What caused deadly outbreak at these hospitals

UPMC informed the Allegheny County Health Department, Pennsylvania Department of Health, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that its independent testing led UPMC officials to believe the linens were the likely source of the outbreak, according to the emails.

The new emails reveal additional testing seeking to pinpoint the source of the outbreak.

An email sent May 5, 2016, by Jeff Miller, a field epidemiologist for the CDC, said that environmental samples were taken on February 21, 22 and April 21, 2016, at UPMC Presbyterian and Montefiore hospitals and Paris Co. laundry facilities. The testing was requested by UPMC and conducted by an independent contractor.

A whole genome sequencing report by an independent laboratory based on these specimens “[suggests] that fungi from Paris have been brought into the [Presbyterian University Hospital] laundry,” according to the report provided in the email.

“It is looking more likely than ever, that the linen vendor is the more likely potential source of mucor as you can see by the reports,” said an email sent by Allegheny County Health Department Chief Epidemiologist LuAnn Brink on June 21, 2016, in which she shared “notes from UPMC.” It is unknown who from UPMC sent Brink the notes. Mucor is a species of mucormycosis, which are fungal spores commonly found outdoors. However, they can cause a rare and sometimes fatal fungal infection in patients who are immunocompromised, according to the CDC.

A whole genome sequencing report compares environmental samples from which the DNA has been extracted and sequenced to show the fingerprint of the sample at a high resolution, according to Dr. Barun Mathema, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health who CNN contacted independently on Monday.

“Nobody is a 100% sure, if you read carefully, there will always be a bit of a wiggle room caveat,” said Mathema, who was not involved in testing the samples from Pittsburgh. In general, it is rare that epidemiological testing comes to an absolutely conclusive result because of variables that come into play when epidemiologists attempt to replicate the exact environment in which the case occurred.

Additional testing

This isn’t the first report to link the mold outbreak to hospital linens. In a separate, UPMC-contracted internal report, testing conducted on February 1, 2016 by hospital environmental specialists Andrew Streifel and Michael Buck found a heavy buildup of lint and mold near the Paris Co. linen facility vent through which unfiltered air dried the linens.

When Streifel and Buck went to the hospitals and tested linen from Paris Co., a cart of wet sheets delivered to the Montefiore laundry storage area bore “heavy fungal growth of Mucor and rhizopus,” according to their report, which was not made public until early 2017.

“Our hospitals are safe, and our ongoing monitoring and testing show no evidence of a mold outbreak. We and the nation’s top health regulators have found no definitive or unifying cause of the previous infections, which are known to occur on occasion at most major medical centers,” UPMC spokeswoman Allison Hydzik said in a statement to CNN when asked to respond to the contents of these emails.

UPMC “will address specific allegations in court and not in the media,” Hydzik said.

The Allegheny County Health Department provided CNN with the emails, which were incorrectly redacted to reveal more information than intended. The emails were provided in response to an open records request under the state’s Right to Know Law. The county records department withheld several other emails on the grounds of privacy for patients’ information.

“While we were made aware of all steps that UPMC was taking to identify potential sources, including looking at linens, there was no identification of the linens as the source of the outbreak. Similarly, as has already been stated by the department, ACHD was an observer in this process, not the regulatory agency looking into this,” Allegheny County Health Department spokeswoman Melissa Wade said in a statement to CNN when asked about the emails.

“Our products are safe. We have nothing to hide. We have followed and continue to follow protocols of the Healthcare Laundry Accreditation Council by providing hygienically clean linens to our customers,” Paris Co. CEO Dave Stern said in a statement to CNN when asked about the content of the emails.

CDC and state officials respond

In a phone interview this week, Sharon Watkins, director of the bureau of epidemiology for the Pennsylvania Department of Health said the mold investigation is continuing. At no time has the state or the CDC determined that linens were the most likely cause of the UPMC mold outbreak, she said.

“I don’t know why anyone would say that,” Watkins said, referring to the email that said “the linen vendor is the more likely potential source of mucor.”

UPMC is required to provide the Pennsylvania Department of Health with regular updates concerning the investigation, Pennsylvania Department of Health spokeswoman April Hutcheson said.

Since May 2016, the Pennsylvania health department has been “in constant consultation with the CDC on this issue, including epidemiological evaluation of new information, a site visit, and current review of system-wide UPMC data,” Hutcheson told CNN in a statement when asked about the emails.

“There is no evidence to indicate an ongoing outbreak at this time; however, the state health department is in the process of reviewing additional information as part of the ongoing investigation.”

The UPMC hospital system mold outbreak began in October 2014. By September 2015, four patients had died of fungal infections at UPMC Presbyterian and Montefiore hospitals. By that time, the transplant ICU at Presbyterian had temporarily closed.

In September 2015, while the Presbyterian transplant ICU was closed, the CDC investigated possible sources of the mold outbreak. The results of the investigation were published in the May 2016 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Investigators said that the fatal infections were not attributed to the mold-covered linens, but rather to ventilation that may have allowed dust and mold spores to enter the hospital rooms.

The CDC maintains that conclusion despite what the newly uncovered emails say, Skinner said. The CDC findings were not addressed in the recently released emails.

In May 2016, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf again requested the CDC consult with the state health department and UPMC because a fifth fungal infection recipient had been identified in the Presbyterian ICU, CDC spokesperson Tom Skinner told CNN when asked about the content of the emails. Wolf’s press secretary, J.J. Abbott, confirmed the request in an email to CNN.

That additional patient was Daniel Krieg, a kidney transplant patient who died in July 2016. UPMC medical reports show Krieg had fungal pneumonia and that fungal-infected sections of his left lung were removed. A CDC representative returned to UPMC on June 22, 2016, with officials from the state and county departments of health to discuss the outbreak and Krieg’s case, Skinner told CNN on Monday.

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

An agenda in the newly revealed emails said health officials were to discuss laundry processes at Presbyterian, Montefiore, and Shadyside hospitals at the June 22, 2016 CDC visit.

The day before that visit, an June 21, 2016, email sent by Brink also said that UPMC was working with the linen vendor to “improve their product.” The email also said the hospital system was “aggressively pursuing” an alternative linen solution for all transplant patients in the ICU at Presbyterian hospital.

UPMC said in a January 2016 statement that high-risk transplant patients would receive linens with a lower bacterial count going forward. Hospital linens are required to be “hygienically clean,” according to the Healthcare Laundry Accreditation Council. (PDF) That means linens are not sterile, but in a clean state, free of pathogens in sufficient numbers to minimize risk of infection, and the clean textiles are not inadvertently contaminated before use, according to the CDC.

“Despite the lack of a definitive source, UPMC still went above and beyond state and federal recommendations in order to implement changes to protect our patients. One of the many changes includes the provision of specially treated bioburden-reduced linens to our highest risk transplant patients,” UPMC spokeswoman Hydzik told CNN previously.

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 NC Senate

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.

Dishonesty all around on Gorsuch

In an op-ed for The Arizona Republic, Sen. Jeff Flake declared, “Even President Obama’s two Supreme Court nominees were recognized for their ability to do the job and confirmed without incident.” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas quoted The Wall Street Journal when he tweeted, “Never in U.S. history have we had a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Democrats of using “obstructionist tactics” to thwart the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Their hypocrisy is palpable.

In referencing President Barack Obama’s “two” Supreme Court nominees, Flake is conveniently forgetting to tell his readers that Obama made three nominations to the Supreme Court, not two: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, whom the Senate confirmed, and Judge Merrick Garland, whom Senate Republicans refused to consider even though Obama had almost a year left in his term.

Cornyn surely knows that Senate Republicans effectively engaged in a partisan filibuster of Garland’s nomination by refusing even to hold hearings.

And McConnell must recognize that he himself led “obstructionist tactics” to prevent Garland, as Obama’s nominee, from joining the court.

Regardless of the “alternative facts” the Republicans are peddling, we should all understand the GOP’s tactics last year in opposing Garland for what they were: a blatant power grab that ultimately worked.

For their part, Democratic senators who are opposing Gorsuch are not immune from this affliction. There is no principled reason to oppose Gorsuch beyond politics. On any objective measure he is qualified for the job. If Justice Antonin Scalia had passed away this past February, after President Donald Trump took office, then there would be little justification for Democrats to filibuster Gorsuch’s nomination. The Republicans’ brazen action last year on Obama’s nominee clouds the current debate.
Both sides should acknowledge what is really going on: Republicans refused to consider Garland for purely political reasons; Democrats are going to filibuster Gorsuch for similarly partisan justifications.
This state of affairs shows that the Supreme Court confirmation process is broken. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself recognized, some Republican senators who voted to confirm her in 1993 “today wouldn’t touch me with a 10-foot pole.” The Senate voted to confirm Ginsburg by a 96-3 vote. That kind of bipartisanship on Supreme Court nominees is unfathomable today.

What can we do to fix the problem? For one, senators on both sides need to start telling the truth about their real motivations. Republicans should not hide behind a false claim that the Senate treated Obama’s nominees fairly.

Democrats should acknowledge that their filibuster of Gorsuch is directly related to the Republicans’ failure to consider Garland. Actually telling the truth — which should not be so unfathomable — will help voters discern whether to trust the current incumbents come the next election. Senators’ actions should have consequences, but it is difficult for average Americans to evaluate their senator’s activities without honest and accurate information.

In addition, Senate Republicans and the Trump White House should offer Democrats an olive branch. Perhaps it is an agreement to consider only names from a pre-approved list that the Democrats provide for the next vacancy. Maybe Republicans would agree to give Garland a vote if a liberal such as Ginsburg steps down. Or perhaps there is something else that would cause both sides to stand down.

And both because they are in the majority and because they were at fault last year by being so political with the Garland nomination to the Supreme Court, Republicans should be the first actors in a ceasefire. Although the confirmation process was already breaking down somewhat before last year, McConnell pushed it over the edge by refusing to consider Obama’s choice with almost a full year left in the presidential term.

Good leaders know how to compromise for the good of the country. McConnell should show his leadership skills. Both sides are obscuring their real motives for their partisan actions. Neither side’s spin is good for the country.

To get that message across to the Senate, let’s tell our representatives they must acknowledge what they are really doing and force them to account for their political power grabs. It would be the first step in fixing a truly broken process.

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.

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

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.

David Wildstein, left, and Gov. Chris Christie were longtime political allies.

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.

American climate refugees: Tragedy of a village built on ice

Their bodies are buried in the cemetery, I’m sure of it. I’ve seen the obituaries.

But neither man is dead.

No one in Shishmaref dies, I’m told — not really.

It’s about 9 a.m. as I trudge through the snow, past the cemetery and to a neighboring house. The sky is frozen in pre-dawn twilight. The sun won’t rise for hours.

An elder answers the door and welcomes me into a living room that smells of sourdough and coffee. On the shelves, above a big-screen TV: dozens of figurines carved from walrus ivory, a tradition in this 560-person Inupiat village. How meta, I think. Walrus ivory carved back into the shape of a walrus, as if the animal were reincarnated from its own tusks.

Even walruses have a second life here, apparently.

The man offers me a seat and a coffee mug.

I’m here to ask him about Esau.

Yes, one of the men in the cemetery.

But also the 19-year-old born with the same name — the hoodie-wearing kid with the faint mustache. The one, among many, who’s trying to imagine another future for this village.

A future away from this island.

The blue house

Shelton and Clara Kokeok live in a blue house at the edge of the village.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok live in a blue house at the edge of the village.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok live in a blue house at the edge of the village.

Everyone knows Shishmaref isn’t expected to last long.

Residents of this barrier island, located just south of the Arctic Circle, some 600 miles from Anchorage and only 100 miles from Russia, have been saying so for years.

To understand it, visit the tiny blue house at the edge of the land.

It’s the edge of the Earth, really. And it’s also the house where Norman grew up.

Norman, the second man in the cemetery.

Inside, an old woman sits in a wheelchair and an old man peers through the kitchen window at the Chukchi Sea. A cassette-radio buzzes with headlines from God-knows-where, but the man, Norman’s father, isn’t listening. Shelton Kokeok, a 72-year-old with palm-sized ears and a face that tragedy has worn into a grouper’s frown, is focused on the ocean. He scans it in a state of unease; creases etch his forehead. Shelton, who once was a light-hearted man, and whose kind eyes and infectious smile still hint at happier times, will be nervous until the water is frozen cement-hard. Today, in mid-December, it is the texture of a snow cone.

“It’s not really solid yet,” he tells me, forlorn. “Young ice, fresh ice, you know?”

These aren’t bored-old-man concerns.

The ice is disappearing.

And then there’s what happened to his son, Norman.

First, the ice.

Here, and across the Arctic, sea ice is forming later and thawing earlier.

That ice protects Shishmaref’s coast from erosion. Without it, punishing storms grab hunks of the land and pull it out to sea, shrinking and destabilizing the island.

Look at where the coast was in 2004 — and where it’s expected to be in 2053.

Shelton’s blue house is right on the edge of the receding coastline.

He worries it could fall in.

That happened to one of his neighbors.

A house fell off the edge of the land in 2006. The Kokeok home is shown in the background.

A house fell off the edge of the land in 2006. The Kokeok home is shown in the background.

A house fell off the edge of the land in 2006. The Kokeok home is shown in the background.

As the world warms — thanks largely to the 1,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide we humans are pumping into the atmosphere each second — the ice is disappearing. The planet has warmed about 1 degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution, when people started burning fossil fuels for heat and electricity, creating a blanket of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. But scientists say the Arctic, the far-north, is warming twice as fast as the rest of Earth.

“I miss that cold, cold weather,” says Hazel Fernandez. I meet her in a community hall; she’d rather be fishing on the ice but says it’s still too thin. “It’s too weird. It’s too warm.”

Outside, thermometers show temperatures in the mid-20s Fahrenheit, or about minus 4 Celsius. That’s freakishly warm for December, everyone tells me. I’m wearing two coats and ski pants, and residents of Shishmaref seem to find that hilarious. This isn’t cold, they say. Their sealskin hats and mittens, the fur-lined hooded parkas — those mostly stay at home.

Fernandez, in her early 60s, fondly remembers temperatures of 30- and 40-below Fahrenheit.

But mean air surface temperatures increased more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Arctic region between 1960 and 2011, according to the US National Snow & Ice Data Center. Arctic sea ice, measured since 1979, was at a monthly record low in January. And the September sea ice minimum is decreasing at a rate of 13.3% per decade.

The scientific consensus is that human pollution is driving these changes.

But it’s not the science or the charts that matter most to Shelton.

It’s not his blue house, either, perched precariously on the edge.

It’s his son, Norman.

It’s that day: June 2, 2007.

The day Norman fell through the ice and died.

Esau

The stories about Esau are easy to unearth.

Like people here, they never truly die.

“What was Esau like?” I ask the elder whose home is next to the white crosses and the cemetery, in the heart of this village of wooden homes and metal-sided buildings, a place where the winter landscape is an infinity of white, where there’s no running water or sewage service, where a shower costs $3.50 at the holiday rate, a 12-pack of Sprite $12.75. Most people prefer to live off the land, hunting seal, walrus and ptarmigan and fishing tomcod as their ancestors did.

The elder replies in a tone that is airy and patient, a voice measured through time.

Esau Weyiouanna was something of a renegade in Shishmaref, he tells me. He was an individual in a place that prides itself on community — an opinionated, outspoken man in a village where many would prefer to blend with the environment. In a photo that hangs on a friend’s wall today, Esau wears purple-and-green plaid and Napoleon-Dynamite bifocals, a knowing, understanding smile on his lips. His eyebrows are angled and inquisitive, like an owl’s.

The local church in Shishmaref, Alaska.

The local church in Shishmaref, Alaska.

The local church in Shishmaref, Alaska.

Allow the elder to share one story.

Decades ago, the Christian church decided to ban some of the village’s Inupiat traditions, which had been passed from one generation to the next for centuries, if not longer. The church believed some of these traditions defied the will of God and were incompatible with its teachings. Dancing, in particular, was banned. Children of Shishmaref no longer could gather with drums made of stretched walrus stomach to move their bodies in the same artful patterns their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents always had, the elder tells me.

Esau was the rare man who could see both sides of this dispute, the kind of man who straddled worlds both modern and ancient. He served on the church board, the elder says. But he also loved the Inupiat cultural traditions — particularly the dance. So he took a stand. Esau danced boldly and in public, the elder tells me, to remind the community of the value of culture.

Today, the elder says, children are taught this dance in the local school.

This portal to the past remains open because of Esau.

Renegade, reborn

Decades later, and nearing death, Esau tried to ensure his story would continue.

He walked up to a pregnant woman and touched her stomach.

How am I doing in there? he asked.

It was a startling question, but up here in a world of ice, where no one really dies, or not for long, the meaning was clear to the mother. She knew Esau’s body soon would be laid to rest in the cemetery, and that he would be reincarnated as the child still growing inside her.

Esau Weyiouanna was declared dead on October 29, 1997.

On November 16, the woman’s child was born.

The family, following tradition, named him Esau.

Esau Sinnok.

A village renegade, reborn.

Norman

Shelton and Clara Kokeok, with a photo of their deceased son, Norman, who fell through the ice in 2007.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok, with a photo of their deceased son, Norman, who fell through the ice in 2007.

Shelton and Clara Kokeok, with a photo of their deceased son, Norman, who fell through the ice in 2007.

Elders say the ice should have been safe that day in 2007.

Norman had been on a hunting trip and was heading back into town in the early morning of late spring, when lower latitudes would still be shrouded in darkness but when this village sees nearly eternal sunshine, the tilt of the Earth making it possible to hunt through the night.

Village elders and family members tell me he was crossing a narrow part of the lagoon that separates Shishmaref and its barrier island from mainland Alaska. It may sound strange to drive a snowmobile across ice-covered water in June. But elders tell me the ice should have been frozen solid that time of year — that there was no indication Norman would be in danger.

Now, everyone is less trusting.

Some haven’t gone hunting on the ice since.

Norman’s death was particularly hard on his father, Shelton, who keeps a photo of the young man, wearing a buzz cut and Reno-911 mustache, on his coffee table, facing the door for all to see. Norman was a second-chance child, one he taught to hunt seal and follow traditions Inupiat people had followed here for at least four centuries, if not many more. Yet, from birth, the boy had an air of tragedy about him, even if no one in the family dared say so aloud.

It was in the name: Norman.

Norman was named after Shelton’s brother, who died in a plane crash.

The tragedy brought Shelton together with Clara, who was married to his brother.

In the wake of the accident, the two mourners decided to marry. Love was at the heart of it, to be sure, but Shelton also felt a sense of duty — duty to occupy the loving, supportive station his brother had left vacant in Clara’s life.

When one man leaves, another stands in his place.

‘Like an old soul’

Esau Sinnok, 19, was adopted by his aunt, Bessi Sinnok.

Esau Sinnok, 19, was adopted by his aunt, Bessi Sinnok.

Esau Sinnok, 19, was adopted by his aunt, Bessi Sinnok.

The boy always seemed to possess knowledge from another life.

As a toddler, Esau Sinnok spouted off phrases in Inupiaq, the local language, even though no one had taught him to do so. Then, as a young boy, Esau was traveling with his birth mother across the empty landscape that surrounds Shishmaref. “That’s where I used to camp,” he told her. It was the very spot where his namesake, Esau Weyiouanna, used to stay.

It was as if the renegade elder were speaking through the boy.

A voice carried on the wind from one generation to the next.

People in the village treat it this way.

For many, it’s not just that young Esau reminds them of his namesake. It’s that Esau is the namesake elder, returned from the grave and walking among them. They sometimes call him “father” or “brother” or “cousin,” referencing their relationships with the elder who passed away.

Esau inherited the elder’s respected status, too. “He’s like an old soul,” says his adoptive mother, Bessi Sinnok. “He’s very outspoken, like his namesake. His namesake was very respected by lots of people and because of that he had already earned respect as he was growing up.”

Teenage Esau never knew this when he was young. Bessi Sinnok told me the village hid the history from him. She wanted her son to form his own identity.

Yet she watched as the elder’s personality seemed to emerge from the boy. Esau, who was nearly mute as a child, they say, bookish and reserved, grew to be an outspoken and free-thinking young man, much like the elder Esau — and much to the surprise of his family.

Two events helped encourage the shift.

One was a storm in 2006.

Esau remembers the waves crashing over his grandparent’s roof.

The small blue house at the edge of the land once seemed like it might stand forever.

After the storm, he tells me, “We thought the house would collapse.”

The other was the death of his uncle, Norman, the man who feel through the ice.

Esau was only 9.

“It really hurts,” Esau tells me. He’s now a 19-year-old college student with heavy eyes and mussy hair. “It really made me cry and wonder why he left so early. And there’s not a day that goes by that I do not think of him. He’s always on my mind. He’s always in my heart.”

‘Climate change is happening real fast’

Local meats, including seal, hang from drying racks in the village. Seal oil, made from blubber, is a staple.

Local meats, including seal, hang from drying racks in the village. Seal oil, made from blubber, is a staple.

Local meats, including seal, hang from drying racks in the village. Seal oil, made from blubber, is a staple.

A few years after Norman’s death, Esau moved into Shelton and Clara Kokeok’s blue house at the edge of the Earth. Esau tells me he wanted to help his grandparents with chores his uncle might have performed, which would have included things like getting ice for drinking water from the lake, washing clothes in the local “Washateria” and emptying the “honey bucket” toilet.

Shelton remembers telling his grandson how much the village had changed over the years, how the weather wasn’t cold like it used to be, how these storms seemed bigger now, how much of the land, including the neighbor’s house, had already disappeared — and how he might be next.

“When I built this house, there was still more ground out there,” Shelton says. “We’re right on the edge of the beach now … Climate change is happening real fast.”

But none of this made sense to Esau — not really — until his senior year of high school.

That’s when he took Ken Stenek’s science class.

Stenek, an affable, big-smiling guy with a wiry beard and a kettlebell figure, told the students about the greenhouse effect — how pollution, mostly from fossil fuels, hangs around in the atmosphere and acts like a blanket, heating the planet. They watched “An Inconvenient Truth,” the high-profile documentary featuring former Vice President Al Gore and a graph often called the “hockey stick.” That now-famous chart shows that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere haven’t been this high in hundreds of thousands of years.

Esau learned that a consensus of climate scientists — at least 97% — agree humans are causing rapid warming, and that continuing to pollute at current rates would be catastrophic, contributing to mass extinction, searing droughts, deadlier heat waves and more.

They also talked about the consequences for Shishmaref.

The “erosion” everyone in town was discussing?

That was related to the melting sea ice, the thawing of permafrost, the frequency of damaging storms. In short: By burning fossil fuels, people were helping destroy this village.

If you’d asked him the year before what he wanted to do with his professional life, Esau would have told you he wanted to be a petroleum engineer, like his brother. Good money, he’d say, unaware that extracting and burning fossil fuels like oil is contributing to the problem.

Now, however, Esau was learning the science.

He thought about his grandfather’s house.

His uncle’s death.

He believes that climate change had a hand in both.

‘Imminent’ threats

This education took him all the way to Paris.

Through Ken Stenek’s science class, Esau met researchers who were studying climate change and its consequences. And through those connections he became an Arctic Youth Ambassador, which is a program of two federal agencies and Alaska Geographic, a nonprofit. He learned that Shishmaref is not alone — that 31 villages in Alaska face “imminent” threats from erosion and other issues related to climate change, according to a Government Accountability Office report; and that 12 of them were exploring relocation options because of warming.

Esau started to wonder: Could Shishmaref actually survive the melting of the Arctic?

Was his village’s life nearing its end?

Or the start of a new beginning?

Those questions never occurred to Esau before, although they had been on the lips of older people in Shishmaref for years. They’re questions kept from young people, hoping to protect them, wanting them to grow up with a sense that the world is more certain than it is.

The Obama White House named Esau a Champion of Change for Climate Equity. He got to go to Washington. Then, he said, with help from the Sierra Club, an environmental group, he got to attend international climate change negotiations in Paris in December 2015. It was that meeting — which is often called “COP21,” since that’s simpler than “the 21st meeting of the conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change” — where world leaders agreed, after decades of failure, to work together to end the fossil fuel era.

The target: Limit global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Basically, that means eliminating fossil fuels this century.

In Paris, hope filled the air — hope for a cleaner, safer future.

Esau, meanwhile, arrived in the French capital terrified.

It was just so different from Shishmaref.

“It felt a little claustrophobic to me, being in a big city for the first time,” he says. “It felt like I just can’t take a walk or go outside and walk without thinking of being threatened or beat up. When you walk around here, you don’t feel that. Everyone here is family. You get a sense of trust.” He was so afraid of Paris — its clustered buildings, sidewalks thick with people, streets clogged with smoking cars — that he did not dare leave the hotel without an escort.

The scale of the place got to him in other ways, too.

How much pollution are all these people creating?

How do you get all of them to change?

In a word: overwhelming.

Yet amid this chaos, Esau made another leap of understanding.

‘Before it completely erodes away’

Percy Nayokpuk owns one of two stores in town. "Climate change is happening," he says.

Percy Nayokpuk owns one of two stores in town. "Climate change is happening," he says.

Percy Nayokpuk owns one of two stores in town. “Climate change is happening,” he says.

Rae Bainteiti comes from Kiribati, a tropical island nation that could not be more geographically dissimilar from Shishmaref. Sun and sand vs. ice and snow. The two places are thousands of miles apart, separated by the vast Pacific Ocean and a half-world of latitude, with Shishmaref near the Arctic Circle and Kiribati near the equator. Yet when an interviewer sat Rae down with Esau in Paris, the two young men discussed the perils of a common threat.

Both may have to relocate because of climate change.

“My future generation of kids will be the last ones that will actually be on the island of Shishmaref before it completely erodes away,” Esau tells Rae in the Paris interview, which is posted on YouTube.

He looks directly at the other young man.

“It’s just really sad knowing that you probably have to relocate and migrate, too,” Esau says.

“Your country has to be stopped from melting so we don’t see water rising,” Rae replies.

The two share a laugh at the irony of the situation: As Arctic ice melts and oceans warm, sea levels around the world are rising. A host of locations, from Pacific islands like Kiribati to low-lying countries like Bangladesh and cities from New York to Shanghai will be threatened with coastal flooding — and possibly relocation, too — as people continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Already, Miami Beach, Florida, is installing pumps and raising street levels to try to hold the water back. That work is only the beginning of a $400-million-plus project. In 2016, the community of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, got a $48 million federal grant to relocate, in part because of rising seas. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Most local governments don’t have the money for infrastructure to hold rising tides back.

Experts say there are no programs — in the United States or internationally — designed specifically to plan and fund climate-driven relocations. Only a few moves have been funded with money designated for climate adaptation projects, said Elizabeth Ferris, research professor at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration.

“Governments are reluctant to think about planned relocations because everyone wants to stay where they are,” she told me. But “if it isn’t planned well, it just doesn’t work. It leaves people much worse off.”

“There’s no federal or state law — no institution in the United States — with a mandate for how are we going to manage relocation internally,” said Alice Thomas, the climate displacement program manager at Refugees International, a non-profit group. “It’s going to be enormously expensive. It’s going to be very vulnerable people … people who aren’t going to be able to cut their losses on their home when they can’t get flood insurance. Where will they go?”

In Shishmaref, the answer remains unclear.

Relocation

Local officials in Shishmaref discuss the possibility of climate relocation. They do not have the money to move.

Local officials in Shishmaref discuss the possibility of climate relocation. They do not have the money to move.

Local officials in Shishmaref discuss the possibility of climate relocation. They do not have the money to move.

August 2016.

Globally, it tied for the hottest month of the hottest year on record. In Shishmaref, residents went to the polls to decide whether they would relocate because of warming.

The answer: Yes, by a margin of 89 to 78, according to local officials.

But the August 16 vote did not solve Shishmaref’s trouble. Far from it.

Annie Weyiouanna, local coordinator for the Native Village of Shishmaref, tells me the tribe has no money to fund the move. And this isn’t the first time the village has held a relocation vote. They did so in 2002, as well. Nothing changed. No one in the village today is packing. And Weyiouanna has tried to stop using the word “relocation” — or uses it minimally, sometimes correcting herself — because she worries it will signal to funding agencies in the state and federal governments that the village will be gone soon and doesn’t need help with grants or infrastructure. The reality is that no one knows how long the village will be stuck.

Perhaps forever, some worry, or until the island is gone.

“They are not safe right now, and their lives are in danger because of the storms that are coming in,” said Robin Bronen, executive director of the Alaska Institute for Justice and a senior research scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. She was referring to Shishmaref as well as Newtok and Kivalina, Alaska, which face similar circumstances. “(T)hey just need a large sum of money to get them to the places that they’ve chosen so they can be safe.”

Shishmaref has identified two potential sites for a new version of the community. Both are inland, meaning hunters and fishers would not be able to access the sea as easily. Some people in the community — particularly elders — believe the move threatens the tribe’s Inupiat identity.

Away from the coast, are they still the same people?

Why should they move when others are driving climate change?

Esau has wrestled with these questions, too. His grandparents, Shelton and Clara, the couple in the blue house at the edge of the Earth, who lost their son to the ice, do not want to leave. They want to stay in their home — in the community they know so well — no matter the risks.

Esau worries about them.

“If you ask the older generations like my grandfather, their views are totally different,” he tells me. “They want to stay on this island forever and ever. And I respect that decision. They’re my elders.

“But, to me, I think we have to relocate so that our future generations can still be alive.”

Norman, age 7

In the winter, the skies in Shishmaref appear to be frozen in twilight.

In the winter, the skies in Shishmaref appear to be frozen in twilight.

In the winter, the skies in Shishmaref appear to be frozen in twilight.

On my last day in Shishmaref, Esau and I paid his old science teacher a visit.

We found Ken Stenek in a cream-colored house with Christmas lights on the roofline. He lives on a part of the island where houses are newer. Some were moved from the side where Esau’s grandparents live, and where coastal erosion is more threatening.

Standing in his home, I couldn’t help but think about the cemetery.

About the two men — Esau and Norman — who are buried there.

Two young people, bearing those names, were standing in the room with me.

There was Esau Sinnok, standing in the entryway, of course.

But also Norman, sitting on the sofa in the living room.

Norman Stenek, age 7.

The boy was named after Esau’s uncle, the one who fell through the ice.

When I visited, young Norman seemed more interested in a tablet computer than a conversation with a random reporter, and I can’t blame him for that. Still, the encounter sticks with me.

It made me wonder: What will his life be like?

His name — Norman — carries a tragic legacy. The death in the plane crash. The fall through the ice. Will this 7-year-old live to see the rest of the village drown beneath the waves, too?

Will the same happen to millions of coastal residents during his lifetime?

And what about Esau?

Sometimes I think the weight of this tragedy falls on his young shoulders. His namesake was a local agitator and his uncle’s death drove him into activism. The strength of his voice — his power to command attention — has surprised a village where few care to stand out from the crowd. He speaks out against fossil fuels, saying that the world must rush to a future with 100% renewable, clean energy. It may be too late for Shishmaref, he says, but what about other communities in similar straits? How many people will pollution force from their homes?

“I don’t blame it on one person, or a group of people. It’s all our fault,” Esau tells me. “It’s not the 1940s anymore. We can’t use fossil fuels anymore to heat our homes and use for our energy.

“We can transition from dirty fossil fuels to renewable energies.”

But how much weight can a 19-year-old bear?

The rest of us must realize our role in this tragedy.

Responsibility for Shishmaref’s plight falls on those in the industrialized world who continue to pollute the atmosphere with carbon, knowing it will warm the climate, melt the ice and make it less likely Shishmaref will survive. It falls on the Trump administration, which has moved to defund and upend climate change initiatives instead of planning for a transition to cleaner power sources, like wind and solar. It falls on politicians who know the scope of the impending climate relocation crisis but have done little to make adequate plans or secure appropriate funding.

Shishmaref is part of America, even if it’s rarely treated that way.

It is a place where people never really die, where the cemetery on that hilltop in the center of the island is full of people like Norman and Esau who are kept alive by names and stories. The question now is whether villages, like people, can be reincarnated.

Can Shishmaref be reborn?

Sadly, it’s a question the village cannot answer on its own.

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.

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.

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