit in the Israeli counter-strike, the military said. Neither side reported any casualties.
Israel has said it holds the Islamist militant group, which has controlled Gaza for over a decade, responsible for all rocket fire emanating from the territory.
Palestinians clash with Israeli troops during 'Day of Rage'
18
show all
Hamas usually evacuates such facilities when tensions rise, and Israel's choice of the low-profile target appeared to signal a desire to avoid more serious confrontation with the group.
"Israel does not seek escalation," Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said on Army Radio.
But Zeev Elkin, another member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet, said in an interview with the radio station that Israel's military response would "have to be harshened" if the rocket fire did not stop.
Additional reporting by agencies
The Most Beautiful Wives And Exes Of The World’s Richest Men
People love to follow the lives of individuals who are rich and powerful. This has been a way of life since the ancient times. The most powerful and wealthy people from centuries ago are still remembered. Some people see these individuals as inspiration to succeed in life, and others just want the scoop on how these rich individuals live. With money comes women, and these rich, successful men have picked the hottest women they could find when it came time to find a partner. Let’s see who these lucky ladies are who are married to these wealthy men.
Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen
Now considered the greatest of all time or the goat, Tom Brady has achieved legendary status. His latest Super Bowl victory in 2017 was one for the ages as he led a huge comeback against the Atlanta Falcons. It was in question where he stood on the list of all-time greats but the debate is over now, he is the greatest.
2721848FM213_victoria
Frank Micelotta/Getty Images
He is married to the beautiful Gisele Bundchen who is an amazing supermodel. He has a net worth of $180 million and hers is at $360 million. It isn’t a problem if your wife makes more than you if you are the greatest of all time and if you too are a millionaire.
Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen
Now considered the greatest of all time or the goat, Tom Brady has achieved legendary status. His latest Super Bowl victory in 2017 was one for the ages as he led a huge comeback against the Atlanta Falcons. It was in question where he stood on the list of all-time greats but the debate is over now, he is the greatest.
2721848FM213_victoria
Frank Micelotta/Getty Images
He is married to the beautiful Gisele Bundchen who is an amazing supermodel. He has a net worth of $180 million and hers is at $360 million. It isn’t a problem if your wife makes more than you if you are the greatest of all time and if you too are a millionaire.
Trump predicts Republicans will do well in 2018 midterms while distancing himself from Roy Moore's Alabama defeat
Donald Trump has predicted the Republicans will "do well" in next year's midterms as he distanced himself from recent losses in Alabama and Virginia.
"Remember, Republicans are 5-0 in Congressional Races this year. The media refuses to mention this," the US President tweeted.
"I said Gillespie and Moore would lose (for very different reasons), and they did. I also predicted 'I' would win. Republicans will do well in 2018, very well!"
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Remember, Republicans are 5-0 in Congressional Races this year. The media refuses to mention this. I said Gillespie and Moore would lose (for very different reasons), and they did. I also predicted “I” would win. Republicans will do well in 2018, very well! @foxandfriends
6:23 PM - Dec 18, 2017
14,805 14,805 Replies 8,162 8,162 Retweets 35,754 35,754 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The tweet came after Roy Moore and Ed Gillespie, two Republican candidates Mr Trump endorsed, were defeated in Alabama and Virginia respectively.
Mr Moore recently refused to concede the senate election despite Mr Trump calling on him to admit defeat.
The election saw Alabama elect its first Democratic senator since 1992.
In Virginia, Ralph Northam declared his victory a rebuke of the US President and his "divisive" rhetoric.
"Remember, Republicans are 5-0 in Congressional Races this year. The media refuses to mention this," the US President tweeted.
"I said Gillespie and Moore would lose (for very different reasons), and they did. I also predicted 'I' would win. Republicans will do well in 2018, very well!"
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Remember, Republicans are 5-0 in Congressional Races this year. The media refuses to mention this. I said Gillespie and Moore would lose (for very different reasons), and they did. I also predicted “I” would win. Republicans will do well in 2018, very well! @foxandfriends
6:23 PM - Dec 18, 2017
14,805 14,805 Replies 8,162 8,162 Retweets 35,754 35,754 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The tweet came after Roy Moore and Ed Gillespie, two Republican candidates Mr Trump endorsed, were defeated in Alabama and Virginia respectively.
Mr Moore recently refused to concede the senate election despite Mr Trump calling on him to admit defeat.
The election saw Alabama elect its first Democratic senator since 1992.
In Virginia, Ralph Northam declared his victory a rebuke of the US President and his "divisive" rhetoric.
Trump predicts exoneration in Russia investigation as allies fear a 'meltdown'
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is privately striking a less agitated tone on the Russia investigation, sources say, even insisting he'll soon be cleared in writing. But his new approach has some allies worried he's not taking the threat of the probe seriously enough.
Trump has spent much of his first year in office so enraged by the federal investigation into Russian meddling in last year's election that lawmakers who work with him tried to avoid the issue entirely and his friends worried that Trump might rashly fire the special counsel. But in recent weeks, Trump has privately seemed less frustrated about the investigation, according to multiple sources who have spoken with the President.
Sponsor Content
Put a smile on the faces of your cherished ones this year.
Discover the spirit of giving this Christmas at Marina Bay Sands.
Promoted By Marina Bay Sands
There's no indication from special counsel Robert Mueller or his team that the probe is in its final stages. A tipping point in the showdown could come as soon as this week when Trump's private lawyers and Mueller meet, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Trump's team is hoping to get a clearer sense of Mueller's next steps in the investigation, an assessment that could either pacify Trump or inflame him.
Until those next signs emerge, Trump is boasting to friends and advisers that he expects Mueller to clear him of wrongdoing in the coming weeks, according to sources familiar with the conversations. The President seems so convinced of his impending exoneration that he is telling associates Mueller will soon write a letter clearing him that Trump can brandish to Washington and the world in a bid to finally emerge from the cloud of suspicion that has loomed over the first chapter of his presidency, the sources said.
This account of how Trump and his senior staffers are privately grappling with the Russia investigation is based on interviews over the past week with nearly three dozen White House officials, lawmakers, outside advisers, friends of the President and sources familiar with the Mueller probe. It depicts a president genuinely convinced of his innocence and advisers preparing for him to explode early next year if the probe doesn't end as neatly as Trump expects.
In private conversations, Trump still speaks dismissively of the Russia investigation, referring to it as "bulls---" and proclaiming "I don't know any Russians!" multiple sources told CNN.
But those outbursts are measured against Trump's belief that the investigation will soon wrap up favorably. That rosy picture has buoyed Trump's spirits in recent weeks, leaving him seemingly less frustrated and more even-keeled about the investigation even as Mueller's team landed a guilty plea and the cooperation of one of the President's former top advisers, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
"The President's mantra is 'All this Russia stuff, it's all going to wrap up soon.' He repeats it as fact," said one source who speaks to Trump. "Part of me is like -- 'Are you serious? You believe this?'"
Mnuchin: Mueller probe 'should be over quickly' 01:00
The President, speaking to reporters at the White House Sunday evening, insisted he wasn't considering firing Mueller. But the pressure on Mueller from Trump's allies is growing. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told CNN's Jake Tapper Sunday on "State of the Union" that "we've got to get past this investigation."
"It's a giant distraction," he said. "Nobody has said that, in any way, this impacted the outcome of the election."
Meanwhile, lawyers representing the Trump presidential transition wrote to members of Congress accusing Mueller of obtaining unauthorized access to tens of thousands of transition emails, including what they claim to be documents protected by attorney-client privilege. Mueller's spokesman responded that, "When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing investigation, we have secured either the account owner's consent or appropriate criminal process."
Worrying about the deadline
Trump's legal team has told the President he will likely be cleared of wrongdoing in the coming months, according to a senior White House official and sources who have spoken with Trump. That optimism has left some of the President's friends and advisers worried the deadline could come and go, leaving Trump frustrated and more prone to rash behavior than ever before, including potentially firing Mueller. A number of Trump's allies have warned him that any attempt to fire Mueller could be a fatal blow to his presidency.
Three sources familiar with the President's recent conversations about the investigation said Trump has become convinced that he will receive a letter of exoneration, which would be unusual. One source worried Trump would have a "meltdown" if that doesn't happen.
"He'll try and fire Mueller and then be impeached," this person predicted.
White House special counsel Ty Cobb and Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, are trying to prevent Trump from lashing out over the investigation, said a source who speaks with the President. "What they are trying to do is manage Trump. That's what everyone tries to do."
But a longtime friend of the President's said he believes Trump's attorneys have "lulled him into a false sense of security" -- which could be a dangerous game.
"I've known him long enough to know that disappointing him is a problem and they've built up a level of expectations for him that are unrealistic," the Trump friend said.
The assessment by the President's lawyers cuts against the grain of legal experts who believe the Mueller investigation is only ramping up, with Flynn's guilty plea and his agreement to cooperate with investigators signaling that Mueller is chasing even bigger fish. Lawyers for others involved in the investigation are also skeptical that Mueller is close to wrapping up his work.
Cobb insists the investigation is winding down and has said he expects the part of the probe that is scrutinizing the President and the White House will come to a close early next year.
"The special counsel has had the White House documents for some time now and has concluded all requested White House interviews. The President is confident based on the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing that he'll be treated appropriately by the special counsel and ideally in the near future," Cobb told CNN Sunday, though he acknowledged Mueller could request additional interviews with White House staff.
Cobb declined to speculate on how the President would be publicly exonerated. He said he and the President had never discussed a letter of exoneration and said he had "no idea" where Trump got the idea.
Privately, Cobb has sought to assuage Trump and White House staffers by touting his connections to Mueller and members of his team, whom he has known in Washington for years, sources familiar with the matter said. He also cites his familiarity with the thousands of documents the White House has provided to Mueller's investigators, the sources said.
But Cobb's timeline predicting the end of Mueller's focus on the White House has repeatedly shifted. First, he said the investigation would end by Thanksgiving. Then, he said it would wrap up by the end of the year. Now, he's predicting early next year.
Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for the President's legal team, said he doubts Mueller would deliver a letter exonerating Trump before he has fully wrapped up his investigation. But he said pressure is mounting for Mueller to conclude his investigation as a result of reports that several members of his investigative team (who have since been taken off the investigation) have privately expressed anti-Trump sentiments.
"If you're Mueller and you want to have any shred of credibility, you have to find a way" to bring the investigation to a close, Corallo said. "If you reach the conclusion that the President of the United States doesn't have anything to do with this...he's going to have to find some way to make that public. We're at that point now."
One senior White House official insisted that even if Cobb's timeline doesn't pan out, he has provided the necessary reassurance of a "light at the end of the tunnel" in a White House where the investigation sometimes seems to loom endlessly and where the President's mood has been affected by its topsy-turvy nature.
"If it's not totally on that timeline, do I think there's going to be a problem? No. I think that people are realistic that things change, stuff happens," the senior White House official said. "You cross that bridge when you get to it."
'Morale-crushing' investigation
While Cobb's words have reassured some White House officials who have become wrapped up in the investigation, many staffers continue to work under the assumption that the probe is intensifying, five sources close to the White House said.
The Russia investigation has become the backdrop for day-to-day life at the White House.
Officials insist it doesn't disrupt their work days, although the latest Russia developments and the President's own Twitter musings often send some in the communications shop scrambling to respond. But sources acknowledged the constant clamor of the investigation -- and wall-to-wall media coverage -- has weighed on the mood in the West Wing.
"The commotion around the investigation is morale-crushing to everybody," said one source familiar with the situation.
Senior staffers have borne the brunt of the anxiety. Many have hired lawyers and worked with them at length to prepare for their interviews with the special counsel's team.
Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and one of Trump's closest aides, missed several days of work in order to meet with her lawyer to prepare for her interview, two sources said.
"I feel for these White House staffers that are caught up in these interviews because it's nerve-wracking," said Scott Jennings, who found himself embroiled in a special counsel investigation during his tenure as deputy director of political affairs under President George W. Bush. "The thing that nobody really knows, having really lived through one of these, is just how much of a toll this can take on staff in terms of stress, anxiety, personal legal bills."
For now at least, White House staffers are paying their legal fees out of their own pockets, a significant expense for government employees.
One source who has spoken with the President said he seems to be unaware of the anxiety among staffers. "Everybody needs a pat on the back, some reassurances that the President is loyal to them, and he just doesn't do that well," the source said.
As the investigation creeps toward 2018, White House officials and former campaign aides remain adamant that there was no coordination or collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.
Some White House staffers have taken to dismissing the investigation as "fake news" and using it as grist for gallows humor.
"You getting nervous?" staffers would quip to former Trump campaign hands working in the White House.
Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said the special counsel's investigation hasn't been a distraction.
"We have not missed a step, struggled to get our work done or been distracted," she said in a statement to CNN. "We have been focused on growing the economy, passing massive tax cuts, defeating ISIS, cutting regulations at a record pace and creating millions of jobs."
Trump's shift from angry to calm
While Trump may have temporarily adopted a more serene view of the special counsel's investigation, he remains irritated by the ongoing Russia investigations playing out on Capitol Hill. He has pressed some lawmakers for details about the status of the congressional probes.
Trump comments on FBI, Putin and Michael Flynn 04:52
"When you look at the committees, whether it's the Senate or the House, everybody -- my worst enemies, they walk out, they say, 'There is no collusion but we'll continue to look.' They're spending millions and millions of dollars. There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it," Trump told reporters gathered on the South Lawn of the White House Friday. "We've got to get back to running a country."
Contrary to the President's claims, the congressional committees have not yet determined whether there is evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. In multiple conversations with Republican senators, Trump expressed frustration about the scope of the investigations, according to two sources familiar with the conversations.
Several members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees, which are conducting Russia investigations, have made a conscious effort to avoid Trump and the White House this year to guard against allegations of impropriety.
Other lawmakers have taken pains to avoid discussing the issue with the President even as they try to work alongside him to advance the GOP's agenda.
In a private phone call with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in August, soon after the collapse of the health care bill in the Senate, Trump let his frustrations fly -- but not about the failure to repeal Obamacare. He railed against McConnell about the ongoing congressional probes, a call that devolved into the President shouting profanities at the majority leader, sources briefed on the call said. The two men have steered clear of discussing the Russia probe since, sources said.
Over several rounds of golf in recent weeks, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he has tried to avoid discussing Russia when he's on the course with Trump.
"We pretty much don't talk about Russia a lot," the South Carolina Republican said. "He sort of knows where I'm at. This investigation is going to go where it goes."
When the topic does come up, Graham said, he gets a familiar refrain from Trump. "He complains about it, says he didn't do anything wrong," Graham said. "I say, 'Alright Mr. President, time will tell.'"
Even as the President devours cable news and vents on Twitter, allies inside and outside the White House said Trump's days aren't consumed by an obsession with the Russia probe.
Perhaps his biggest frustration is that he believes the investigations are hindering his governing prowess. Trump has told one senator repeatedly that the ongoing probes undermine his standing on the world stage and make it harder for him to work with foreign leaders, according to a person with direct knowledge of the calls.
More painful next year?
If the President is concerned about the uproar over Russia drowning out his agenda now, experts said next year could prove even more painful if Republicans lose control of the House or the Senate.
"From an investigatory perspective, the paralysis that can be injected by the opposite party controlling Congress is so significant," said Jennings, drawing on his experience in the Bush administration. "I hope there is an appreciation for the fact that this presidency could come to a complete standstill in less than one year."
While Mueller's probe has focused on criminal wrongdoing, congressional investigators have much wider latitude. Democrats could try to unearth unsavory stories about abuses of power or efforts to shame public officials. And investigations that Republicans have largely led behind closed doors could be thrust into the public view, an outcome that would almost certainly be more damaging to the President's approval ratings.
"The most important difference at this point in the story between the Watergate scandal and 'Hackergate' or 'Russiagate' is that Congress is not holding public hearings," said Tim Naftali, a CNN presidential historian and the former director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.
"It was every day, it was public and people watched it," Naftali said of the Watergate scandal. "It was like a soap opera."
CNN's Gloria Borger, Dana Bash, Pamela Brown and Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.
Trump has spent much of his first year in office so enraged by the federal investigation into Russian meddling in last year's election that lawmakers who work with him tried to avoid the issue entirely and his friends worried that Trump might rashly fire the special counsel. But in recent weeks, Trump has privately seemed less frustrated about the investigation, according to multiple sources who have spoken with the President.
Sponsor Content
Put a smile on the faces of your cherished ones this year.
Discover the spirit of giving this Christmas at Marina Bay Sands.
Promoted By Marina Bay Sands
There's no indication from special counsel Robert Mueller or his team that the probe is in its final stages. A tipping point in the showdown could come as soon as this week when Trump's private lawyers and Mueller meet, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Trump's team is hoping to get a clearer sense of Mueller's next steps in the investigation, an assessment that could either pacify Trump or inflame him.
Until those next signs emerge, Trump is boasting to friends and advisers that he expects Mueller to clear him of wrongdoing in the coming weeks, according to sources familiar with the conversations. The President seems so convinced of his impending exoneration that he is telling associates Mueller will soon write a letter clearing him that Trump can brandish to Washington and the world in a bid to finally emerge from the cloud of suspicion that has loomed over the first chapter of his presidency, the sources said.
This account of how Trump and his senior staffers are privately grappling with the Russia investigation is based on interviews over the past week with nearly three dozen White House officials, lawmakers, outside advisers, friends of the President and sources familiar with the Mueller probe. It depicts a president genuinely convinced of his innocence and advisers preparing for him to explode early next year if the probe doesn't end as neatly as Trump expects.
In private conversations, Trump still speaks dismissively of the Russia investigation, referring to it as "bulls---" and proclaiming "I don't know any Russians!" multiple sources told CNN.
But those outbursts are measured against Trump's belief that the investigation will soon wrap up favorably. That rosy picture has buoyed Trump's spirits in recent weeks, leaving him seemingly less frustrated and more even-keeled about the investigation even as Mueller's team landed a guilty plea and the cooperation of one of the President's former top advisers, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
"The President's mantra is 'All this Russia stuff, it's all going to wrap up soon.' He repeats it as fact," said one source who speaks to Trump. "Part of me is like -- 'Are you serious? You believe this?'"
Mnuchin: Mueller probe 'should be over quickly' 01:00
The President, speaking to reporters at the White House Sunday evening, insisted he wasn't considering firing Mueller. But the pressure on Mueller from Trump's allies is growing. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told CNN's Jake Tapper Sunday on "State of the Union" that "we've got to get past this investigation."
"It's a giant distraction," he said. "Nobody has said that, in any way, this impacted the outcome of the election."
Meanwhile, lawyers representing the Trump presidential transition wrote to members of Congress accusing Mueller of obtaining unauthorized access to tens of thousands of transition emails, including what they claim to be documents protected by attorney-client privilege. Mueller's spokesman responded that, "When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing investigation, we have secured either the account owner's consent or appropriate criminal process."
Worrying about the deadline
Trump's legal team has told the President he will likely be cleared of wrongdoing in the coming months, according to a senior White House official and sources who have spoken with Trump. That optimism has left some of the President's friends and advisers worried the deadline could come and go, leaving Trump frustrated and more prone to rash behavior than ever before, including potentially firing Mueller. A number of Trump's allies have warned him that any attempt to fire Mueller could be a fatal blow to his presidency.
Three sources familiar with the President's recent conversations about the investigation said Trump has become convinced that he will receive a letter of exoneration, which would be unusual. One source worried Trump would have a "meltdown" if that doesn't happen.
"He'll try and fire Mueller and then be impeached," this person predicted.
White House special counsel Ty Cobb and Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, are trying to prevent Trump from lashing out over the investigation, said a source who speaks with the President. "What they are trying to do is manage Trump. That's what everyone tries to do."
But a longtime friend of the President's said he believes Trump's attorneys have "lulled him into a false sense of security" -- which could be a dangerous game.
"I've known him long enough to know that disappointing him is a problem and they've built up a level of expectations for him that are unrealistic," the Trump friend said.
The assessment by the President's lawyers cuts against the grain of legal experts who believe the Mueller investigation is only ramping up, with Flynn's guilty plea and his agreement to cooperate with investigators signaling that Mueller is chasing even bigger fish. Lawyers for others involved in the investigation are also skeptical that Mueller is close to wrapping up his work.
Cobb insists the investigation is winding down and has said he expects the part of the probe that is scrutinizing the President and the White House will come to a close early next year.
"The special counsel has had the White House documents for some time now and has concluded all requested White House interviews. The President is confident based on the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing that he'll be treated appropriately by the special counsel and ideally in the near future," Cobb told CNN Sunday, though he acknowledged Mueller could request additional interviews with White House staff.
Cobb declined to speculate on how the President would be publicly exonerated. He said he and the President had never discussed a letter of exoneration and said he had "no idea" where Trump got the idea.
Privately, Cobb has sought to assuage Trump and White House staffers by touting his connections to Mueller and members of his team, whom he has known in Washington for years, sources familiar with the matter said. He also cites his familiarity with the thousands of documents the White House has provided to Mueller's investigators, the sources said.
But Cobb's timeline predicting the end of Mueller's focus on the White House has repeatedly shifted. First, he said the investigation would end by Thanksgiving. Then, he said it would wrap up by the end of the year. Now, he's predicting early next year.
Mark Corallo, a former spokesman for the President's legal team, said he doubts Mueller would deliver a letter exonerating Trump before he has fully wrapped up his investigation. But he said pressure is mounting for Mueller to conclude his investigation as a result of reports that several members of his investigative team (who have since been taken off the investigation) have privately expressed anti-Trump sentiments.
"If you're Mueller and you want to have any shred of credibility, you have to find a way" to bring the investigation to a close, Corallo said. "If you reach the conclusion that the President of the United States doesn't have anything to do with this...he's going to have to find some way to make that public. We're at that point now."
One senior White House official insisted that even if Cobb's timeline doesn't pan out, he has provided the necessary reassurance of a "light at the end of the tunnel" in a White House where the investigation sometimes seems to loom endlessly and where the President's mood has been affected by its topsy-turvy nature.
"If it's not totally on that timeline, do I think there's going to be a problem? No. I think that people are realistic that things change, stuff happens," the senior White House official said. "You cross that bridge when you get to it."
'Morale-crushing' investigation
While Cobb's words have reassured some White House officials who have become wrapped up in the investigation, many staffers continue to work under the assumption that the probe is intensifying, five sources close to the White House said.
The Russia investigation has become the backdrop for day-to-day life at the White House.
Officials insist it doesn't disrupt their work days, although the latest Russia developments and the President's own Twitter musings often send some in the communications shop scrambling to respond. But sources acknowledged the constant clamor of the investigation -- and wall-to-wall media coverage -- has weighed on the mood in the West Wing.
"The commotion around the investigation is morale-crushing to everybody," said one source familiar with the situation.
Senior staffers have borne the brunt of the anxiety. Many have hired lawyers and worked with them at length to prepare for their interviews with the special counsel's team.
Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and one of Trump's closest aides, missed several days of work in order to meet with her lawyer to prepare for her interview, two sources said.
"I feel for these White House staffers that are caught up in these interviews because it's nerve-wracking," said Scott Jennings, who found himself embroiled in a special counsel investigation during his tenure as deputy director of political affairs under President George W. Bush. "The thing that nobody really knows, having really lived through one of these, is just how much of a toll this can take on staff in terms of stress, anxiety, personal legal bills."
For now at least, White House staffers are paying their legal fees out of their own pockets, a significant expense for government employees.
One source who has spoken with the President said he seems to be unaware of the anxiety among staffers. "Everybody needs a pat on the back, some reassurances that the President is loyal to them, and he just doesn't do that well," the source said.
As the investigation creeps toward 2018, White House officials and former campaign aides remain adamant that there was no coordination or collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russian officials.
Some White House staffers have taken to dismissing the investigation as "fake news" and using it as grist for gallows humor.
"You getting nervous?" staffers would quip to former Trump campaign hands working in the White House.
Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said the special counsel's investigation hasn't been a distraction.
"We have not missed a step, struggled to get our work done or been distracted," she said in a statement to CNN. "We have been focused on growing the economy, passing massive tax cuts, defeating ISIS, cutting regulations at a record pace and creating millions of jobs."
Trump's shift from angry to calm
While Trump may have temporarily adopted a more serene view of the special counsel's investigation, he remains irritated by the ongoing Russia investigations playing out on Capitol Hill. He has pressed some lawmakers for details about the status of the congressional probes.
Trump comments on FBI, Putin and Michael Flynn 04:52
"When you look at the committees, whether it's the Senate or the House, everybody -- my worst enemies, they walk out, they say, 'There is no collusion but we'll continue to look.' They're spending millions and millions of dollars. There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it," Trump told reporters gathered on the South Lawn of the White House Friday. "We've got to get back to running a country."
Contrary to the President's claims, the congressional committees have not yet determined whether there is evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. In multiple conversations with Republican senators, Trump expressed frustration about the scope of the investigations, according to two sources familiar with the conversations.
Several members of the House and Senate Intelligence committees, which are conducting Russia investigations, have made a conscious effort to avoid Trump and the White House this year to guard against allegations of impropriety.
Other lawmakers have taken pains to avoid discussing the issue with the President even as they try to work alongside him to advance the GOP's agenda.
In a private phone call with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in August, soon after the collapse of the health care bill in the Senate, Trump let his frustrations fly -- but not about the failure to repeal Obamacare. He railed against McConnell about the ongoing congressional probes, a call that devolved into the President shouting profanities at the majority leader, sources briefed on the call said. The two men have steered clear of discussing the Russia probe since, sources said.
Over several rounds of golf in recent weeks, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he has tried to avoid discussing Russia when he's on the course with Trump.
"We pretty much don't talk about Russia a lot," the South Carolina Republican said. "He sort of knows where I'm at. This investigation is going to go where it goes."
When the topic does come up, Graham said, he gets a familiar refrain from Trump. "He complains about it, says he didn't do anything wrong," Graham said. "I say, 'Alright Mr. President, time will tell.'"
Even as the President devours cable news and vents on Twitter, allies inside and outside the White House said Trump's days aren't consumed by an obsession with the Russia probe.
Perhaps his biggest frustration is that he believes the investigations are hindering his governing prowess. Trump has told one senator repeatedly that the ongoing probes undermine his standing on the world stage and make it harder for him to work with foreign leaders, according to a person with direct knowledge of the calls.
More painful next year?
If the President is concerned about the uproar over Russia drowning out his agenda now, experts said next year could prove even more painful if Republicans lose control of the House or the Senate.
"From an investigatory perspective, the paralysis that can be injected by the opposite party controlling Congress is so significant," said Jennings, drawing on his experience in the Bush administration. "I hope there is an appreciation for the fact that this presidency could come to a complete standstill in less than one year."
While Mueller's probe has focused on criminal wrongdoing, congressional investigators have much wider latitude. Democrats could try to unearth unsavory stories about abuses of power or efforts to shame public officials. And investigations that Republicans have largely led behind closed doors could be thrust into the public view, an outcome that would almost certainly be more damaging to the President's approval ratings.
"The most important difference at this point in the story between the Watergate scandal and 'Hackergate' or 'Russiagate' is that Congress is not holding public hearings," said Tim Naftali, a CNN presidential historian and the former director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.
"It was every day, it was public and people watched it," Naftali said of the Watergate scandal. "It was like a soap opera."
CNN's Gloria Borger, Dana Bash, Pamela Brown and Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.
Political Typology Reveals Deep Fissures on the Right and Left
Conservative Republican groups divided on immigration, ‘openness’
Nearly a year after Donald Trump was elected president, the Republican coalition is deeply divided on such major issues as immigration, America’s role in the world and the fundamental fairness of the U.S. economic system.
The Democratic coalition is largely united in staunch opposition to President Trump. Yet, while Trump’s election has triggered a wave of political activism within the party’s sizable liberal bloc, the liberals’ sky-high political energy is not nearly as evident among other segments in the Democratic base. And Democrats also are internally divided over U.S. global involvement, as well as some religious and social issues.
These are among the findings of Pew Research Center’s new political typology, which sorts Americans into cohesive groups based on their values, attitudes and party affiliation, and provides a unique perspective on the nation’s changing political landscape. Before reading further, take our quiz to see where you fit in the political typology.
The political typology reveals that even in a political landscape increasingly fractured by partisanship, the divisions within the Republican and Democratic coalitions may be as important a factor in American politics as the divisions between them.
In some cases these fissures are not new – they were evident in six previous Pew Research Center typology studies conducted over the past three decades, most recently in 2014. Yet, especially within the GOP, many of the divisions now center on the issues that have been front-and-center for Trump since he first launched his presidential campaign.
This study is based on surveys of more than 5,000 adults conducted over the summer. This was also the data source for our Oct. 6 report, “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” These reports were made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support for the surveys from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Divisions on the right
The political typology finds two distinctly different groups on the right – Core Conservatives and Country First Conservatives, who both overwhelmingly approve of Trump, but disagree on much else – including immigration and whether it benefits the U.S. to be active internationally.
Core Conservatives, who are in many ways the most traditional group of Republicans, have an outsized influence on the GOP coalition; while they make up just 13% of the public – and about a third (31%) of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents – they constitute a much larger share (43%) of politically engaged Republicans.
This financially comfortable, male-dominated group overwhelmingly supports smaller government, lower corporate tax rates and believes in the fairness of the nation’s economic system. And a large majority of Core Conservatives (68%) express a positive view of U.S. involvement in the global economy “because it provides the U.S. with new markets and opportunities for growth.”
Country First Conservatives, a much smaller segment of the GOP base, are older and less educated than other Republican-leaning typology groups. Unlike Core Conservatives, Country First Conservatives are unhappy with the nation’s course, highly critical of immigrants and deeply wary of U.S. global involvement.
Nearly two-thirds of Country First Conservatives (64%) – the highest share of any typology group, right or left – say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”
A third Republican group, Market Skeptic Republicans, sharply diverges from the GOP’s traditional support for business and lower taxes. Only about a third of Market Skeptic Republicans (34%) say banks and other financial institutions have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, lowest among Republican-leaning typology groups.
Alone among the groups in the GOP coalition, a majority of Market Skeptic Republicans support raising tax rates on corporations and large businesses. An overwhelming share (94%) say the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests, which places the view of Market Skeptic Republicans on this issue much closer to Solid Liberals (99% mostly unfair) than Core Conservatives (21%).
In contrast to Market Skeptic Republicans, New Era Enterprisers are fundamentally optimistic about the state of the nation and its future. They are more likely than any other typology group to say the next generation of Americans will have it better than people today. Younger and somewhat less overwhelmingly white than the other GOP-leaning groups, New Era Enterprisers are strongly pro-business and generally think that immigrants strengthen, rather than burden, the country.
Divisions on the left
The four groups in the Democratic coalition differ on a number of issues: While they all strongly support the social safety net, the Democratic-leaning groups are divided on government regulation of business, and government performance more generally. And like the GOP coalition, they disagree on U.S. global involvement.
While there have long been racial, ethnic and income differences within the Democratic coalition, these gaps are especially striking today. Reflecting the changing demographic composition of the Democratic base, for the first time there are two majority-minority Democratic-leaning typology groups, along with two more affluent, mostly white groups.
Solid Liberals are the largest group in the Democratic coalition, and they make up close to half (48%) of politically engaged Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
Largely white, financially comfortable and highly educated (most are college graduates and nearly a third have postgraduate degrees), Solid Liberals overwhelmingly express liberal attitudes on virtually every issue.
And their level of political activism in the months following Trump’s election sets Solid Liberals apart from all other groups in the political typology, left or right. Nearly half of Solid Liberals (49%) say they have contributed money to a political candidate or campaign in the past year; no more than a third in any other group (32% of Core Conservatives) say the same. And 39% of Solid Liberals report they have participated in a protest against Trump’s policies, which also is by far the highest share among the political typology groups.
For the most part, Opportunity Democrats agree with Solid Liberals on major issues. But Opportunity Democrats are less affluent, less politically engaged and less liberal – both in their attitudes on issues and in how they describe themselves politically. One area of difference between Opportunity Democrats and Solid Liberals is on corporate profits: 40% of Opportunity Democrats say most corporations make a “fair and reasonable amount of profit,” compared with 16% of Solid Liberals. And Opportunity Democrats stand out in their belief that most people can get ahead if they are willing to work hard.
Disaffected Democrats have very positive feelings toward the Democratic Party and its leading figures. Their disaffection stems from their cynicism about politics, government and the way things are going in the country. This financially stressed, majority-minority group supports activist government and the social safety net, but most say government is “wasteful and inefficient.” A large majority of Disaffected Democrats say their side has been losing in politics, while fewer than half believe that voting gives them a say in how the government runs things.
A second majority-minority group, Devout and Diverse, faces even tougher financial hardships than Disaffected Democrats. Devout and Diverse also are the most politically mixed typology group (about a quarter lean Republican), as well as the least politically engaged. Like Disaffected Democrats, they are critical of government regulation of business. They also are the most religiously observant Democratic-leaning group, and the only one in which a majority (64%) says it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values.
In addition to the eight main groups in the political typology, a ninth group – the Bystanders – is missing in action politically. Almost no one in this relatively young, largely minority group is registered to vote and most pay little or no attention to politics and government.
Trump and the political typology
While both parties are divided internally, partisanship remains a defining feature of American political life. Across the eight main typology groups, majorities either affiliate with or lean toward either the Republican or Democratic Party.
The power of partisanship is reflected in attitudes about Donald Trump. In the survey, conducted in June, Trump’s job ratings are more deeply polarized along partisan lines than those of any president in more than 60 years.
Overall, Trump gets his most positive ratings among the two most solidly Republican groups, Core Conservatives and Country First Conservatives. Large majorities in each group strongly approve of Trump’s job performance (80% of Core Conservatives, 71% of Country First Conservatives).
By contrast, more than 70% in the three overwhelmingly Democratic groups (Solid Liberals, Opportunity Democrats and Disaffected Democrats) strongly disapprove.
However, even the Republican-leaning groups who strongly approve of Trump’s job performance are not all that positive about his conduct as president. Among the public overall, 58% say they don’t like Trump’s conduct, while just 16% like his conduct; 25% say they have mixed feelings.
There is no typology group in which a clear majority expresses positive views of Trump’s conduct. About half of Country First Conservatives (51%) like Trump’s conduct as president, while 39% have mixed feelings. And among Core Conservatives, who strongly approve of Trump’s job performance, only 41% like his conduct and 51% have mixed feelings.
The other GOP-leaning groups are divided in views of Trump’s conduct. About half of Market Skeptic Republicans (49%) say they have mixed feelings, while roughly equal shares say they like (24%) and don’t like (26%) his conduct. And among New Era Enterprisers, more express negative (39%) than positive (23%) views of Trump’s conduct, with 38% expressing mixed feelings.
Among Democratic-leaning groups, overwhelming majorities of Solid Liberals (98%), Opportunity Democrats (86%) and Disaffected Democrats (89%) say they don’t like Trump’s conduct in office. As with Trump’s job approval, Devout and Diverse offer less critical views of Trump’s conduct, though far more express negative (52%) than positive views (10%).
Political engagement and a look ahead to 2018
The two largest groups in the political typology – Core Conservatives on the right and Solid Liberals on the left – make up an even larger share of their partisan coalitions when political engagement is factored in.
Core Conservatives are more likely than other GOP-leaning groups to say they follow politics and government most of the time and say they always vote. Consequently, while Core Conservatives make up about a third of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents overall (31%), they constitute a larger proportion of politically engaged Republicans (43%).
At the other end of the political typology, Solid Liberals constitute by far the largest proportion of politically engaged Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
Solid Liberals make up a third of all Democrats and Democratic leaners – but close to half (48%) of politically engaged Democrats. That is about the same proportion as the other Democratic-leaning groups combined.
The next largest group, Disaffected Democrats, make up 23% of Democrats and about the same share of politically engaged Democrats (20%); similarly, Opportunity Democrats constitute 20% of all Democrats and an identical share of politically engaged Democrats. And Devout and Diverse, who express very low levels of interest in politics and government, make up a substantially smaller share of politically engaged Democrats (7%) than of all Democrats (11%).
The 2018 midterm elections are still more than a year away, but the two groups at either end of the political typology are already highly motivated by the battle for congressional control. More than eight-in-ten Solid Liberals (84%) say it matters a great deal to them which party wins control of Congress next year, the highest share of any typology group. Core Conservatives are next highest, at 77%.
At this point, other groups are less engaged by the struggle for partisan control of Congress. And the drop-off is particularly notable among three groups close to the middle of the typology. On the right, fewer than half of Market Skeptic Republicans (44%) and New Era Enterprisers (41%) say it matters a great deal which party wins control of Congress; on the left, just 44% of Devout and Diverse say the same.
The political typology: 1987-2017
The political typology sorts Americans into cohesive, like-minded groups based on their values and beliefs, as well as their partisan affiliation. The current study, which comes 30 years after the first political typology, is based on surveys conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults and June 27-July 9 among 2,505 adults, with a follow-up survey conducted Aug. 15-21 among 1,893 respondents.
The typology is not intended to measure changes over time in the electorate, but some of the internal party differences that were evident 30 years ago still persist today. For example, Core Conservatives are far more likely than Country First Conservatives to favor societal acceptance of homosexuality. In 1987, two roughly parallel groups – Enterprise Republicans and Moral Republicans – differed over a disputed social policy at that time, whether or not school boards should have the right to fire homosexual teachers.
There also have been long-standing divisions among Democratic groups over religion and morality. Today’s Solid Liberals, who overwhelmingly say that belief in God is not necessary to be moral, bear some resemblance to the Seculars and ’60s Democrats from that earlier era. Today’s Disaffected Democrats and Devout and Diverse – majority-minority groups who are much more likely than Solid Liberals to link belief in God with morality – are somewhat similar to the Partisan Poor and Passive Poor of three decades ago.
To be sure, there have been seismic changes in the nation and politics over the past three decades – and these are reflected in the political typology. The country has become far more racially and ethnically diverse. In 1987, both parties were overwhelmingly white and non-Hispanic; today, only the GOP is, while more than 40% of Democrats are nonwhite. Thirty years ago, one of the largest groups in the political typology were the New Dealers, an older, mostly white, mostly Democratic group who were relatively conservative on social issues but favored activist government. There is no equivalent group in today’s political typology.
There have been more recent changes as well, particularly in the GOP coalition. The two conservative Republican groups are divided over immigration, “openness” and America’s role in the world, as well as homosexuality. And for the first time, there is a Republican-leaning group that is deeply skeptical of business and the fundamental fairness of the nation’s economic system. On these issues, Market Skeptic Republicans have less in common with the other groups on the right than they do with the Democratic-leaning groups in the political typology.
Nearly a year after Donald Trump was elected president, the Republican coalition is deeply divided on such major issues as immigration, America’s role in the world and the fundamental fairness of the U.S. economic system.
The Democratic coalition is largely united in staunch opposition to President Trump. Yet, while Trump’s election has triggered a wave of political activism within the party’s sizable liberal bloc, the liberals’ sky-high political energy is not nearly as evident among other segments in the Democratic base. And Democrats also are internally divided over U.S. global involvement, as well as some religious and social issues.
These are among the findings of Pew Research Center’s new political typology, which sorts Americans into cohesive groups based on their values, attitudes and party affiliation, and provides a unique perspective on the nation’s changing political landscape. Before reading further, take our quiz to see where you fit in the political typology.
The political typology reveals that even in a political landscape increasingly fractured by partisanship, the divisions within the Republican and Democratic coalitions may be as important a factor in American politics as the divisions between them.
In some cases these fissures are not new – they were evident in six previous Pew Research Center typology studies conducted over the past three decades, most recently in 2014. Yet, especially within the GOP, many of the divisions now center on the issues that have been front-and-center for Trump since he first launched his presidential campaign.
This study is based on surveys of more than 5,000 adults conducted over the summer. This was also the data source for our Oct. 6 report, “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider.” These reports were made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support for the surveys from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Divisions on the right
The political typology finds two distinctly different groups on the right – Core Conservatives and Country First Conservatives, who both overwhelmingly approve of Trump, but disagree on much else – including immigration and whether it benefits the U.S. to be active internationally.
Core Conservatives, who are in many ways the most traditional group of Republicans, have an outsized influence on the GOP coalition; while they make up just 13% of the public – and about a third (31%) of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents – they constitute a much larger share (43%) of politically engaged Republicans.
This financially comfortable, male-dominated group overwhelmingly supports smaller government, lower corporate tax rates and believes in the fairness of the nation’s economic system. And a large majority of Core Conservatives (68%) express a positive view of U.S. involvement in the global economy “because it provides the U.S. with new markets and opportunities for growth.”
Country First Conservatives, a much smaller segment of the GOP base, are older and less educated than other Republican-leaning typology groups. Unlike Core Conservatives, Country First Conservatives are unhappy with the nation’s course, highly critical of immigrants and deeply wary of U.S. global involvement.
Nearly two-thirds of Country First Conservatives (64%) – the highest share of any typology group, right or left – say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”
A third Republican group, Market Skeptic Republicans, sharply diverges from the GOP’s traditional support for business and lower taxes. Only about a third of Market Skeptic Republicans (34%) say banks and other financial institutions have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country, lowest among Republican-leaning typology groups.
Alone among the groups in the GOP coalition, a majority of Market Skeptic Republicans support raising tax rates on corporations and large businesses. An overwhelming share (94%) say the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests, which places the view of Market Skeptic Republicans on this issue much closer to Solid Liberals (99% mostly unfair) than Core Conservatives (21%).
In contrast to Market Skeptic Republicans, New Era Enterprisers are fundamentally optimistic about the state of the nation and its future. They are more likely than any other typology group to say the next generation of Americans will have it better than people today. Younger and somewhat less overwhelmingly white than the other GOP-leaning groups, New Era Enterprisers are strongly pro-business and generally think that immigrants strengthen, rather than burden, the country.
Divisions on the left
The four groups in the Democratic coalition differ on a number of issues: While they all strongly support the social safety net, the Democratic-leaning groups are divided on government regulation of business, and government performance more generally. And like the GOP coalition, they disagree on U.S. global involvement.
While there have long been racial, ethnic and income differences within the Democratic coalition, these gaps are especially striking today. Reflecting the changing demographic composition of the Democratic base, for the first time there are two majority-minority Democratic-leaning typology groups, along with two more affluent, mostly white groups.
Solid Liberals are the largest group in the Democratic coalition, and they make up close to half (48%) of politically engaged Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
Largely white, financially comfortable and highly educated (most are college graduates and nearly a third have postgraduate degrees), Solid Liberals overwhelmingly express liberal attitudes on virtually every issue.
And their level of political activism in the months following Trump’s election sets Solid Liberals apart from all other groups in the political typology, left or right. Nearly half of Solid Liberals (49%) say they have contributed money to a political candidate or campaign in the past year; no more than a third in any other group (32% of Core Conservatives) say the same. And 39% of Solid Liberals report they have participated in a protest against Trump’s policies, which also is by far the highest share among the political typology groups.
For the most part, Opportunity Democrats agree with Solid Liberals on major issues. But Opportunity Democrats are less affluent, less politically engaged and less liberal – both in their attitudes on issues and in how they describe themselves politically. One area of difference between Opportunity Democrats and Solid Liberals is on corporate profits: 40% of Opportunity Democrats say most corporations make a “fair and reasonable amount of profit,” compared with 16% of Solid Liberals. And Opportunity Democrats stand out in their belief that most people can get ahead if they are willing to work hard.
Disaffected Democrats have very positive feelings toward the Democratic Party and its leading figures. Their disaffection stems from their cynicism about politics, government and the way things are going in the country. This financially stressed, majority-minority group supports activist government and the social safety net, but most say government is “wasteful and inefficient.” A large majority of Disaffected Democrats say their side has been losing in politics, while fewer than half believe that voting gives them a say in how the government runs things.
A second majority-minority group, Devout and Diverse, faces even tougher financial hardships than Disaffected Democrats. Devout and Diverse also are the most politically mixed typology group (about a quarter lean Republican), as well as the least politically engaged. Like Disaffected Democrats, they are critical of government regulation of business. They also are the most religiously observant Democratic-leaning group, and the only one in which a majority (64%) says it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values.
In addition to the eight main groups in the political typology, a ninth group – the Bystanders – is missing in action politically. Almost no one in this relatively young, largely minority group is registered to vote and most pay little or no attention to politics and government.
Trump and the political typology
While both parties are divided internally, partisanship remains a defining feature of American political life. Across the eight main typology groups, majorities either affiliate with or lean toward either the Republican or Democratic Party.
The power of partisanship is reflected in attitudes about Donald Trump. In the survey, conducted in June, Trump’s job ratings are more deeply polarized along partisan lines than those of any president in more than 60 years.
Overall, Trump gets his most positive ratings among the two most solidly Republican groups, Core Conservatives and Country First Conservatives. Large majorities in each group strongly approve of Trump’s job performance (80% of Core Conservatives, 71% of Country First Conservatives).
By contrast, more than 70% in the three overwhelmingly Democratic groups (Solid Liberals, Opportunity Democrats and Disaffected Democrats) strongly disapprove.
However, even the Republican-leaning groups who strongly approve of Trump’s job performance are not all that positive about his conduct as president. Among the public overall, 58% say they don’t like Trump’s conduct, while just 16% like his conduct; 25% say they have mixed feelings.
There is no typology group in which a clear majority expresses positive views of Trump’s conduct. About half of Country First Conservatives (51%) like Trump’s conduct as president, while 39% have mixed feelings. And among Core Conservatives, who strongly approve of Trump’s job performance, only 41% like his conduct and 51% have mixed feelings.
The other GOP-leaning groups are divided in views of Trump’s conduct. About half of Market Skeptic Republicans (49%) say they have mixed feelings, while roughly equal shares say they like (24%) and don’t like (26%) his conduct. And among New Era Enterprisers, more express negative (39%) than positive (23%) views of Trump’s conduct, with 38% expressing mixed feelings.
Among Democratic-leaning groups, overwhelming majorities of Solid Liberals (98%), Opportunity Democrats (86%) and Disaffected Democrats (89%) say they don’t like Trump’s conduct in office. As with Trump’s job approval, Devout and Diverse offer less critical views of Trump’s conduct, though far more express negative (52%) than positive views (10%).
Political engagement and a look ahead to 2018
The two largest groups in the political typology – Core Conservatives on the right and Solid Liberals on the left – make up an even larger share of their partisan coalitions when political engagement is factored in.
Core Conservatives are more likely than other GOP-leaning groups to say they follow politics and government most of the time and say they always vote. Consequently, while Core Conservatives make up about a third of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents overall (31%), they constitute a larger proportion of politically engaged Republicans (43%).
At the other end of the political typology, Solid Liberals constitute by far the largest proportion of politically engaged Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
Solid Liberals make up a third of all Democrats and Democratic leaners – but close to half (48%) of politically engaged Democrats. That is about the same proportion as the other Democratic-leaning groups combined.
The next largest group, Disaffected Democrats, make up 23% of Democrats and about the same share of politically engaged Democrats (20%); similarly, Opportunity Democrats constitute 20% of all Democrats and an identical share of politically engaged Democrats. And Devout and Diverse, who express very low levels of interest in politics and government, make up a substantially smaller share of politically engaged Democrats (7%) than of all Democrats (11%).
The 2018 midterm elections are still more than a year away, but the two groups at either end of the political typology are already highly motivated by the battle for congressional control. More than eight-in-ten Solid Liberals (84%) say it matters a great deal to them which party wins control of Congress next year, the highest share of any typology group. Core Conservatives are next highest, at 77%.
At this point, other groups are less engaged by the struggle for partisan control of Congress. And the drop-off is particularly notable among three groups close to the middle of the typology. On the right, fewer than half of Market Skeptic Republicans (44%) and New Era Enterprisers (41%) say it matters a great deal which party wins control of Congress; on the left, just 44% of Devout and Diverse say the same.
The political typology: 1987-2017
The political typology sorts Americans into cohesive, like-minded groups based on their values and beliefs, as well as their partisan affiliation. The current study, which comes 30 years after the first political typology, is based on surveys conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults and June 27-July 9 among 2,505 adults, with a follow-up survey conducted Aug. 15-21 among 1,893 respondents.
The typology is not intended to measure changes over time in the electorate, but some of the internal party differences that were evident 30 years ago still persist today. For example, Core Conservatives are far more likely than Country First Conservatives to favor societal acceptance of homosexuality. In 1987, two roughly parallel groups – Enterprise Republicans and Moral Republicans – differed over a disputed social policy at that time, whether or not school boards should have the right to fire homosexual teachers.
There also have been long-standing divisions among Democratic groups over religion and morality. Today’s Solid Liberals, who overwhelmingly say that belief in God is not necessary to be moral, bear some resemblance to the Seculars and ’60s Democrats from that earlier era. Today’s Disaffected Democrats and Devout and Diverse – majority-minority groups who are much more likely than Solid Liberals to link belief in God with morality – are somewhat similar to the Partisan Poor and Passive Poor of three decades ago.
To be sure, there have been seismic changes in the nation and politics over the past three decades – and these are reflected in the political typology. The country has become far more racially and ethnically diverse. In 1987, both parties were overwhelmingly white and non-Hispanic; today, only the GOP is, while more than 40% of Democrats are nonwhite. Thirty years ago, one of the largest groups in the political typology were the New Dealers, an older, mostly white, mostly Democratic group who were relatively conservative on social issues but favored activist government. There is no equivalent group in today’s political typology.
There have been more recent changes as well, particularly in the GOP coalition. The two conservative Republican groups are divided over immigration, “openness” and America’s role in the world, as well as homosexuality. And for the first time, there is a Republican-leaning group that is deeply skeptical of business and the fundamental fairness of the nation’s economic system. On these issues, Market Skeptic Republicans have less in common with the other groups on the right than they do with the Democratic-leaning groups in the political typology.
Religious freedom review appointee has argued for limited sharia law in Australia
Prof Nicholas Aroney, who has said religious freedom should include right to practise sharia law within limits, appointed to Philip Ruddock-led review
Prayers at the Lakemba Mosque in south-west Sydney.
Prayers at the Lakemba mosque in Sydney. Nicholas Aroney wrote in 2012 that religious freedom should include a right to practise sharia law within ‘strictly justifiable limits imposed by the general law’. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP
Paul Karp
@Paul_Karp
Thursday 14 December 2017 17.00 GMT Last modified on Thursday 14 December 2017 20.19 GMT
View more sharing options
Shares
8,422
The Turnbull government has appointed an academic who has argued that recognising religious freedom should include acceptance of a limited form of sharia law to the Ruddock review.
On Thursday the government released broad terms of reference for its religious freedom inquiry, headed by former attorney general Philip Ruddock, including the new appointment of University of Queensland constitutional law professor Nicholas Aroney to the five-person panel.
Aroney is an expert on legal pluralism, law and religion who has warned that religious freedom has become a second-class right to anti-discrimination and argued that religious freedom should include a right to practise sharia law within “strictly justifiable limits imposed by the general law”.
Sign up for Guardian Today Australian edition: the stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
In public debate before marriage equality was legalised, Coalition conservatives including the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, and the defence personnel minister, Dan Tehan, warned against amendments with unintended consequences, such as creating religious enclaves shielded by law or opening a back door to sharia.
In a 2012 essay titled The Accommodation of the Sharia within Western Legal Systems Aroney and co-author Rex Ahdar argued that: “From a western point of view, the practice of sharia is in part a religious liberty issue and, to that extent, its conscientious practice ought to be a right enjoyed by all committed Muslims, qualified only by strictly justifiable limitations imposed by the general law.”
Aroney and Ahdar said that enforcement of sharia law by state authorities “needs to be approached very cautiously, noting the nature of Sharia as [an] ‘entire way of life’, its constitutional implications for the basic structures of the state, and the possibility of its use as a tool by extremist elements”.
The authors explain that although sharia has dark connotations in the west of “floggings, stonings and amputations for crimes” the term simply denotes a body of legal rules and principles extracted from the Qur’an and the Sunna.
Advertisement
The article gives examples including a proposal by an Islamic organisation in the Canadian province of Ontario to establish faith-based arbitration tribunal that would apply religious norms to resolve family and business disputes.
In 2016 Aroney warned that religious freedom is becoming “at best a second-class right” as “anti-discrimination law is increasingly prioritised”.
He said lip service was given to the concept of the balance of rights but religious organisations did not have faith in courts and tribunals “to strike such balances in a way that treats religious freedom as a fundamental and non-derogable right”.
Just Equal spokesman Rodney Croome said: “I am concerned by Nicholas Aroney’s appointment because his writing makes it clear he believes religious freedom trumps other rights, including equality.
“The Ruddock review should be a balanced assessment of religious freedom, but instead the government is stacking the review to appease the religious right after the passage of marriage equality.”
Some Coalition conservatives including Liberal senator, David Fawcett, have argued that Australia has not fully implemented article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which guarantees freedom of “thought, conscience and religion”.
ICCPR article 18.3 states that “freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”.
This limitation on the manifestation of religious belief is the basis for laws to override religious liberty and protect people against discrimination.
The expert panel has been asked to consider the intersections between the enjoyment of the freedom of religion and other human rights.
Advertisement
The panel consists of Ruddock, Aroney, the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Rosalind Croucher, Annabelle Bennett and Father Frank Brennan.
It will first meet in 2018, with preliminary submissions due by 31 January and a final report by 31 March.
While announcing the terms of reference the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said Australia “is the most successful multicultural society in the world”.
“Right at the heart of our success as a free society is freedom of religion,” he said. “It is a fundamental national value, recognised in the constitution.”
In comments to the Australian during the marriage debate, Dutton called for religious and parental protections in the cross-party same-sex marriage bill but warned against wholesale recognition of religious freedom.
“But cooler heads do need to prevail about an additional process to provide a protection of a person’s fundamental belief and practice of religious belief,” he reportedly said. “There’s no way I’ll be supporting a process that gives rise to a push for sharia law.
“That’s why we need a process to look at the consequences, because that goes to the important principle of protecting religious beliefs and practices.”
Prayers at the Lakemba Mosque in south-west Sydney.
Prayers at the Lakemba mosque in Sydney. Nicholas Aroney wrote in 2012 that religious freedom should include a right to practise sharia law within ‘strictly justifiable limits imposed by the general law’. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP
Paul Karp
@Paul_Karp
Thursday 14 December 2017 17.00 GMT Last modified on Thursday 14 December 2017 20.19 GMT
View more sharing options
Shares
8,422
The Turnbull government has appointed an academic who has argued that recognising religious freedom should include acceptance of a limited form of sharia law to the Ruddock review.
On Thursday the government released broad terms of reference for its religious freedom inquiry, headed by former attorney general Philip Ruddock, including the new appointment of University of Queensland constitutional law professor Nicholas Aroney to the five-person panel.
Aroney is an expert on legal pluralism, law and religion who has warned that religious freedom has become a second-class right to anti-discrimination and argued that religious freedom should include a right to practise sharia law within “strictly justifiable limits imposed by the general law”.
Sign up for Guardian Today Australian edition: the stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
In public debate before marriage equality was legalised, Coalition conservatives including the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, and the defence personnel minister, Dan Tehan, warned against amendments with unintended consequences, such as creating religious enclaves shielded by law or opening a back door to sharia.
In a 2012 essay titled The Accommodation of the Sharia within Western Legal Systems Aroney and co-author Rex Ahdar argued that: “From a western point of view, the practice of sharia is in part a religious liberty issue and, to that extent, its conscientious practice ought to be a right enjoyed by all committed Muslims, qualified only by strictly justifiable limitations imposed by the general law.”
Aroney and Ahdar said that enforcement of sharia law by state authorities “needs to be approached very cautiously, noting the nature of Sharia as [an] ‘entire way of life’, its constitutional implications for the basic structures of the state, and the possibility of its use as a tool by extremist elements”.
The authors explain that although sharia has dark connotations in the west of “floggings, stonings and amputations for crimes” the term simply denotes a body of legal rules and principles extracted from the Qur’an and the Sunna.
Advertisement
The article gives examples including a proposal by an Islamic organisation in the Canadian province of Ontario to establish faith-based arbitration tribunal that would apply religious norms to resolve family and business disputes.
In 2016 Aroney warned that religious freedom is becoming “at best a second-class right” as “anti-discrimination law is increasingly prioritised”.
He said lip service was given to the concept of the balance of rights but religious organisations did not have faith in courts and tribunals “to strike such balances in a way that treats religious freedom as a fundamental and non-derogable right”.
Just Equal spokesman Rodney Croome said: “I am concerned by Nicholas Aroney’s appointment because his writing makes it clear he believes religious freedom trumps other rights, including equality.
“The Ruddock review should be a balanced assessment of religious freedom, but instead the government is stacking the review to appease the religious right after the passage of marriage equality.”
Some Coalition conservatives including Liberal senator, David Fawcett, have argued that Australia has not fully implemented article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which guarantees freedom of “thought, conscience and religion”.
ICCPR article 18.3 states that “freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”.
This limitation on the manifestation of religious belief is the basis for laws to override religious liberty and protect people against discrimination.
The expert panel has been asked to consider the intersections between the enjoyment of the freedom of religion and other human rights.
Advertisement
The panel consists of Ruddock, Aroney, the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Rosalind Croucher, Annabelle Bennett and Father Frank Brennan.
It will first meet in 2018, with preliminary submissions due by 31 January and a final report by 31 March.
While announcing the terms of reference the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said Australia “is the most successful multicultural society in the world”.
“Right at the heart of our success as a free society is freedom of religion,” he said. “It is a fundamental national value, recognised in the constitution.”
In comments to the Australian during the marriage debate, Dutton called for religious and parental protections in the cross-party same-sex marriage bill but warned against wholesale recognition of religious freedom.
“But cooler heads do need to prevail about an additional process to provide a protection of a person’s fundamental belief and practice of religious belief,” he reportedly said. “There’s no way I’ll be supporting a process that gives rise to a push for sharia law.
“That’s why we need a process to look at the consequences, because that goes to the important principle of protecting religious beliefs and practices.”
Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group
In the next half century or so, Christianity’s long reign as the world’s largest religion may come to an end, according to a just-released report that builds on Pew Research Center’s original population growth projections for religious groups. Indeed, Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the overall world population between 2015 and 2060 and, in the second half of this century, will likely surpass Christians as the world’s largest religious group.
While the world’s population is projected to grow 32% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 70% – from 1.8 billion in 2015 to nearly 3 billion in 2060. In 2015, Muslims made up 24.1% of the global population. Forty-five years later, they are expected to make up more than three-in-ten of the world’s people (31.1%).
The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics. To begin with, Muslims have more children than members of the seven other major religious groups analyzed in the study. Muslim women have an average of 2.9 children, significantly above the next-highest group (Christians at 2.6) and the average of all non-Muslims (2.2). In all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility.
The growth of the Muslim population also is helped by the fact that Muslims have the youngest median age (24 in 2015) of all major religious groups, more than seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims (32).
A larger share of Muslims will soon be at the point in their lives when people begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will accelerate Muslim population growth.
More than a third of Muslims are concentrated in Africa and the Middle East, regions that are projected to have the biggest population increases. But even within these high-growth regions – as well as others – Muslims are projected to grow faster than members of other groups. For example, Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa, on average, are younger and have higher fertility than the overall population of the region. In fact, Muslims are expected to grow as a percentage of every region except Latin America and the Caribbean, where relatively few Muslims live.
The same dynamics hold true in many countries where Muslims live in large numbers alongside other religious groups. For example, India’s number of Muslims is growing at a faster rate than the country’s majority Hindu population, and is projected to rise from 14.9% of India’s 2015 population to 19.4% (or 333 million people) in 2060. And while there were similar numbers of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria as of 2015, Muslims have higher fertility there and are expected to grow to a solid majority of Nigeria’s population (60.5%) in 2060.
Meanwhile, religious switching – which is expected to hinder the growth Christians by an estimated 72 million between 2015 and 2060 – is not expected to have a negative net impact on Muslim population growth.
This is an update of a post that originally published on April 23, 2015.
While the world’s population is projected to grow 32% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 70% – from 1.8 billion in 2015 to nearly 3 billion in 2060. In 2015, Muslims made up 24.1% of the global population. Forty-five years later, they are expected to make up more than three-in-ten of the world’s people (31.1%).
The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics. To begin with, Muslims have more children than members of the seven other major religious groups analyzed in the study. Muslim women have an average of 2.9 children, significantly above the next-highest group (Christians at 2.6) and the average of all non-Muslims (2.2). In all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility.
The growth of the Muslim population also is helped by the fact that Muslims have the youngest median age (24 in 2015) of all major religious groups, more than seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims (32).
A larger share of Muslims will soon be at the point in their lives when people begin having children. This, combined with high fertility rates, will accelerate Muslim population growth.
More than a third of Muslims are concentrated in Africa and the Middle East, regions that are projected to have the biggest population increases. But even within these high-growth regions – as well as others – Muslims are projected to grow faster than members of other groups. For example, Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa, on average, are younger and have higher fertility than the overall population of the region. In fact, Muslims are expected to grow as a percentage of every region except Latin America and the Caribbean, where relatively few Muslims live.
The same dynamics hold true in many countries where Muslims live in large numbers alongside other religious groups. For example, India’s number of Muslims is growing at a faster rate than the country’s majority Hindu population, and is projected to rise from 14.9% of India’s 2015 population to 19.4% (or 333 million people) in 2060. And while there were similar numbers of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria as of 2015, Muslims have higher fertility there and are expected to grow to a solid majority of Nigeria’s population (60.5%) in 2060.
Meanwhile, religious switching – which is expected to hinder the growth Christians by an estimated 72 million between 2015 and 2060 – is not expected to have a negative net impact on Muslim population growth.
This is an update of a post that originally published on April 23, 2015.
Russia could cut off internet to NATO countries, British military chief warns
LONDON — Russia could try to sever global underwater communications cables, potentially triggering catastrophic repercussions for the economy and way of life in the West, the head of Britain’s military has warned.
The vast majority of global internet and telephone traffic relied on by Western governments, economies and civilians is carried by cables that crisscross the world's seabeds, according to analysts.
NATO has prioritized missions to protect these undersea lines of communication and is working "to match and understand Russian fleet modernization," Chief Marshall Stuart Peach told the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a defense think tank in London.
“Russia, in addition to new ships and submarines, continues to perfect both unconventional capabilities and information warfare,” Peach said last week.
The cables transport 97 percent of global communications and more than $10 trillion in daily financial transactions, according to a report published earlier this month by British think tank Policy Exchange.
“Your emails, what you order on Amazon, your phone calls, online banking, it’s all done through undersea cables not through satellites,” said Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at RUSI.
Security experts welcomed Peach's comments, saying the risk of Russian interference was not only real, but had been overlooked for too long.
Britain takes aggressive stance against Russian Navy Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Britain takes aggressive stance against Russian Navy 0:25
“This should have been getting attention for years,” said Keir Giles, an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House, a London-based institute for international affairs.
Related: Russian Spy Ship Spotted 30 Miles Off Connecticut Coast Near Naval Base
Roberts warned that "the threat from Russia is very real" and that Russian tapping of submarine cables was already happening.
The Russians’ ability to interfere with these lines of communication is becoming more sophisticated, he said, adding that “we’re not able to keep pace with it because we’re not funding our militaries as we once were.”
Image: Russian nuclear missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) and nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy moored on the eve of the the Navy Day parade in Kronshtadt, a seaport town in the suburb of St. Petersburg, Russia, July 28, 2017.
Russian nuclear missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) and nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy moored on the eve of the the Navy Day parade in Kronshtadt, a seaport town in the suburb of St. Petersburg, Russia, July 28, 2017. Anton Vaganov / Reuters
NATO advises that its members spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, but most countries fall short of that target. As the country with the world’s most powerful military, the United States is the de facto head of NATO, and the international community generally accepts that America would come to the defense of member states in the face of attack.
In recent years, policy makers and Western governments have shifted their focus off Russia and on to tensions in the Middle East and the threat of Islamist terror, analysts said.
“After the end of the Cold War, Russia dropped off people’s radars,” said Roberts. “There’s a hole where we lost track of what was happening in Russia, we acknowledge now that that was wrong.”
In the meantime, Russia focused on developing asymmetrical tactics such as tapping submarine communications cables, he added.
“They’ve been investing in research and development for asymmetric capabilities, capabilities we’re not expecting, in areas we think are secure, and they’re doing it with some of the greatest minds in the world,” Roberts said.
“They look at our way of life and have seen that we are information dependent," he added. "They think: where can we hurt you most and manipulate the very fabric of your lives?"
The Russian Embassy in London dismissed the claims as "sensationalist."
"Instead of discussing European security, an important issue for all the European nations including U.K., London keeps speculating on numerous mind-boggling scenarios of a hypothetical conflict," it said in a statement Saturday.
Giles said the West was now playing catch-up. “While we were not paying attention, Russia was developing its capabilities to match its intentions … to defend itself from the perceived encroachment of the West,” he said.
Image: The Russian nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy sails in Denmark on July 21, 2017, on its way to Saint Petersburg to participate in a naval parade.
The Russian nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy sails in Denmark on July 21, 2017, on its way to Saint Petersburg to participate in a naval parade. Scanpix Denmark / Reuters
Submarine warfare has been a key focus of Russian military development for decades, analysts said, forming part of their culture of pursuing asymmetrical military tactics.
“In the school of Russian warfare at sea it’s not about aircraft carriers, it’s about the undersea domain,” said Roberts.
There have been reports of Russia damaging communication lines in the North Atlantic as early as the 1970s, according to Igor Sutyagin, an expert in U.S.-Russian affairs at RUSI, who spent more than a decade in Russian prison on charges of espionage for the United States.
“It’s not a new danger or threat, because it was possible even then,” he said, adding that the idea had only become more attractive with the invention of the internet.
Related: Putin praises Trump on economy, says Russia collusion claims are 'invented'
In 2014, Russia successfully used electronic warfare in its occupation of Crimea, cutting off the main cable connection to the outside world and blocking non-Russian information from reaching civilians, according to the Policy Exchange report. Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimean peninsula during the upheaval in Ukraine.
“Crimea is the gold standard of information operations to win a conflict with very little fighting,” said Giles of Chatham House, explaining that Russia would seek to replicate the operation in any future conflict.
Since 2014, Russia's submarine and on-land investigations into global communications networks has become increasingly urgent and less covert as they believe the likelihood of conflict has increased, Giles said.
“They are aggressively probing vulnerabilities in internet infrastructure elsewhere," he added.
U.S. military and intelligence officials have spoken of Russian submarines and spy ships “aggressively operating” near Atlantic cables, according to the Policy Exchange study and a report in the New York Times.
The Policy Exchange study also noted that in 2007 British intelligence forces foiled an al-Qaida plot to destroy a key London internet exchange.
Analysts have warned that it is not only Russia that could seek to exploit the West's reliance on the internet and telecommunications networks — China has been repeatedly flagged as a potential threat.
Sean Kanuck, director for future conflict and cyber security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the Russian threat should be understood as a combination of vulnerability, capability and intention.
“The vulnerability exists, the capability has been documented and proven from an engineering perspective, and the intent is there for espionage and to disrupt those cables in event of a serious military conflict,” he said.
Analysts warn that combating this threat is no mean feat. “Policing and patrolling undersea cables, we’ve not done this before, it would require a big investment,” said Roberts of RUSI.
Kanuck pointed out that the cables are owned and operated by private companies, rather than the state, adding another layer of complication to questions of security.
Nevertheless, Giles said last week’s public acknowledgment of the Russian threat was a major step towards addressing the problem.
“In times of crisis and conflict with Russia, civilian communications infrastructure requires the same degree of physical protection as any other strategically important facility,” he said.
Kanuck said while he felt security specialists had always been attuned to the risk of Russian espionage, he welcomed its return to popular discourse.
“If there was a hiatus, it was likely at a political level, not at the security professional level,” he said. “Politics of the day has resurrected what is a very worthwhile and significant concern.”
The vast majority of global internet and telephone traffic relied on by Western governments, economies and civilians is carried by cables that crisscross the world's seabeds, according to analysts.
NATO has prioritized missions to protect these undersea lines of communication and is working "to match and understand Russian fleet modernization," Chief Marshall Stuart Peach told the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a defense think tank in London.
“Russia, in addition to new ships and submarines, continues to perfect both unconventional capabilities and information warfare,” Peach said last week.
The cables transport 97 percent of global communications and more than $10 trillion in daily financial transactions, according to a report published earlier this month by British think tank Policy Exchange.
“Your emails, what you order on Amazon, your phone calls, online banking, it’s all done through undersea cables not through satellites,” said Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at RUSI.
Security experts welcomed Peach's comments, saying the risk of Russian interference was not only real, but had been overlooked for too long.
Britain takes aggressive stance against Russian Navy Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Britain takes aggressive stance against Russian Navy 0:25
“This should have been getting attention for years,” said Keir Giles, an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House, a London-based institute for international affairs.
Related: Russian Spy Ship Spotted 30 Miles Off Connecticut Coast Near Naval Base
Roberts warned that "the threat from Russia is very real" and that Russian tapping of submarine cables was already happening.
The Russians’ ability to interfere with these lines of communication is becoming more sophisticated, he said, adding that “we’re not able to keep pace with it because we’re not funding our militaries as we once were.”
Image: Russian nuclear missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) and nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy moored on the eve of the the Navy Day parade in Kronshtadt, a seaport town in the suburb of St. Petersburg, Russia, July 28, 2017.
Russian nuclear missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) and nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy moored on the eve of the the Navy Day parade in Kronshtadt, a seaport town in the suburb of St. Petersburg, Russia, July 28, 2017. Anton Vaganov / Reuters
NATO advises that its members spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, but most countries fall short of that target. As the country with the world’s most powerful military, the United States is the de facto head of NATO, and the international community generally accepts that America would come to the defense of member states in the face of attack.
In recent years, policy makers and Western governments have shifted their focus off Russia and on to tensions in the Middle East and the threat of Islamist terror, analysts said.
“After the end of the Cold War, Russia dropped off people’s radars,” said Roberts. “There’s a hole where we lost track of what was happening in Russia, we acknowledge now that that was wrong.”
In the meantime, Russia focused on developing asymmetrical tactics such as tapping submarine communications cables, he added.
“They’ve been investing in research and development for asymmetric capabilities, capabilities we’re not expecting, in areas we think are secure, and they’re doing it with some of the greatest minds in the world,” Roberts said.
“They look at our way of life and have seen that we are information dependent," he added. "They think: where can we hurt you most and manipulate the very fabric of your lives?"
The Russian Embassy in London dismissed the claims as "sensationalist."
"Instead of discussing European security, an important issue for all the European nations including U.K., London keeps speculating on numerous mind-boggling scenarios of a hypothetical conflict," it said in a statement Saturday.
Giles said the West was now playing catch-up. “While we were not paying attention, Russia was developing its capabilities to match its intentions … to defend itself from the perceived encroachment of the West,” he said.
Image: The Russian nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy sails in Denmark on July 21, 2017, on its way to Saint Petersburg to participate in a naval parade.
The Russian nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy sails in Denmark on July 21, 2017, on its way to Saint Petersburg to participate in a naval parade. Scanpix Denmark / Reuters
Submarine warfare has been a key focus of Russian military development for decades, analysts said, forming part of their culture of pursuing asymmetrical military tactics.
“In the school of Russian warfare at sea it’s not about aircraft carriers, it’s about the undersea domain,” said Roberts.
There have been reports of Russia damaging communication lines in the North Atlantic as early as the 1970s, according to Igor Sutyagin, an expert in U.S.-Russian affairs at RUSI, who spent more than a decade in Russian prison on charges of espionage for the United States.
“It’s not a new danger or threat, because it was possible even then,” he said, adding that the idea had only become more attractive with the invention of the internet.
Related: Putin praises Trump on economy, says Russia collusion claims are 'invented'
In 2014, Russia successfully used electronic warfare in its occupation of Crimea, cutting off the main cable connection to the outside world and blocking non-Russian information from reaching civilians, according to the Policy Exchange report. Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimean peninsula during the upheaval in Ukraine.
“Crimea is the gold standard of information operations to win a conflict with very little fighting,” said Giles of Chatham House, explaining that Russia would seek to replicate the operation in any future conflict.
Since 2014, Russia's submarine and on-land investigations into global communications networks has become increasingly urgent and less covert as they believe the likelihood of conflict has increased, Giles said.
“They are aggressively probing vulnerabilities in internet infrastructure elsewhere," he added.
U.S. military and intelligence officials have spoken of Russian submarines and spy ships “aggressively operating” near Atlantic cables, according to the Policy Exchange study and a report in the New York Times.
The Policy Exchange study also noted that in 2007 British intelligence forces foiled an al-Qaida plot to destroy a key London internet exchange.
Analysts have warned that it is not only Russia that could seek to exploit the West's reliance on the internet and telecommunications networks — China has been repeatedly flagged as a potential threat.
Sean Kanuck, director for future conflict and cyber security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the Russian threat should be understood as a combination of vulnerability, capability and intention.
“The vulnerability exists, the capability has been documented and proven from an engineering perspective, and the intent is there for espionage and to disrupt those cables in event of a serious military conflict,” he said.
Analysts warn that combating this threat is no mean feat. “Policing and patrolling undersea cables, we’ve not done this before, it would require a big investment,” said Roberts of RUSI.
Kanuck pointed out that the cables are owned and operated by private companies, rather than the state, adding another layer of complication to questions of security.
Nevertheless, Giles said last week’s public acknowledgment of the Russian threat was a major step towards addressing the problem.
“In times of crisis and conflict with Russia, civilian communications infrastructure requires the same degree of physical protection as any other strategically important facility,” he said.
Kanuck said while he felt security specialists had always been attuned to the risk of Russian espionage, he welcomed its return to popular discourse.
“If there was a hiatus, it was likely at a political level, not at the security professional level,” he said. “Politics of the day has resurrected what is a very worthwhile and significant concern.”
Why moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is so controversial
Jerusalem (CNN)US President Donald Trump's pledge to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has caused controversy across the world.
Trump could announce the move as early as Tuesday, US officials with direct knowledge of the matter and foreign diplomats have told CNN.
Upon making his decision public, Trump is expected to sign a waiver to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv for another six months, but say his administration will move the diplomatic mission to Jerusalem at some point -- a goal long sought by Israel.
Trump told CNN in March that moving the embassy would happen "very quickly."
The State Department's security arm has been told to plan for potentially violent protests at US embassies and consulates if the Trump administration announces it is moving the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
CNN's Oren Liebermann, who is based in Jerusalem, walks us through what's at stake.
So why is moving the embassy such a big deal?
If the United States moved the embassy to Jerusalem, it would mean that the US effectively recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. That would overturn 70 years of international consensus, and, many argue, would effectively signal the end of moves to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Give me some history...
The United Nations partition plan drawn up in 1947 envisaged Jerusalem as a separate "international city." But the war that followed Israel's declaration of independence one year later left the city divided. When fighting ended in 1949, the armistice border -- often called the Green Line because it was drawn in green ink -- saw Israel in control of the western half, and Jordan in control of the eastern half, which included the famous Old City.
When did that change?
During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied East Jerusalem. Since then, all of the city has been under Israel's authority. The city marks "Jerusalem Day" in late-May or early-June. But Palestinians, and many in the international community, continue to see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
Have any countries ever had their embassy in Jerusalem?
Yes. Before 1980 a number of countries did, including the Netherlands and Costa Rica.
Right. So what happened?
In July of 1980, Israel passed a law that declared Jerusalem the united capital of Israel. The United Nations Security Council responded with a resolution condemning Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and declared it a violation of international law.
So countries moved their embassies out of the city?
Correct. In 2006, Costa Rica and El Salvador were the last to move their embassies out of Jerusalem, joining the rest of the world in locating their embassies in Tel Aviv.
What about consulates?
Some countries do maintain consulates in Jerusalem, including the United States, which has one in the western part of the city. Other countries -- such as Britain and France for instance -- have a consulate in the eastern part of the city, which serve as their countries' main representation in the Palestinian territories.
Just to be clear: What is America's position?
The US has never had its embassy in Jerusalem. It has always been in Tel Aviv, with the Ambassador's residence in Herzliya Pituach, about 30 minutes north.
Trump on moving the US embassy
Trump on moving the US embassy 00:08
That sounds pretty straightforward...
Wait a minute, it gets more complicated. In 1989, Israel began leasing to the US a plot of land in Jerusalem for a new embassy. The 99-year lease cost $1 per year. To this day, the plot has not been developed, and it remains an empty field.
OK. Keep going...
In 1995, the US Congress passed a law requiring America to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Proponents said the US should respect Israel's choice of Jerusalem as its capital, and recognize it as such.
So why hasn't the embassy moved yet?
Every president since 1995 -- Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama -- has declined to move the embassy, citing national security interests. Every six months, the President has used the presidential waiver to circumvent the embassy move.
Israel amb. supports U.S. Embassy Jerusalem move
Israel amb. supports U.S. Embassy Jerusalem move 03:39
What are Trump's options if he goes ahead with the embassy move?
The first is to make use of the undeveloped plot that the US has been leasing since 1989. Or the US could turn its existing consulate in Jerusalem into the embassy. A final option might be to leave the embassy in Tel Aviv, but have the US Ambassador to Israel do his day-to-day work in Jerusalem.
MORE: Trump pushes US embassy move in Israel amid outcry
How have Israelis responded to this?
The Israeli government has lauded Trump's pledge to follow through with the embassy move. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat has been perhaps the most outspoken advocate, launching a campaign just days before the US President's inauguration, urging him to make good on his promise.
And what do the Palestinians make of it all?
Palestinian leaders are adamant that an embassy move to Jerusalem would be a violation of international law, and a huge setback to peace hopes.
President Mahmoud Abbas has turned to other world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Jordan's King Abdullah, to help pressure Trump to change his mind. The Palestine Liberation Organization has suggested it would consider revoking its recognition of Israel, and canceling all agreements between Israelis and Palestinians, should the move take place.
More immediately, there are fears it could set off a wave of unrest -- perhaps even street protests and violence -- in the Palestinian territories and across the Arab world.
The powerful Iraqi Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, warned in January a statement on his website that moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would represent a declaration of open war against Islam. He called for the closure of the Israeli and US embassies in Islamic countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)