1UA TV

The U.S. has no intention of allowing Russia to question Michael McFaul, Washington’s former ambassador to Moscow and a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told VOA on Thursday.

“It’s not going to happen,” the top U.S. diplomat said in an interview at the State Department.

Pompeo said Putin “made a proposal about a number of things during the course of the conversation” he had Monday at his Helsinki summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.

“There were suggestions, comments, thoughts by President Putin with respect to that inquiry,” Pompeo told VOA. “President Trump was very clear – we’re not gonna force Americans to go to Russia to be interrogated by the Russians.”

The Russian leader proposed to let U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators fly to Moscow to interview 12 military intelligence officials indicted in connection with hacking into computers of Democrats working to defeat Trump in the 2016 election in exchange for Russian interviews of McFaul; an American-born British businessman, Bill Browder, who worked to get legislation passed in the U.S. and elsewhere to sanction Russia for human rights violations, and other Americans.

Browder was convicted in absentia for tax fraud in Russia and Putin claimed, without any evidence, that Browder laundered $400 million out of Russia and gave it to Trump’s 2016 opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. No such political donation occurred.

McFaul, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 2012 to 2014 during the administration of former President Barack Obama, said on Twitter, “I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy U.S. indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented by Putin.”

On Wednesday, there was a high-level disconnect within the Trump administration over a possible Russian interview with McFaul.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert called the unspecified Russian crimes against the Americans “absurd,” suggesting that no questioning would be permitted. But White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the idea of each country’s investigators questioning people it wanted to in the United States and Russia was being weighed.

“The president’s going to meet with his team, and we’ll let you know when we have an announcement on that,” Sanders said, adding that no one had made any commitment to accept Putin’s offer.

By Thursday, Sanders said, “It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it. Hopefully President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to the United States to prove their innocence or guilt.”

Russia and the U.S. do not have an extradition treaty and the 12 accused intelligence officials are not expected to be turned over to the U.S. for trial.

The reason for the confusion about questioning officials from the two countries came because Trump said Putin had made “an incredible offer” to him.

During Thursday’s interview with VOA, Secretary of State Pompeo sought to clarify the U.S. stance on the issue, repeating such questioning would not be permitted.

“There’s been a lot of noise about that, I don’t know why,” Pompeo said. “Just the American people should rest assured.”

Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report

 
…

The U.S. has no intention of allowing Russia to question Michael McFaul, Washington’s former ambassador to Moscow and a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told VOA on Thursday.

“It’s not going to happen,” the top U.S. diplomat said in an interview at the State Department.

Pompeo said Putin “made a proposal about a number of things during the course of the conversation” he had Monday at his Helsinki summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.

“There were suggestions, comments, thoughts by President Putin with respect to that inquiry,” Pompeo told VOA. “President Trump was very clear – we’re not gonna force Americans to go to Russia to be interrogated by the Russians.”

The Russian leader proposed to let U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators fly to Moscow to interview 12 military intelligence officials indicted in connection with hacking into computers of Democrats working to defeat Trump in the 2016 election in exchange for Russian interviews of McFaul; an American-born British businessman, Bill Browder, who worked to get legislation passed in the U.S. and elsewhere to sanction Russia for human rights violations, and other Americans.

Browder was convicted in absentia for tax fraud in Russia and Putin claimed, without any evidence, that Browder laundered $400 million out of Russia and gave it to Trump’s 2016 opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. No such political donation occurred.

McFaul, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Moscow from 2012 to 2014 during the administration of former President Barack Obama, said on Twitter, “I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy U.S. indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented by Putin.”

On Wednesday, there was a high-level disconnect within the Trump administration over a possible Russian interview with McFaul.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert called the unspecified Russian crimes against the Americans “absurd,” suggesting that no questioning would be permitted. But White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the idea of each country’s investigators questioning people it wanted to in the United States and Russia was being weighed.

“The president’s going to meet with his team, and we’ll let you know when we have an announcement on that,” Sanders said, adding that no one had made any commitment to accept Putin’s offer.

By Thursday, Sanders said, “It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it. Hopefully President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to the United States to prove their innocence or guilt.”

Russia and the U.S. do not have an extradition treaty and the 12 accused intelligence officials are not expected to be turned over to the U.S. for trial.

The reason for the confusion about questioning officials from the two countries came because Trump said Putin had made “an incredible offer” to him.

During Thursday’s interview with VOA, Secretary of State Pompeo sought to clarify the U.S. stance on the issue, repeating such questioning would not be permitted.

“There’s been a lot of noise about that, I don’t know why,” Pompeo said. “Just the American people should rest assured.”

Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report

 
…

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Thursday it was “too early” to say if the United States would impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on imported cars and parts, a suggestion that has been met with harsh criticism from the industry.

The department opened an investigation in May into whether imported autos and parts pose a national security risk and was holding a hearing on the probe Thursday, taking testimony from auto trade groups, foreign governments and others.

Ross’ remarks came at the start of the public hearing, which he said was aimed at determining “whether government action is required to assure the viability of U.S. domestic production.”

A group representing major automakers told Commerce on Thursday that imposing tariffs of 25 percent on imported cars and parts would raise the price of U.S. vehicles by $83 billion annually and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Automakers say there is “no evidence” that auto imports pose a national security risk, and that the tariffs could actually harm U.S. economic security.

They are also facing higher prices after tariffs were imposed on aluminum and steel.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, whose members include General Motors Co, Volkswagen AG and Toyota Motor Corp, warned on the impact of the tariffs.

“Higher auto tariffs will harm American families and workers, along with the economy” and “would raise the price of an imported car nearly $6,000 and the price of a U.S.-built car $2,000,” said Jennifer Thomas, a vice president for the group.

She noted that the U.S. exports more than $100 billion of autos and parts annually to other countries, while “there is a long list of products that are largely no longer made in the U.S., including TVs, laptops, cellphones, baseballs, and commercial ships.”

No automaker or parts company has endorsed the tariffs, and they have pointed to near-record sales in recent years.

Warnings

Jennifer Kelly, the United Auto Workers union research director, noted that U.S. auto production has fallen from 12.8 million vehicles in 2000 to 11.2 million in 2017 as the sector has shed about 400,000 jobs over that period, with many jobs moving to Mexico or other low-wage countries.

“We caution that any rash actions could have unforeseen consequences, including mass layoffs for American workers, but that does not mean we should do nothing,” she said, suggesting “targeted measures.”

Many firms that sell vintage vehicles also warned that the tariffs could devastate the industry because many older cars need parts that are only made outside the United States. Polaris Industries Inc warned that off-road vehicles could also be inadvertently covered by the tariffs.

A study released by a U.S. auto dealer group warned that the tariffs could cut U.S. auto sales by 2 million vehicles annually and cost more than 117,000 auto dealer jobs, or about 10 percent of the workforce.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested he would move quickly to impose tariffs, even before the government launched its probe.

‘Tremendous retribution’

“We said if we don’t negotiate something fair, then we have tremendous retribution, which we don’t want to use, but we have tremendous powers,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have to — including cars. Cars is the big one. And you know what we’re talking about with respect to cars and tariffs on cars.”

The European Union, Japan, Canada and Mexico, along with many automotive trade groups, are among 45 witnesses scheduled to testify during the daylong hearing.

The Commerce Department said earlier this week it aimed to complete the investigation “within a couple months.”
…

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Thursday it was “too early” to say if the United States would impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on imported cars and parts, a suggestion that has been met with harsh criticism from the industry.

The department opened an investigation in May into whether imported autos and parts pose a national security risk and was holding a hearing on the probe Thursday, taking testimony from auto trade groups, foreign governments and others.

Ross’ remarks came at the start of the public hearing, which he said was aimed at determining “whether government action is required to assure the viability of U.S. domestic production.”

A group representing major automakers told Commerce on Thursday that imposing tariffs of 25 percent on imported cars and parts would raise the price of U.S. vehicles by $83 billion annually and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Automakers say there is “no evidence” that auto imports pose a national security risk, and that the tariffs could actually harm U.S. economic security.

They are also facing higher prices after tariffs were imposed on aluminum and steel.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, whose members include General Motors Co, Volkswagen AG and Toyota Motor Corp, warned on the impact of the tariffs.

“Higher auto tariffs will harm American families and workers, along with the economy” and “would raise the price of an imported car nearly $6,000 and the price of a U.S.-built car $2,000,” said Jennifer Thomas, a vice president for the group.

She noted that the U.S. exports more than $100 billion of autos and parts annually to other countries, while “there is a long list of products that are largely no longer made in the U.S., including TVs, laptops, cellphones, baseballs, and commercial ships.”

No automaker or parts company has endorsed the tariffs, and they have pointed to near-record sales in recent years.

Warnings

Jennifer Kelly, the United Auto Workers union research director, noted that U.S. auto production has fallen from 12.8 million vehicles in 2000 to 11.2 million in 2017 as the sector has shed about 400,000 jobs over that period, with many jobs moving to Mexico or other low-wage countries.

“We caution that any rash actions could have unforeseen consequences, including mass layoffs for American workers, but that does not mean we should do nothing,” she said, suggesting “targeted measures.”

Many firms that sell vintage vehicles also warned that the tariffs could devastate the industry because many older cars need parts that are only made outside the United States. Polaris Industries Inc warned that off-road vehicles could also be inadvertently covered by the tariffs.

A study released by a U.S. auto dealer group warned that the tariffs could cut U.S. auto sales by 2 million vehicles annually and cost more than 117,000 auto dealer jobs, or about 10 percent of the workforce.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested he would move quickly to impose tariffs, even before the government launched its probe.

‘Tremendous retribution’

“We said if we don’t negotiate something fair, then we have tremendous retribution, which we don’t want to use, but we have tremendous powers,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have to — including cars. Cars is the big one. And you know what we’re talking about with respect to cars and tariffs on cars.”

The European Union, Japan, Canada and Mexico, along with many automotive trade groups, are among 45 witnesses scheduled to testify during the daylong hearing.

The Commerce Department said earlier this week it aimed to complete the investigation “within a couple months.”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday that he was not pleased about the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to increase interest rates.

“I’m not thrilled,” Trump said in a CNBC interview that aired Friday. His remarks followed two interest rate hikes this year and Fed suggestions of two more increases before the end of the year.

“Because we go up and every time you go up, they want to raise rates again. I don’t really — I am not happy about it,” he said. “But at the same time, I’m letting them do what they feel is best.”

Presidents rarely intervene in developments involving the Fed, which sets the benchmark interest rate. Higher interest rates make it more expensive to borrow money, which slows economic activity. The rate hikes are intended to keep inflation from damaging the economy. Earlier, during a severe recession, the Fed slashed interest rates nearly to zero in a bid to boost economic growth.

Trump expressed frustration in the interview that the central bank’s actions could disrupt U.S. economic expansion.

Trump sought to give the economy a boost when he signed into law a major tax cut late last year. The law cut the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and lowered taxes on individual incomes as well.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday that he was not pleased about the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to increase interest rates.

“I’m not thrilled,” Trump said in a CNBC interview that aired Friday. His remarks followed two interest rate hikes this year and Fed suggestions of two more increases before the end of the year.

“Because we go up and every time you go up, they want to raise rates again. I don’t really — I am not happy about it,” he said. “But at the same time, I’m letting them do what they feel is best.”

Presidents rarely intervene in developments involving the Fed, which sets the benchmark interest rate. Higher interest rates make it more expensive to borrow money, which slows economic activity. The rate hikes are intended to keep inflation from damaging the economy. Earlier, during a severe recession, the Fed slashed interest rates nearly to zero in a bid to boost economic growth.

Trump expressed frustration in the interview that the central bank’s actions could disrupt U.S. economic expansion.

Trump sought to give the economy a boost when he signed into law a major tax cut late last year. The law cut the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and lowered taxes on individual incomes as well.
…

A bipartisan group of 10 U.S. senators introduced a bill Wednesday threatening sanctions against officials responsible for the violence in Nicaragua. 

The bill targets those behind the deaths of anti-government protesters, human rights violations and corruption. It also calls for early elections and a negotiated settlement.

“What started as legitimate peaceful protests has turned into a months-long massacre as Nicaragua’s citizens face state-sponsored violence from police and paramilitaries,” New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Wednesday. 

“We can’t stay silent as [President] Daniel Ortega and [Vice President and first lady] Rosario Murillo target their own people, as evidenced by the images of students being shot while seeking refuge inside of a church.”

Nine other senators, Democrats and Republicans, echoed Menendez’s statement.

Meanwhile, the Organization of American States adopted a resolution Wednesday condemning the human rights abuses carried out by the Ortega government.

The resolution passed 21-3 with seven abstentions. It also calls for dialogue and early elections.

Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Denis Moncada called the motion “illegal, illegitimate and unfair.”

“We have working institutions … a constitution. That’s why it is not right that this permanent council become a sort of court that no one has authorized … to pass judgment on Nicaragua,” he said.

Moncada, like Ortega, calls the protesters terrorists and coup plotters.

Anti-government protests in Nicaragua erupted in April when Ortega announced changes to the pension system. He soon gave up those plans, but police and pro-government paramilitaries have continued a violent crackdown on demonstrators.

The government says more than 200 people have been killed. Human rights groups say the death toll is much higher.
…

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley defended the Trump administration’s June decision to withdraw from the U.N. Human Rights Council, saying the body is the U.N.’s “greatest failure.”

Speaking at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington on Wednesday, Haley, who is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, told the audience that the council has not been “a place of conscience, but a place of politics.”

“The right to speak freely, to associate and worship freely; to determine your own future; to be equal before the law — these are sacred rights,” Haley said. “We take these rights seriously, too seriously, to allow them to be cheapened by an institution — especially one that calls itself the ‘Human Rights Council.'”

She said Washington disagrees with the council’s makeup, which includes some of the world’s worst rights offenders, including China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

“More often, the Human Rights Council has provided cover, not condemnation, for the world’s most inhumane regimes,” Haley said.

Even more upsetting to the administration is what it sees as the council’s singling out of Israel for criticism of its treatment of Palestinians through an annual debate known as “Agenda Item 7.”

“No other country — not Iran, not Syria, not North Korea — has an agenda item devoted only to it,” Haley said. “Agenda Item 7 is not directed at anything Israel does, it is directed at the very existence of Israel.”

She said it is a “blazing red siren” signaling the council’s “political corruption and moral bankruptcy.”

The 47-member Human Rights Council is generally seen as flawed but important, playing a serious role in the promotion and protection of global human rights. It has dispatched fact-finding missions and commissions of inquiry and produced reports on grave abuses, including war crimes from Syria to North Korea to Myanmar.

The HRC was created in 2006 to replace its dysfunctional predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which was disbanded. The administration of George W. Bush opted against seeking membership and the U.S. did not join until 2009 under President Barack Obama, saying it sought to improve the council by working from within.

After failing to meet Washington’s demands for reform, the administration announced its withdrawal on June 19. Some Western diplomats said its departure would further weaken the body, strengthening the position of countries that take a different view of human rights than their states.

Haley, who took no questions after her speech, said that fixing the HRC’s flaws, “was, is and will remain” one of the United States’ biggest priorities at the U.N.
…

Nearly half of Americans believe that the United States should not be required to defend NATO allies from attack if they do not spend more on defense, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted after U.S. President

Donald Trump’s trip to Europe.

America’s NATO allies have been shaken by Trump’s harangue against them in Brussels over their underspending on defense, and his unrestrained effort to curry favor with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their meeting in Helsinki.

A commitment to collective defense is the bedrock of the NATO alliance. It was founded in 1949 to contain the military threat from the Soviet Union. Its charter’s Article V stipulates that an attack on one ally is an attack against all.

NATO diplomats have told Reuters they worry that Trump’s portrayal of NATO as an alliance in crisis has raised concern that the U.S. president’s nagging criticism might erode U.S. public support and risk America’s commitment to collective defense.

In the poll, 49 percent of respondents said the United States should not have to uphold its treaty commitments if allies do not spend more on defense. Another 18 percent said they were not sure if the United States had to uphold those commitments.

A third of those polled did not agree with the idea of linking America’s treaty commitments to an increase in allies’ military spending.

Two-thirds of registered Republicans said the United States should not have to uphold its treaty commitments, while almost four out of 10 Democrats held that view.

Reliance on U.S. might

NATO, which has viewed Moscow as a threat to European stability in the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, relies on the United States’ military superiority to face down a host of threats on Europe’s borders. That includes a resurgent, nuclear-armed Russia and militant attacks.

Trump lambasted allies for failing to meet a spending target of 2 percent of a country’s economic output. He also has claimed that the United States pays for 90 percent of European security, which NATO data show is incorrect.

While U.S. military spending makes up 70 percent of combined allied governments’ military budgets, just 15 percent of U.S. expenditure is spent in Europe on NATO-related defense.

After traveling to Belgium and Britain, Trump stunned the world in Finland on Monday by failing to hold Putin accountable for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election as the two stood side by side. Trump then said Tuesday that he had misspoken.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 1,011 registered voters throughout the United States, including 453 Republicans and 399 Democrats. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 4 percentage points.

The poll also found that while more than half of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling relations with Russia, his performance at the Helsinki summit did not seem to have an impact on his overall approval rating.
…

The owners of the Las Vegas hotel that was the scene of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history is counter-suing victims who are suing the hotel for negligence. 

Fifty-eight people were killed and hundreds wounded when Stephen Paddock fired on a concert from his room at the Mandalay Bay hotel in October. Paddock killed himself as police moved in.

Hundreds of victims have filed suit against MGM Resorts, which owns the Mandalay Bay, accusing the company of negligence for failing to monitor the hotel’s guests and for allowing Paddock to stockpile an arsenal of high-powered weapons and ammunition in his room in the days leading up to the massacre.

MGM Resorts, filed suit against the victims last week, alleging those wounded or whose relatives were killed cannot sue the hotel.

MGM cites a 2002 federal law that limits liabilities against businesses that take certain steps to “prevent and respond to mass violence.”

MGM says the security company it employed at the concert was certified by the Department of Homeland Security.

But Las Vegas lawyer Robert Eglet, who represents about 1000 of the victims, says the company providing security at the hotel, from where Paddock fired his shots, was not certified. 

“MGM has done something that in over 30 years of practice is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen. They have sued the families of the victims while they’re still grieving over their loved ones,” Eglet said.
…

The owners of the Las Vegas hotel that was the scene of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history is counter-suing victims who are suing the hotel for negligence. 

Fifty-eight people were killed and hundreds wounded when Stephen Paddock fired on a concert from his room at the Mandalay Bay hotel in October. Paddock killed himself as police moved in.

Hundreds of victims have filed suit against MGM Resorts, which owns the Mandalay Bay, accusing the company of negligence for failing to monitor the hotel’s guests and for allowing Paddock to stockpile an arsenal of high-powered weapons and ammunition in his room in the days leading up to the massacre.

MGM Resorts, filed suit against the victims last week, alleging those wounded or whose relatives were killed cannot sue the hotel.

MGM cites a 2002 federal law that limits liabilities against businesses that take certain steps to “prevent and respond to mass violence.”

MGM says the security company it employed at the concert was certified by the Department of Homeland Security.

But Las Vegas lawyer Robert Eglet, who represents about 1000 of the victims, says the company providing security at the hotel, from where Paddock fired his shots, was not certified. 

“MGM has done something that in over 30 years of practice is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen. They have sued the families of the victims while they’re still grieving over their loved ones,” Eglet said.
…