After Brexit, can EU survive?

David Cameron — May’s predecessor who lost the Brexit referendum — has reason to be puzzled by the upshot of his defeat.

Yet, as a direct result of Brexit, Berlin and Paris are now adopting the idea of variable geometry as the way forward for the EU.

This first paradox is easier to understand when seen through the lens of the conventional European practice of making a virtue out of failure.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, had for years opposed the idea of a Europe that proceeds at different speeds — allowing some countries to be less integrated than others, due to their domestic political situation.

But now — after the colossal economic mismanagement of the euro crisis has weakened the EU’s legitimacy, given Euroskeptics a major impetus, and caused the EU to shift to an advanced stage of disintegration — Mrs Merkel and her fellow EU leaders seem to think that a multi-speed Europe is essential to keeping the bloc together.

At the weekend, as EU leaders gathered to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, leaders of the remaining 27 member states signed the Rome Declaration, which says that they will “act together, at different paces and intensity where necessary, while moving in the same direction, as we have done in the past.”

The failure to keep the EU together along a single path toward common values, a common market and a common currency will come to be embraced and rebranded as a new start, leading to a Europe in which a coalition of the willing will proceed with the original ambition while the rest form outer circles, connected to the inner core by unspecified bonds.

In principle, such a manifold EU will allow for the East’s self-proclaimed illiberal democracies to remain in the single market, refusing to relocate a single refugee or to adhere to standards of press freedom and judicial independence that other European countries consider essential. Countries like Austria will be able to put up electrified fences around their borders. It could even leave the door open for the UK to return as part of one of Europe’s outer circles.

Whether one approves of this vision or not, the fact is that its chances depend on a major prerequisite: a consolidated, stable eurozone.

One only needs to state this to recognize the second paradox of our post-Brexit reality: In its current state, the eurozone cannot provide the stability that the EU — and Europe more broadly — needs to survive.

The refusal to deal rationally with the bankruptcy of the Greek state is a useful litmus test for the European establishment’s capacity to stabilize the eurozone.

As it stands, the prospects for a stabilized eurozone do not look good. Business as usual — the establishment’s favored option — could soon produce a major Italian crisis that the eurozone cannot survive.

The only alternative under discussion is a eurozone federation-light, with a tiny common budget that Berlin will agree to in exchange for direct control of French, Italian and Spanish national budgets. Even if this were to happen, which is doubtful given the political climate, it will be too little, too late to stabilize the eurozone.

So here is the reality that Europe faces today: a proper federation of 27 member states is impossible, given the centrifugal forces tearing Europe apart. Meanwhile, a variable geometry confederacy — of the type David Cameron had requested and which the UK might want to join after 2019 — requires a consolidated eurozone. But this also seems impossible, given the current climate.

Allowing EU member states to move in different directions and at different speeds is precisely the wrong way to address to address the differing concerns of Europeans living in different countries — and it seems an odd way to unite them behind a single way forward for the continent.

In fact, Europeans are already united by two existential threats: Involuntary under-employment — the bitter fruit of austerity-driven under-investment — and involuntary migration — the result of the overconcentration of investment in specific regions.

To make the European Union work again, each and every European country must be stabilized and helped to prosper.

Europe cannot survive as a free-for-all, everyone for themselves, or as an Austerity Union built on de-politicised economic decision-making with a fig leaf of federalism in which some countries are condemned to permanent depression and debtors are denied democratic rights.

Europe, in short, needs a New Deal — perhaps similar to the New Deal that my organization DiEM25 unveiled in Rome at the weekend while the European elites were toasting their variable geometry — that runs across the continent, embracing all countries independently of whether they are in the eurozone, in the European Union or in neither.

Why is government searching phones?

These are some of the many American citizens re-entering the country who have been subjected to searches of their cellphones and questioning about their social media.

Such invasions of travelers’ private communications are extremely intrusive and have been conducted even when officials don’t apparently have reason to think the person has done something wrong. And the government has lately increased the practice dramatically — even though recent legal decisions raise serious questions about its constitutionality.

Because people keep ever more of their personal details on their phones and computers, it is particularly egregious that the government should claim some right to unfettered access to these devices simply because a person travels abroad.

On Monday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University — whose mission is to defend free speech in the digital age — filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the government to release information on the number of travelers whose devices have been searched, the policies related to searching cellphones containing sensitive and confidential information, and the findings of internal audits about the device search program.

Border searches of electronic devices by the Department of Homeland Security have risen exponentially in recent years, from about 5,000 device searches in 2015 to about 25,000 in 2016, according to press reports that cited DHS data. During the Trump administration, the intrusions appear to have become even more frequent; in February 2017 alone, border officials searched 5,000 devices.
And why is this happening? A US Customs and Border Protection policy since 2009 authorizes officers to seize and search a traveler’s electronic devices even if the person is not suspicious. The policy was always legally dubious, but it has become indefensible in light of the Supreme Court’s 2014 landmark decision in Riley v. California.

The court held that police generally can’t seize a person’s cellphone as part of an arrest without first obtaining a warrant that is backed by evidence that the cellphone contains evidence of a crime and is signed by a judge.

A cellphone contains “the sum of an individual’s private life,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. The search of a smartphone is nothing like the search of a duffle bag. What people store on their cellphones — including Internet browsing history, medical records, family photos, GPS location data, financial information, and apps related to dating, addiction and hobbies — is vastly more sensitive than what people used to carry in their pockets, backpacks, or purses, or even keep in their homes.

Searches of electronic devices when there is no basis for suspicion to search them raise serious concerns relating to the freedoms of speech and association. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in another recent Supreme Court case, “[a]wareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms.” Americans will be justifiably concerned about speaking freely if, simply because they travel internationally, the government is given unlimited authority to read through their emails, texts, social media posts and the like.

The implications may be especially significant for a free press. Suspicionless searches of cellphones threaten the ability of journalists and their sources to report on important international issues, which deprives the public of its right to know about those issues.

Numerous reports show that journalists, lawyers and activists — particularly those who cover civil wars and terrorism or travel to conflict areas — have had their cellphones and devices searched at the US border, where officers have demanded their passwords and read their communications with sources.

Those sources will likely be leery of sharing information with journalists and activists if their identities and reports may be revealed to the US government at the border.

Anecdotal evidence about how the government is using its authority to conduct suspicionless electronic device searches is disturbing but incomplete. The public has a right to see a fuller picture, as many civil liberties groups have asked the government to provide.

Our freedom of information lawsuit request seeks a range of information, but one of the items we seek may be especially revealing: We’ve asked for the database of the Treasury Enforcement Communications System that houses information about every device-search at the border, including the reason for the search, the country of origin of the traveler, and the traveler’s race and ethnicity.
The government created this database in response to concerns voiced by the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights office several years ago about the possibility that searches might be conducted in a discriminatory or otherwise unlawful way.

Disclosure of the database — perhaps with narrow redactions to protect legitimate national security and privacy interests — would help the public understand the answer to basic questions about the government’s program: How often do border officers search travelers’ cellphones and other devices, and for what reasons?

Why did the incidence of cellphone searches sharply increase in the past 15 months? Does the department follow its own rules for taking special measures to protect searches of privileged and other sensitive content stored on cellphones, and what are those rules?

The courts should require the government to disclose this information and quickly, and the practice of delving into travelers’ private lives at the border without reason to suspect them of wrongdoing should ultimately end. Everything we know about the government’s searches of devices at the border suggests the government is dramatically expanding an unconstitutional program.

Gorsuch path unclear; filibuster, nuclear option loom

But the exact math behind breaking a filibuster or changing the Senate rules did not yet appear to add up as of Tuesday evening.

Senior Democrats predicted their caucus will ban together to block Gorsuch on a key procedural vote expected next Thursday. And they held out hope that not all Republicans would back McConnell’s use of the nuclear option, a controversial rule change that would lower the threshold for overcoming a filibuster for Supreme Court nominees from 60 to 51 and allow them to confirm Gorsuch on a partly line vote.

“I don’t want to change the rules of the Senate, and I hope we’re not confronted with that choice,” said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of several GOP moderates Democrats think might vote against the nuclear option. In an interview with CNN, Collins stopped short of saying whether she would vote for the rule change.

But Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the GOP whip, predicted enough Republicans would vote together to approve the nuclear option.

“I hope it doesn’t come to that but if the Democrats force our hand, then we’ll be prepared to do what we need to do to confirm the judge,” Cornyn said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who actively whipped members of his caucus on the issue, said Gorsuch didn’t “impress” Democrats during his confirmation hearings and faces “an uphill climb” to get to 60 votes. Only a handful of Democrats appeared to be even contemplating advancing Gorsuch, although some Democrats thought the number might climb as the vote nears.

“I’m going to base my decision on him, input from Montanans, and what his opinions are,” said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, who is under immense pressure from fellow lawmakers and outside interest groups. The second-term senator is running for re-election in a state President Donald Trump easily won in November.

Tester said he hoped the Republicans would not use the nuclear option because it would make the Senate more like the House — where majority party can rule without much input from the minority party — but insisted that issue would not weigh into his decision.

The status of the Democratic filibuster

Republicans are struggling to come up with the eight Democrats needed to join them in breaking the filibuster.

Only two Democrats — Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota — have signaled they would oppose the filibuster, but even those two senators have hesitated to be definitive about it.

The Republican National Committee targeted 12 Democrats from mostly states that Trump won, urging them through paid ad campaigns to support an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch — code for opposing the filibuster.

However, several of those senators, like Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, have said they’ll join the filibuster and won’t support Gorsuch.

Republicans are still waiting to hear from some of the targeted Democrats, like Tester, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, all of who have been mum this week on where they’re leaning.

Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado has also stayed silent. He introduced Gorsuch, who’s from his home state, at his hearing last week but said he was doing so out of tradition and wasn’t necessarily telegraphing his support.

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, who also hasn’t announced his decision, said Monday on MSNBC that he doesn’t think Gorsuch will get the 60 votes he needs to end the filibuster.

While unlikely, Democrats are hoping their filibuster will result in Republicans deciding against using the nuclear option and instead put forth a different nominee.

“If the nominee cannot earn the support of 60 Senators, the answer is not to break precedent by fundamentally and permanently changing the rules and traditions of the Senate, the answer is to change the nominee,” Schumer said Tuesday on the Senate floor.

According to CNN’s latest whip count, 26 Democrats are on the record planning to join the filibuster. That’s a little more than half of the Democratic caucus. More are expected to announce their decision in the coming days.

But the real number to focus on is eight — the number of Democrats needed to vote against the filibuster.

And so far there are only two maybes, and its not immediately clear whom the remaining six would be.

Republicans threaten controversial nuclear option

While Republicans can win at the end of the day using the nuclear option, it’s not a choice they’re particularly thrilled to make.

It was a controversial move when Harry Reid lowered the filibuster threshold in 2013 for cabinet nominees, and it would be just as controversial for Republicans do so now.

Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said they don’t “have a choice.”

“It’s very unfortunate. I think it turns our stomach,” the first term Republican told reporters Tuesday, adding that he’s uneasy with the idea of setting a new precedent. “Once it’s been used once, it’s going to be used time and time again.”

Rounds expressed concern that it could ultimately be used to impact legislation, in addition to presidential nominees, and he thinks Democrats are privately wanting the rules change so that Republicans can shoulder some of the drama that Democrats stirred up in 2013.

“I think it hurt the Democrats when they did it, and I think they’d like to share that with Republicans in the future,” he argued.

When asked whether he’d support the nuclear option, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said he hopes it doesn’t get to that point and questioned “whether long term it makes any sense at all.”

“If we keep doing that, you eventually end up being very much like the House and historically that’s not a good thing for the Senate according to what the Founding Fathers wanted,” he added.

Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina, said he was playing it “straight and narrow right now” on whether he was leaning in favor of the nuclear option or against it. But he added: “I think his confirmation is an absolutely necessity.”

What happens next

The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet next Monday to vote on Gorsuch and send him to the full Senate with a final confirmation vote expected Friday evening, according to a GOP leadership aide who explained the anticipated schedule for next week.

On Tuesday, McConnell would move to end floor debate on Gorsuch. This would set up the key procedural vote Thursday morning when the chamber’s 52 Republicans hope to get at least eight Democrats to join them in defeating a filibuster of the judge.

If the filibuster is not defeated, McConnell would then move immediately on the nuclear option, which would need a simple majority of those present and voting to succeed. Vice President Mike Pence is expected to be in the chamber if he is needed to break a tie.

If Republicans hold together and the nuclear option passes, the Senate would vote again to break the filibuster of Gorsuch, this time needing just 51 votes to do so.

After that, Senate rules allow for up to 30 hours of what’s called “post-cloture” debate time. That would set up a final confirmation vote for Gorsuch sometime Friday evening. He would only need a simple majority on that final vote.

Meet the major players in the Trump-Russia saga

It is just the latest development in the ever-evolving saga about alleged Russian tampering in the 2016 presidential election. CNN has compiled a list of the growing and diverse cast characters at the start of a critical week of hearings for Senate investigators looking into Russia’s actions and its possible ties to Trump associates.

Several US lawmakers and agency heads have emerged as visible, and at times controversial, figures in the investigations into connections between individuals in Trump’s orbit and Russian hacking of Democratic Party groups including the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign adviser John Podesta.

Mike Rogers — Late last year, Rogers was simultaneously a candidate to be promoted to Director of National Intelligence under President-elect Trump and on the hot seat to be fired as director of the National Security Agency by then-President Barack Obama. Eventually, Rogers remained in his role as the director of the NSA under Trump and now finds himself among those agency heads testifying before Congress as an authority on cybersecurity as it relates to hacks by suspect Russian-relate groups.

Rogers played a key role in last week’s House hearing with Comey when he joined the FBI director in refuting Trump’s claim that Obama had had his phones tapped during the campaign. He in particular batted down the notion that the Obama administration requested that the British eavesdrop on Trump, an unfounded assertion made on Fox News cited by the Trump White House.

Sally Yates — A holdover from the Obama administration, the most memorable moment of Yates’ short tenure as acting Attorney General may have been her firing in the early days of the Trump administration after she refused to implement the President’s orders barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Yates also briefed Trump’s White House counsel on former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, communications that ultimately led to Flynn’s resignation. Her scheduled testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on ties between Russian agents and Trump campaign officials was abruptly cancelled by committee Chairman Devin Nunes. The White House rejected allegations that it had sought to prevent Yates from testifying.
James Clapper — The director of national intelligence under Obama has never been shy in offering criticism of Trump, clashing with him over the latter’s public disparagement of intelligence officers, wiretapping allegations and views on Russian hacking. Clapper, along with Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan, briefed Trump on Russian hacking during the election campaign just hours after the President-elect doubled down on his dismissal of the threat as an artificial and politically driven controversy, calling it a “witch hunt.” He has also had been invited to testify by Congress.

Members of Congress

Devin Nunes — The man charged with leading the House’s investigation into possible connections between Trump associates and Russia’s hacking of the 2016 election has been a particular focus of controversy in recent weeks. Nunes worked on Trump’s transition team, publically supported Flynn just hours before his resignation as national security adviser and downplaying Trump’s wiretapping allegations against Obama by suggesting they shouldn’t be taken literally.

Nunes particularly provoked Democrats after he disclosed evidence to the press and White House — before informing Democrats on his committee — that the Trump team’s communications may have been picked up in “incidental” collections by US surveillance of conversations with foreign nationals who were being lawfully monitored. That was seen as a move to bolster Trump’s claims of having been wiretapped. The news Monday that Nunes met his source on White House grounds the day before he briefed Trump sparked the latest round of partisan fighting and has left investigators unable to continue right now. Now, Nunes is facing calls to step down as chairman amid questions as to whether he can conduct an impartial investigation. He told CNN Tuesday morning, however, that he was “moving forward” with the investigation.

Adam Schiff — The Democratic “yin” to Nunes’ Republican “yang,” Schiff is his party’s most senior member on the House Intelligence Committee and has been one of the most visible lawmakers on the Russia investigation. Though the committee has historically been one of the more discreet on Capitol Hill, Schiff hasn’t held back his criticism of Trump or, increasingly, the committee chairman. On Monday, Schiff called on Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation in a stunning split between the two top investigators of a committee with a reputation for bipartisanship. Schiff has repeatedly maintained he’s seen additional evidence that is more than circumstantial proof of collusion between Trump aides and Russian entities.

Elijah Cummings — The representative from Maryland is the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. Cummings was one of the first lawmakers to call for an investigation into Russian meddling in the US election. Cummings wrote a letter to committee chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz in November 2016 calling for a bipartisan commission, similar to the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks, and the Democratic effort to have an independent investigation is only gathering steam as the acrimony on Capitol Hill rises.

Cummings has also gone beyond calls for Nunes to recuse himself, suggesting he be investigated after his comments disclosing the surveillance that may have picked up conversation of Trump associates. And he has also sharply denounced Flynn, brandishing emails that show the former national security adviser was paid by Russian entities for a trip there during the campaign, raising legal and regulatory questions.

Richard Burr NC Senate

Richard Burr — The North Carolina Republican and chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee is leading a separate investigation into Russian efforts to tamper with the US election. So far it has been a low-key process, as he’s stayed out of the limelight while interviewing witnesses in private. Some of that will change Thursday, when the Senate Intelligence Committee hosts its first public hearing for its Russia investigation.

Trump associates

Investigations by the FBI and congressional committees have included several aides to the Trump campaign and their communication with key foreign entities and, in some cases, Russian operatives. Others have cropped up in headlines because of their dealings with the longtime US adversary. Several of these individuals have volunteered to testify before House and Senate Intelligence Committees in recent days to clear up questions about their actions and associations.

Michael Flynn — Flynn has courted controversy since before he became an early supporter of Trump’s campaign. In 2014, he was pushed out as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in Obama’s Pentagon. Flynn said it was because he raised alarm bells on Islamic terrorism, but four US officials serving at time told CNN it was because of his contentious management style.

His reputation for outspokenness and criticizing Washington figures led to raised eyebrows inside the Beltway when Trump tapped him as national security adviser. His tenure in any case didn’t last long, as he resigned after acknowledging that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak. He had initially denied that they had discussed sanctions recently imposed by the Obama administration. It is illegal for unauthorized private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments on behalf of the US, though the FBI has said that it has no intention of bringing charges against Flynn. At the time, Flynn did not hold a public office in the US government which technically qualifies him as a private citizen

His financial ties with Russia and other foreign countries have also attracted attention, including the emails obtained by Cummings showing that he was paid by a state-run Russian TV outlet from which he had originally denied receiving funds.

Paul Manafort — A Republican strategist and longtime Washington operator, Manafort joined Trump’s campaign team last spring and was elevated after campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was fired in June. But with just under three months to go until the presidential election, Manafort resigned amid questions over his campaign role and extensive lobbying history overseas, particularly in Ukraine, where he represented pro-Russian interests.
Manafort’s connections to Russia faced fresh scrutiny last month after current and former US officials told CNN that high-level Trump campaign advisers, including Manafort, regularly communicated with Russians known to US intelligence. Manafort called the allegation “100% not true” and said he didn’t “remember talking to any Russian officials, ever.”

Jared Kushner — The 36-year-old businessman-turned-political operative played a crucial role in his father-in-law’s presidential campaign and has carved out a role for himself as one of Trump’s key White House aides. After amassing billions of dollars in properties over his decade in the New York real estate market, he now finds himself frequently assisting the President in matters of foreign policy.

That has led to questions in certain arenas, including a recently disclosed meeting he held in December with a Russian banker appointed by President Vladimir Putin. The White House maintains that Kushner met with the banker in his role as a Trump adviser while the bank said it met with Kushner as a private developer.

Kushner has volunteered to testify before senators because of his role in arranging meetings between top campaign advisers and Kislyak, the Russian ambassador.

Carter Page — Page worked for seven years as an investment banker at Merrill Lynch, which his biography said took him to London, New York and Moscow for three years in the mid-2000s, before Trump last year listed him as a foreign policy adviser in response to a question from The Washington Post.

Page has regularly espoused views at odds with much of the foreign policy community in Washington, in particular questioning the US approach toward Russia and called for warmer relations between the two countries.

His reported meeting with Kislyak during the Republican convention in Cleveland is one of his interactions with Russian officials that has caught the attention of the FBI. Page has denied any wrongdoing and volunteered Friday to speak to the House Intelligence Committee about his role in Trump’s campaign. Page, who the White House has said was only loosely connected to the Trump campaign, emphasized last week that he was not a campaign insider.

J.D. Gordon — A former Pentagon spokesman under Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, Gordon contributed to a variety of media outlets before working as a national security adviser to the Trump campaign.

Gordon disclosed earlier this month that he was among the Trump advisers who had met with Kislyak during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. Gordon told CNN that he told Kislyak that he would like to improve relations with Russia. Gordon added that at no time did any inappropriate chatter come up about colluding with the Russians to aid the Trump campaign.
Roger Stone — The eccentric former Trump adviser and self-described, master of political dark arts has been labeled as the “dirty trickster” of delegate fights. He has worked with the campaigns of Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Stone repeatedly claimed throughout the final months of the 2016 campaign that he had backchannel communications with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that he knew of the group’s forthcoming document dumps, which disseminated the materials hacked from the Democrats. Later, Stone walked back those tweets. His attorney told CNN on Friday that he is willing to speak to the House Intelligence Committee — preferably in public — but maintains he has done nothing wrong. Wikileaks also denies any connection with Stone.

Roger Stone also has been forced to defend contacts with hacker Guccier 2.0 on Twitter. While Stone said his messages to the hacker alias are of no consequence, he is the first person in Trump’s orbit to have acknowledged any contact with a hacker — not to mention one that claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC.
Michael Cohen — Trump’s personal lawyer has been a staunch defender of his client, often serving as a media surrogate during the campaign. During a CNN interview in February, Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii Artemenko said he had discussed a pro-Russian peace plan for Ukraine with Cohen over dinner in January. Ukraine would vehemently oppose the idea that the White House would consider formalizing Russian control of Crimea. Cohen told CNN that they never discussed a peace plan and the White House has flatly denied any knowledge of the proposal.

Foreign connections

Connections between Trump campaign aides and notable foreigners have fueled suspicions of possible coordination with Russia. Specifically, the US officials told CNN last week that it has information that indicates Trump associates communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Sergey Kislyak — The Russian ambassador to the US is seemingly ubiquitous around town, having gained extensive experience during a career spanning both the Soviet and Russian Federation eras. Not only did the veteran diplomat meet multiple times with Flynn, drawing scrutiny, but his meetings with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions led to the attorney general recusing himself from any potential investigations.

Kislyak has also held several meetings — or at least photo-ops — with Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (who has joined the calls for Nunes to recuse himself) claimed to have never met with Kislyak, but a photo surfaced showing the two individuals in the same room. Current and former US intelligence officials TELL CNN that Kislyak is a top spy and recruiter of spies, an accusation that Russian officials have dismissed.

Julian Assange — The founder of Wikileaks, the self-styled “radical transparency” organization with the stated goal of exposing the secrets of the powerful, Assange has cast a wide, blurry shadow over the center of US politics from his seclusion in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he remains holed up to avoid facing sexual assault charges in Sweden and a potential extradition to the United States.

Assange spearheaded the release of nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails last July, which US intelligence bodies unanimously concluded were hacked by the Russians. WikiLeaks also began to serially release emails from Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman, in October. WikiLeaks has denied that Russia was the source for its disclosures, and the Russian government has emphatically denied any connection with the theft as well.
Guccifer 2.0 — The hacker otherwise known as “Guccifer 2.0” burst into the national conversation after claiming responsibility for a hack of the Democratic National Committee last year. US officials believe with “high confidence” that “Guccifer 2.0” was actually a front for Russian military intelligence and was part of the effort to influence America’s elections.

Roger Stone has been forced to defend contacts with the online persona via Twitter. While Stone said his messages to the hacker alias are of no consequence, he is the first person in Trump’s orbit to have acknowledged any contact with a hacker — not to mention one that claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC.

Christopher Steele — A former officer with MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service, Steele compiled a dossier of unsubstantiated allegations related to Trump’s personal and business ties to Russia before he became president. Steele initially had been hired by a Washington research firm working on behalf of Trump’s political opponents — initially in the Republican primary and then later Democrats.

The FBI obtained a version of Steele’s dossier last summer and investigators compared it to some of their own work related to Russia’s attempts to influence the US election.

His file contained claims that Russian operatives had compromising personal and financial information about Trump. Trump has consistently denied the claims, dismissing them as “phony” in January, though Schiff and others drew on some of them in the Comey-Rogers hearing last week. US investigators said they have corroborated some of the communications in the dossier, but CNN has not been able to verify many of the specific allegations in the documents.

CNN’s Dylan Byers, Marshall Cohen, Thomas Frank, Jeremy Diamond, Barbara Starr, Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Gloria Borger and Manu Raju contributed to this report.

‘We’re gonna get it right,’ Warner says

[unable to retrieve full-text content]THE BIG STORIES: A Russian cloud hangs over Trump’s White House. Republicans are picking up the pieces after their failed health care effort. And Democrats are ready for a war over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. We’re covering the latest below.

Bridgegate: Prison for Christie allies

Bill Baroni, former deputy executive director of the Port Authority, was sentenced to 24 months in prison on Wednesday, and Bridget Anne Kelly, former deputy chief of staff in Christie’s office, was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Both also received a year of supervised release, 500 hours of community service, and fines.

In her sentencing of Baroni, Judge Susan Wigenton called the crimes “an outrageous abuse of power.” During Kelly’s sentencing, Wigenton said the case “culminates another unfortunate chapter in the history of New Jersey.

“It is very clear to me that the culture in Trenton was, if you aren’t with us, you’re against us,” Wigenton said.

The sentences came months after Baroni and Kelly were found guilty on seven counts in November, including conspiracy, fraud and civil rights deprivation.

“I let the people in Fort Lee down,” Baroni said in federal court in Newark.

Kelly’s voice was shaking and cracked several times as she spoke in court Wednesday afternoon.

“I never intended to harm anyone,” she said. “I accept full responsibility for the tone of my emails and text messages.”

Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni were convicted in November 2016.

The charges stemmed from the abrupt closure of local traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge, one of the world’s busiest bridges, for four days in September 2013. The lane closures on the bridge, which connects Manhattan with Fort Lee, New Jersey, caused severe traffic delays that endangered citizens and posed a public safety risk, court documents state.

Prosecutors alleged the lane closures were part of a deliberate effort to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who did not endorse Republican incumbent Christie in his 2013 re-election bid.

The prosecution had recommended both Baroni and Kelly serve near the bottom of or just below the federal guidelines of 37 to 46 months in prison, according to court documents. In court, prosecutors agreed with the defense to lower Baroni’s recommended sentence to 24 to 30 months.

William Fitzpatrick, acting US Attorney of New Jersey, praised the court and said the sentences were fair and reasonable in a news conference afterward.

In separate statements, defense attorneys for Baroni and Kelly said they plan to appeal the case. Kelly, in a short statement, said the “fight is far from over.”

“I will not allow myself to be the scapegoat in this case, and I look very much forward to the appeal,” she said.

Christie was not charged with a crime in relation to Bridgegate. After the defendants were found guilty, he released a statement saying he was “saddened” by the case and repeated once again that he had no knowledge of the plot to close the lanes.

Still, the scandal tainted what had been one of the most popular governorships in America and later helped sink Christie’s fledgling presidential campaign.

‘Time for some traffic problems’

Emails and text messages released in January 2014 formed the basis of the charges. In one email, Kelly told former Port Authority official David Wildstein, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

Kelly later said her messages contained “sarcasm and humor,” and she said that a day before sending the email, she had told Christie about traffic problems resulting from a study.

Baroni and Kelly’s actions cost the Port Authority $14,314.04, according to court documents, including the cost of hours misspent by Port Authority personnel and the expense of a traffic study that was ruined by the closure.

Baroni testified he believed the closures were part of a legitimate traffic study, an explanation that had been relayed to him by Wildstein, the accused mastermind of the incident. Wildstein, Christie’s high school classmate and longtime ally, pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit fraud on federally funded property and one civil rights violation.
David Wildstein, left, and Gov. Chris Christie were longtime political allies.

The prosecution recommended the court sentence Baroni and Kelly to serve time in prison, not only because they were found guilty but also because prosecutors believe a prison sentence would send “a clear and unmistakable message.”

The court documents state, “When dealing with public corruption, only imprisonment can effectively promote general deterrence.”

“As both Baroni and Kelly surely understood given their lengthy tenures in New Jersey government, crimes committed by public officials are particularly insidious because they destroy the community’s faith in its own public institutions,” the documents state.

In all, four Christie-associated political figures have been convicted of criminal charges in relation to Bridgegate, including Baroni, Kelly, Wildstein, and former Port Authority Chairman David Samson.

CNN’s Dominique Debucquoy-Dodley, Noah Gray and Tom Kludt contributed to this report.

3 ways Mexico could pay for the wall

But is there any way for Mexico to fund a border wall without officials there dipping into their country’s coffers?

Let’s crunch the numbers on a few possible options that have made the rounds in Washington:

1. Tapping into money immigrants send home

Mexican immigrants sent nearly $27 billion home in 2016, according to the country’s central bank. And most of that money came from people living in the United States.

Generally, immigrants report that the money they send funds things like food, clothing, housing and education for their families. What if some of it went to building a wall on the border?

On the campaign trail, Trump said he’d change the Patriot Act and cut off a portion of remittances to Mexico unless the country agreed to pony up. Since then, a less aggressive approach has circulated in some policy circles: taxing wire transfers, the most common way immigrants send money home.

That idea is unpopular with money transfer companies and immigrant rights advocates.

And Mexican authorities have vowed to do everything they can to ensure that no one messes with the money immigrants send. It’s Mexico’s largest source of income — higher even than the amount of money it earns from oil exports. Even though remittances are a small portion of Mexico’s GDP, they have a big impact in some of the country’s poorest communities.

In the Mexican state of Michoacán, for example, migrant remittances made up almost 10% of the state’s gross domestic product in 2015, according to data from the Bank of Mexico and BBVA Bancomer.

Past proposals to tax remittances have never gotten off the ground in Washington. But at least one US state has taken this approach.

In 2009, Oklahoma started charging a fee on individual wire transfers of $5 plus 1% on any amount over $500. Since then, the measure — which applies to funds sent through licensed money transmitters like Western Union and MoneyGram — has raised more than $67.2 million for a fund at the state’s Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, according to state tax records.

The case: For those who resent that undocumented immigrants not only live in the United States, but also send money out of the country, a remittance tax is an attractive option, as the National Review’s Jim Geraghty has noted.

“In their eyes,” he wrote in 2015, “illegal immigrants from Mexico effectively steal from the United States by entering the country, offering unethical employers a labor force that isn’t covered by wage, workplace safety, and other laws, getting paid under the table, and then sending the money out of the country.”

The catch: Wire transfer companies don’t ask for or track the immigration status of people who use them. If they did, analysts say undocumented immigrants simply would find other ways to send money. So it’s likely a tax would end up applying to anyone who sends remittances — something critics say would unfairly punish Americans and immigrants who came to the country legally. Oklahoma tried to get around this by creating a tax credit for its fees; but critics argue that many people eligible for credits don’t take them.

Critics also say a tax on remittances would likely push Mexicans to find other ways to get cash over the border.

“In the paranoid atmosphere that’s been created by certain anti-immigrant statements, I think it would make people even more reluctant to use official channels,” says David Landsman, executive director of the New York-based National Money Transmitters Association.

The chances: The numbers might add up, but it’s still a tough sell. Congress is loathe to levy taxes in general, though a tax reform package to be discussed this year could offer an opportunity. Congressional leaders have priorities in that package that they will not want derailed if a plan to tax remittances becomes too controversial. Relations between the US and Mexico would also surely factor into the debate.

2. Seizing money from drug cartels

US Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, introduced a proposal last month titled the BUILD WALL Act of 2017. Its aim: to use money seized from drug traffickers to fund security at the border.

The case: Sensenbrenner’s proposal calls for the US Attorney General to study ways the Justice Department can increase assets seized from cartels. He dubbed the approach “a creative solution to a complex problem.”

Drug cartels send between $19 billion and $29 billion annually back to Mexico, according to US federal officials. And using money from criminals rather than law-abiding US taxpayers to foot the bill for anything sounds like an easy sell.
The catch: Authorities on the southwest US border have already seized a large amount of money heading to Mexico: more than $57 million in four years, according to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). But it’s just a fraction of the smuggled money officials believe is crossing the border — and just a fraction of the estimated cost of a wall. And currently, at least some of the money seized from cartels is already spoken for. Currency CBP seizes that is forfeited goes into a Treasury Department fund that’s used for law enforcement initiatives across the country. The amount of money seized has also decreased in recent years. A recent CBP report noted “significant decreases in both the number of seizures and the average dollar value” of the amounts seized.
The chances: Harder than it sounds. Passing legislation in Congress is always difficult, and this year a lot of time is already expected to be eaten up by Obamacare repeal, tax reform and budgeting. Any bill perceived to be an element of Trump’s border security efforts will become controversial, as Democrats seek to oppose his immigration policies and have deemed the wall a poison pill in any legislation. Plus, asset seizure tiptoes into criminal justice reform, its own area of disagreement on the Hill.

3. A border tax

In January, Trump administration officials suggested a 20% tariff on imports from Mexico could be used to pay for a border wall. The idea was floated early on in Trump’s presidency, and in some circles, it sank. After the proposal drew a swift uproar from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, White House officials who’d touted it later said it was just an idea.

If such a plan is put into place, a vast array of items — including cars, mechanical equipment, produce and household goods — would be subject to a levy.

The case: When it comes to exports and imports, there’s a lot of money in play. Mexico is the United States’ third largest goods trading partner, with an estimated $295 billion in imports from Mexico crossing the border in 2015.
“By doing it that way we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall, just through that mechanism alone. That’s really going to provide the funding,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer said in January.

Later that day, he sent a softer message, saying the border tax idea was intended to be just one example of paying for the wall. “I just want to be clear that we’re not being prescriptive in saying that is the only way,” he said, “nor is the rate prescriptive.”

The catch: Critics say such a tax would punish consumers more than anyone else, it would violate NAFTA and it could spur a trade war. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham quickly dismissed the idea, posting a tweet that played off the President’s own Twitter style.

“Simply put,” Graham wrote, “any policy proposal which drives up costs of Corona, tequila, or margaritas is a big-time bad idea. Mucho Sad.”

The chances: Low. Lawmakers are already engaged in a heated debate over a proposed border adjustment tax, which would tax imports from around the world while exempting exports from US taxes. While House Speaker Paul Ryan and like-minded Republicans are in favor, the proposal still faces a heavy set of opposition from inside and outside the party. Tacking on a Mexico-specific tax is unlikely to get much traction, as we saw with Spicer’s swift walkback of the trial balloon earlier this year.

CNN’s Jeremey Diamond, Theodore Schleifer and Patrick Gillespie contributed to this report. Illustration by Kenneth Fowler.

Exxon to Trump: Don’t ditch climate change deal

America’s biggest oil company told the White House it believes the Paris agreement is an “effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change” and the U.S. should remain a party to it.

Exxon (XOM) said the country is “well positioned to compete” under the terms of the Paris deal, which was reached in late 2015 with the goal of slowing global warming. President Obama hailed the agreement as “the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”

The Exxon letter was sent to the White House on March 22, just days before Trump took a massive swipe at environmental regulations implemented under Obama. The administration had asked Exxon for its views on the Paris accord.

Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to undo the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to slash carbon emissions by coal plans and other power utilities.

Before taking office, Trump called climate change a “hoax” and blasted the Paris COP21 agreement as a “bad deal” for the U.S.

However, after winning the election Trump told The New York Times he has an “open mind” about the Paris agreement and said he believes clean air and “crystal clear water” are important.

Related: Trump move won’t bring back coal or mining jobs

Exxon has a complex and controversial history with climate change. The energy giant is being investigated for allegedly misleading the public and shareholders about what it knew about the dangers of climate change.

But in 2007 Exxon admitted publicly that climate change poses risks and said it’s responsible to begin working on ways to reduce emissions.

Exxon has also been a consistent public supporter of the Paris agreement.

“We welcomed the Paris Agreement when it was announced in December 2015, and again when it came into force in November 2016. We have reiterated our support on several occasions,” Peter Trelenberg, Exxon’s environmental policy and planning manager, wrote to the White House.

Last month Exxon CEO Darren Woods, who replaced Rex Tillerson when he left to become Trump’s secretary of state, wrote a blog post saying the company is “encouraged” that the Paris agreement creates a framework for “all countries” to address rising emissions.

Exxon noted in its letter to the White House that unlike the Kyoto Agreement, the Paris deal is the first major international accord to feature pledges from developed nations like the U.S. and developing ones like China. Exxon pointed out that China is the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitted and India is likely to pass the U.S. as No. 2 before mid-century.

Related: What if Trump dumps Paris climate deal?

Even though Trump is a climate change skeptic, his secretary of state and leading emissary on climate issues, does not appear to be one.

During his confirmation hearing in January, Tillerson said he came to the conclusion years ago that “the risk of climate change does exist and the consequences could be serious enough that action should be taken.”

But Tillerson ducked allegations that Exxon misled the public on climate change. He refused to answer repeated questions during the hearing about whether the company ignored internal research going back to the 1970s on the impact of burning fossil fuels.

Earlier this month it emerged that Tillerson allegedly used the pseudonym “Wayne Tracker” to send emails related to climate change while serving as CEO of Exxon.

— CNNMoney’s Julia Horowitz contributed to this report.

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 29, 2017: 1:50 PM ET

Storm chasers killed chasing tornado

‘);$vidEndSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–active’);}};CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;var configObj = {thumb: ‘none’,video: ‘us/2017/03/29/storm-chasers-crash-tornado-texas-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn’,width: ‘100%’,height: ‘100%’,section: ‘domestic’,profile: ‘expansion’,network: ‘cnn’,markupId: ‘large-media_0’,adsection: ‘const-video-leaf’,frameWidth: ‘100%’,frameHeight: ‘100%’,posterImageOverride: {“mini”:{“height”:124,”width”:220,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328203630-texas-storm-chaser-crash-small-169.jpg”},”xsmall”:{“height”:173,”width”:307,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328203630-texas-storm-chaser-crash-medium-plus-169.jpg”},”small”:{“height”:259,”width”:460,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328203630-texas-storm-chaser-crash-large-169.jpg”},”medium”:{“height”:438,”width”:780,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328203630-texas-storm-chaser-crash-exlarge-169.jpg”},”large”:{“height”:619,”width”:1100,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328203630-texas-storm-chaser-crash-super-169.jpg”},”full16x9″:{“height”:900,”width”:1600,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328203630-texas-storm-chaser-crash-full-169.jpg”},”mini1x1″:{“height”:120,”width”:120,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170328203630-texas-storm-chaser-crash-small-11.jpg”}}},autoStartVideo = false,callbackObj,containerEl,currentVideoCollection = [{“videoCMSUrl”:”/videos/us/2017/03/29/storm-chasers-crash-tornado-texas-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn”,”videoId”:”us/2017/03/29/storm-chasers-crash-tornado-texas-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2017/03/29/storm-chasers-crash-tornado-texas-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/12/14/jeopardy-contestant-cindy-stowell-dies-jnd-orig-vstop.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/12/14/jeopardy-contestant-cindy-stowell-dies-jnd-orig-vstop.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/12/14/jeopardy-contestant-cindy-stowell-dies-jnd-orig-vstop.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/11/10/boy-stuck-well-china-tc-orig.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/11/10/boy-stuck-well-china-tc-orig.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/11/10/boy-stuck-well-china-tc-orig.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/12/07/rashaan-salaam-obit-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/12/07/rashaan-salaam-obit-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/12/07/rashaan-salaam-obit-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/world/2016/09/30/sisters-found-dead-seychelles-orig-vstop.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”world/2016/09/30/sisters-found-dead-seychelles-orig-vstop.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/world/2016/09/30/sisters-found-dead-seychelles-orig-vstop.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/world/2016/07/05/missing-american-student-dead-rome-italy-jnd-orig-vstop.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”world/2016/07/05/missing-american-student-dead-rome-italy-jnd-orig-vstop.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/world/2016/07/05/missing-american-student-dead-rome-italy-jnd-orig-vstop.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/10/17/olympian-tyson-gay-daughter-trinity-gay-killed-pkg.wkyt/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/10/17/olympian-tyson-gay-daughter-trinity-gay-killed-pkg.wkyt”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/10/17/olympian-tyson-gay-daughter-trinity-gay-killed-pkg.wkyt/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/world/2016/04/20/margaret-aspinall-hillsborough-story-part-2-orig.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”world/2016/04/20/margaret-aspinall-hillsborough-story-part-2-orig.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/world/2016/04/20/margaret-aspinall-hillsborough-story-part-2-orig.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/10/03/four-teens-killed-new-york-dnt.wcbs/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/10/03/four-teens-killed-new-york-dnt.wcbs”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/10/03/four-teens-killed-new-york-dnt.wcbs/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/09/09/mma-fighter-toddler-death-intv-baldwin-nr.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/09/09/mma-fighter-toddler-death-intv-baldwin-nr.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/09/09/mma-fighter-toddler-death-intv-baldwin-nr.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/04/28/uga-students-fatal-car-crash-orig-vstan.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/04/28/uga-students-fatal-car-crash-orig-vstan.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/04/28/uga-students-fatal-car-crash-orig-vstan.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/09/19/football-team-bus-crash-victim-profile-pkg.wral/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/09/19/football-team-bus-crash-victim-profile-pkg.wral”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/09/19/football-team-bus-crash-victim-profile-pkg.wral/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/05/02/parents-of-6-die-24-hours-apart-pkg.whnt/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/05/02/parents-of-6-die-24-hours-apart-pkg.whnt”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/05/02/parents-of-6-die-24-hours-apart-pkg.whnt/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/04/04/emergency-room-nurse-learns-husband-killed-crash-dnt.knxv/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/04/04/emergency-room-nurse-learns-husband-killed-crash-dnt.knxv”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/04/04/emergency-room-nurse-learns-husband-killed-crash-dnt.knxv/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/08/08/kansas-water-park-death-lah-dnt-lead.cnn/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/08/08/kansas-water-park-death-lah-dnt-lead.cnn”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/08/08/kansas-water-park-death-lah-dnt-lead.cnn/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”},{“videoCMSUrl”:”/video/data/3.0/video/us/2016/02/29/2-year-old-buried-in-snow-dnt.kifi/index.xml”,”videoId”:”us/2016/02/29/2-year-old-buried-in-snow-dnt.kifi”,”videoUrl”:”/videos/us/2016/02/29/2-year-old-buried-in-snow-dnt.kifi/video/playlists/gone-too-soon/”}],currentVideoCollectionId = ”,isLivePlayer = false,moveToNextTimeout,mutePlayerEnabled = false,nextVideoId = ”,nextVideoUrl = ”,turnOnFlashMessaging = false,videoPinner,videoEndSlateImpl;if (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === false) {autoStartVideo = true;if (autoStartVideo === true) {if (turnOnFlashMessaging === true) {autoStartVideo = false;containerEl = jQuery(document.getElementById(configObj.markupId));CNN.VideoPlayer.showFlashSlate(containerEl);} else {CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = true;}}}configObj.autostart = autoStartVideo;CNN.VideoPlayer.setPlayerProperties(configObj.markupId, autoStartVideo, isLivePlayer, mutePlayerEnabled);CNN.VideoPlayer.setFirstVideoInCollection(currentVideoCollection, configObj.markupId);var embedLinkHandler = {},videoPinner,embedCodeCopy;function onVideoCarouselItemClicked(evt) {‘use strict’;var videoId,articleElem,videoPlayer,thumbImageElem,thumbImageLargeSource,overrides = {videoCollection: this.videoCollection,autostart: false},shouldStartVideo = false,playerInstance;try {articleElem = jQuery(evt.currentTarget).find(‘article’);thumbImageElem = jQuery(articleElem).find(‘.media__image’);videoId = articleElem.data().videoId;if (CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(configObj.markupId) === ‘fave’) {playerInstance = FAVE.player.getInstance(configObj.markupId);if (CNN.Utils.existsObject(playerInstance) &&typeof playerInstance.getVideoData === ‘function’ &&playerInstance.getVideoData().id !== videoId) {/* Remove videoobject metadata script.If the user click other than initial loaded video */jQuery(articleElem).closest(‘.cn-carousel-medium-strip’).parent().find(‘script[name=”metaScript”]’).remove();playerInstance.play(videoId, overrides);}} else {videoPlayer = CNNVIDEOAPI.CNNVideoManager.getInstance().getPlayerByContainer(configObj.markupId);if (videoPlayer && videoPlayer.videoInstance) {/** if videoPlayer.videoInstance.cvp is null that means it’s not initialized yet so* pass in the thumbnail, too.*/if (!videoPlayer.videoInstance.cvp) {if (typeof thumbImageElem !== ‘undefined’ && thumbImageElem !== null) {thumbImageLargeSource = thumbImageElem.data() && thumbImageElem.data().srcLarge ? thumbImageElem.data().srcLarge : ‘none’;}overrides.thumb = thumbImageLargeSource ? thumbImageLargeSource : ‘none’;shouldStartVideo = true;}if (videoPlayer.videoInstance.config) {if (videoPlayer.videoInstance.config.video !== videoId) {/* Remove videoobject metadata script.If the user click other than initial loaded video */jQuery(articleElem).closest(‘.cn-carousel-medium-strip’).parent().find(‘script[name=”metaScript”]’).remove();CNNVIDEOAPI.CNNVideoManager.getInstance().playVideo(configObj.markupId, videoId, overrides);}/* Video player isn’t autoplay, so init itif (shouldStartVideo && this.carouselClickAutostartsVideo) {try {videoPlayer.videoInstance.start();} catch (startError) {console.log(“error in initializing video player” + startError);}}*/}}}} catch (error) {console.log(“error in initializing video player” + error);}}function setInitialVideoEmbed() {}function initialize(){var carousel = jQuery(document.getElementById(‘cn-current_video_collection’)).find(‘.js-owl-carousel’),owl;if (carousel) {carousel.find(‘.cn__column.carousel__content__item’).find(‘a’).removeAttr(‘href’);jQuery(carousel).on(‘click’, ‘.cn__column.carousel__content__item’, onVideoCarouselItemClicked);}}if (CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(configObj.markupId) === ‘videoLoader’) {window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers = window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers ? window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers : [];window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers.push(initialize);window.CNNVideoAPILoadCompleteHandlers.push(setInitialVideoEmbed);} else {initialize();}CNN.INJECTOR.executeFeature(‘videx’).done(function () {var initMeta = {id:”us/2017/03/29/storm-chasers-crash-tornado-texas-ekr-orig-vstop.cnn”, isEmbeddable: “yes”};CNN.Videx.EmbedButton.updateCode(initMeta);}).fail(function () {throw ‘Unable to fetch the videx bundle.’;});function updateCurrentlyPlaying(videoId) {var videoCollectionId = ‘current_video_collection’,videocardContents = getCurrentVideoCardContents(videoId),carousel = jQuery(document.getElementById(‘cn-current_video_collection’)).find(‘.js-owl-carousel’),domain = CNN.Host.domain || (document.location.protocol + ‘//’ + document.location.hostname),owl,$owlFirstItem,$owlPrevItem,showDetailsSpanContent = ”,gigyaShareElement,showIndex,whatsappShareElement,$carouselContentItems = jQuery(‘.carousel__content__item’, document.getElementById(‘cn-current_video_collection’));gigyaShareElement = jQuery(‘div.js-gigya-sharebar’);if (typeof gigyaShareElement !== ‘undefined’) {jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-title’, videocardContents.headlinePlainText || ”);jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-description’, videocardContents.descriptionPlainText || ”);jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-link’, domain + videocardContents.url || ”);jQuery(gigyaShareElement).attr(‘data-image-src’, videocardContents.media.elementContents.imageUrl || ”);}whatsappShareElement = jQuery(‘div.share-bar-whatsapp-container’);if (typeof whatsappShareElement !== ‘undefined’) {jQuery(whatsappShareElement).attr(‘data-title’, videocardContents.headlinePlainText || ”);jQuery(whatsappShareElement).attr(‘data-storyurl’, domain + videocardContents.url || ”);}if (carousel && currentVideoCollectionContainsId(videoId)) {owl = carousel.data(‘owl.carousel’) || {};showIndex = getCurrentVideoIndex(videoId);if (typeof owl.to === ‘function’) {owl.to(showIndex);}$owlPrevItem = CNN.Utils.exists(owl.$element) ? owl.$element.find(‘.cd.cd–active’) : $carouselContentItems.find(‘.cd.cd–active’);$owlPrevItem.removeClass(‘cd–active’);$owlPrevItem.find(‘.media__over-text’).remove();$owlPrevItem.find(‘.media__icon’).show();$owlFirstItem = CNN.Utils.exists(owl._items) ? jQuery(owl._items[showIndex]) : $carouselContentItems.eq(showIndex);$owlFirstItem.find(‘.cd’).addClass(‘cd–active’);$owlFirstItem.find(‘.media a:first-child’).append(‘

Now Playing

‘);if (Modernizr && !Modernizr.phone) {$owlFirstItem.find(‘.media__icon’).hide();}}CNN.Videx.Metadata.init({dateCreated: videocardContents.dateCreated,descriptionText: videocardContents.descriptionText,duration: videocardContents.duration,sourceLink: videocardContents.sourceLink,sourceName: videocardContents.sourceName,title: videocardContents.headlineText},{videoCollectionDivId: ‘cn-a6t1r7’,videoDescriptionDivId: ‘js-video_description-a6t1r7’,videoDurationDivId: ‘js-video_duration-a6t1r7’,videoTitleDivId: ‘js-leaf-video_headline-a6t1r7’,videoSourceDivId: ‘js-video_sourceName-a6t1r7’});if (CNN.Utils.exists(videocardContents.showName)) {if (CNN.Utils.exists(videocardContents.showUrl)) {showDetailsSpanContent = ‘‘ + videocardContents.showName + ‘ | ‘;} else {showDetailsSpanContent = videocardContents.showName + ‘ | ‘;}}fastdom.measure(function getShowInfo() {var $show = jQuery(‘.metadata__show’),$isShowDetailsSpanExists = $show.find(‘span’).hasClass(‘metadata–show__name’),$showName = jQuery(‘.metadata–show__name’);fastdom.mutate(function updateShowInfo() {if (!$isShowDetailsSpanExists) {$show.prepend(‘

With House investigation in limbo, Senate intelligence leaders to begin Trump-Russia hearings Thursday

Story highlights

  • The Senate intelligence committee will host a public hearing on Russia’s meddling into US elections
  • Their hearing comes a week after the House committee had public infighting

“This one is one of the biggest investigations the Hill has seen in my time here,” Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said at a news conference with committee vice-chairman Mark Warner. Burr’s been in the Senate since 2005, and served in the House since 1995.

Burr and Warner say they have 20 witnesses they plan to interview and have scheduled interviews with five of them so far. The committee leaders said that they are happy that President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort have agreed to testify, but they have not yet decided when they will bring them in.

“To date, we have made 20 requests for individuals to be interviewed by the committee,” Burr said. “As we stand here today, five are already scheduled on the books, and probably within the next 10 days the remaining 15 will have a scheduled date for those individuals to be interviewed by our staff. We anticipate inviting additional individuals to come and be interviewed, and ultimately some of those interviewed individuals may turn into private or public hearings by the committee, but yet to be determined.”

Among those the committee appears to have talked to: Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned after he misled administration officials regarding his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

“It would be safe to say we have had conversations with a lot of people, and it would be safe to say Gen Flynn is a part of that list,” Burr said.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation has garnered increased intention as the House investigation has stalled along partisan lines related to its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, and his communication with the White House related to the incidental collection of President Donald Trump and his aides.

Democrats have called on Nunes to step down from his post, while most Republicans in the chamber say they support Nunes.

The panel will hold its first public hearing Thursday.