JULY 25, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


I’M SAD TO SEE THIS. I HOPE IT IS WITHOUT PROOF AND A TOTAL BUST. ONE THING IS CLEAR TO ME, AND THAT IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE ONLY REPUBLICAN WHO IS CONNECTED WITH THE REALLY BIG MONEY. RUSSIAN GANGSTERS WOULDN’T BOTHER THEM AT ALL. THAT’S HOW HE GOT SO MANY OF THEM ON HIS SIDE AFTER A MONTH OR SO OF OPEN SCORN FROM THEM. THEY WANT SOME OF THE DOUGH, TOO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rod-rosenstein-articles-of-impeachment-introduced-house-republicans-mark-meadows-jim-jordan-2018-07-25/
CBS NEWS July 25, 2018, 10:58 PM
House Republicans introduce articles of impeachment against Rod Rosenstein

VIDEO – RED AND BLUE

A handful of conservative members of Congress officially introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday in a move that had been threatened for weeks. The articles were introduced by Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, along with 9 cosponsors.

Meadows and Jordan have long been critical of Rosenstein and the Justice Department, saying the department has failed to comply with Congress' demands for unredacted records about the Russia investigation. Rosenstein has overseen the special counsel's probe since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Rep Andy Biggs
✔
@RepAndyBiggsAZ
Today, @RepMarkMeadows & Rep @Jim_Jordan filed articles of impeachment against Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. I was a cosponsor.

Unfortunately, Mr. Rosenstein has continuously resisted & defied Congress’s constitutional oversight. His time to obstruct our investigations has expired.

7:29 PM - Jul 25, 2018
1,187
1,205 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The lawmakers did not file the articles as a "privileged resolution," a move that would have forced Republican leadership to consider the measure within two legislative days. Meadows and Jordan could still force the issue on Thursday before lawmakers head home for the House's month-long August recess. Such a move would mean leaders would have to bring a vote to table the measure, or cancel or delay the recess.

The Republicans have particularly expressed concern over the surveillance of onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The introduction of the articles of impeachment comes shortly after the DOJ released the applications for surveillance warrants filed under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.

"With Attorney General Sessions' recusal, Rod Rosenstein has been in charge of the Department of Justice as the agency has made every effort to obstruct legitimate attempts of congressional oversight," Meadows said in a statement, adding that it's "time to find a new deputy attorney general who is serious about accountability and transparency."

Jordan said "enough is enough" and it's "time to hold Mr. Rosenstein accountable for blocking Congress' constitutional oversight role."

The other Republicans introducing the articles of impeachment are Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



ROSENSTEIN SPEAKING ON MUELLER.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/11-house-gop-members-introduce-articles-impeachment-deputy/story?id=56827083
11 House GOP members introduce articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
By MATT ZARRELL BENJAMIN SIEGEL Jul 25, 2018, 9:35 PM ET

VIDEO -- WATCHRosenstein defends Mueller, FBI; pushes back at suggestion of bias in Russia probe

House Republican members of the conservative Freedom Caucus introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday -- the latest salvo in an ongoing back-and-forth between some in the GOP over the Justice Department's handling of the Russia probe.

Interested in ?
Add as an interest to stay up to date on the latest news, video, and analysis from ABC News.
Add Interest
The 11 lawmakers accuse the Department of Justice of "intentionally withholding embarrassing documents and information," and allege the agency hid investigative information from Congress, abused the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act and failed to comply with subpoenas, according to a statement.

The Department of Justice has declined to comment.

A House GOP aide told ABC News Wednesday night that the articles of impeachment were not filed as a "privileged resolution," meaning they cannot force a vote on it on the House floor. However, the aide said, "that could change."

PHOTO: Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, March 23, 2018.Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE
Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, March 23, 2018.more +
House Speaker Paul Ryan has not signed on to the measure nor has he publicly commented on the effort. It's unclear if there will be a vote on the articles and lawmakers are due to leave soon for a multi-day recess.
In response to the measure, Democrats Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) issued a statement calling it a "direct attack" on Robert Mueller's investigation.

"This resolution to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is a direct attack on the Special Counsel’s investigation—full stop. It is a panicked and dangerous attempt to undermine an ongoing criminal investigation in an effort to protect President Trump as the walls are closing in around him and his associates," the statement read, in part.

Ahead of a meeting with Republican House members earlier Wednesday, a DOJ official insisted that they have largely complied with the subpoenas, and are working on finding accommodations for the information and documents that still need to be turned over.

One official told ABC News the DOJ's efforts to accommodate congressional requests have been historical and perhaps unprecedented.

Last month, Rosenstein and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, had a particularly heated exchange as the lawmaker and others grilled the deputy attorney general during a hearing about the FBI and Justice Department's handling of the Hillary Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations.

"I am not keeping any information from Congress," Rosenstein said, pointing his finger at Jordan. "I certainly hope your colleagues aren't under that impression, that is not accurate sir."

Minutes later, House Republicans voted to sanction the Department of Justice over GOP document requests.

MORE: Rod Rosenstein defends himself against 'personal' attacks from GOP's Jim Jordan
House Rules Committee ultimately approved a nonbinding resolution demanding "full" Justice Department compliance with subpoenas issued for documents and information related to the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigation.

In Wednesday's press statement announcing the articles of impeachment, Jordan once again criticized Rosenstein.

“The DOJ is keeping information from Congress. Enough is enough. It’s time to hold Mr. Rosenstein accountable for blocking Congress’s constitutional oversight role.”

Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to discredit the Justice Department, and, by extension, the special counsel's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Part of that effort, Democrats have said, includes what they see as Republicans making unreasonable document demands tied to the ongoing Russia investigation.

"This is part of a sustained, coordinated effort to undermine the investigation of Robert Mueller and the work of the FBI and the Department of Justice, to attack the credibility of the investigators," Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., a member of the Judiciary Committee, told ABC News last month.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.



THIS IS EITHER GOOD HUMAN INSTINCTS, OR HEROISM. BECAUSE IT’S SO UNCOMMON, I TEND TO CALL IT HEROISM. WHERE IS SUPERMAN WHEN YOU NEED HIM?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elis-ersson-swedish-student-blocks-deportation-of-afghan-man-by-refusing-to-take-seat-on-plane/
CBS NEWS July 25, 2018, 2:21 PM
Swedish student stops deportation of Afghan man by refusing to take seat on plane

VIDEO -- CELLPHONE VIDEO BY MS. ERSSON WHILE THE STANDOFF WAS OCCURRING.

When President Trump issued an executive order banning residents of certain Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. last year, airports across the country turned from travel hubs to sites of political protest. In the time since, as debates over immigration and refugee policies have grown more heated around the globe, airports have increasingly become sites of political action. Demonstrators have stormed runways, picketed terminal entrances and blocked airport entrances to prevent deportations.

On Monday, a 21-year-old student in Sweden boarded a flight and refused to take her seat until an Afghan man, who was being deported, was taken off the plane. Elin Ersson livestreamed her action on Facebook, and the 14-minute-long video has so far been viewed over 2 million times.

"A person is going to get [deported] to Afghanistan where there's war, and he's going to get killed," Ersson says into her phone camera as she walks down the aisle of the plane.

"I'm not going to sit down until this person is off the plane," she continues, as other passengers can be heard shouting at her to take her seat. Commercial airplanes aren't permitted to take off unless all passengers are seated.

Ersson and a group of activists purchased her ticket for Monday's flight from Gothenburg, Sweden, to Istanbul because they believed a different man was due to be deported to Afghanistan, but discovered the change later.

In the video, a flight attendant approaches Ersson and tells her to take her seat and turn off her phone. Ersson explains that she wants the pilot, who she says has the authority to have people removed from the plane, to refuse to fly if the Afghan man remains on board.

Ersson is then approached by a male passenger.

"You're upsetting all the people down there," he says. "So I don't care what you think." The man grabs the phone out of Ersson's hand and there's a brief commotion before Ersson's face appears on camera again.

"So an English guy just got really angry and stole my phone, but a flight attendant was really nice and took it back for me," she says.

Another passenger approaches her and says, "It's your country's rules," to which she replies, "Yeah. I'm trying to change my country's rules. I don't like them. It's not right to send people to hell."

"But you are preventing all these passengers from going to their destinations," the man says.

"Yeah," Ersson says, "but they're not going to die. He's going to die."

Ersson keeps the camera pointing at her face, and slowly, people on the plane can be heard breaking out in applause. Her eyes well up with tears.

"I am with you," one passenger tells her.

Eventually, Ersson says that she is able to see that the back door of the plane has been opened, but can't make out what is happening.

"We've opened the door. Both you and that passenger will not fly," a flight attendant tells her.

Applause breaks out again, and Ersson begins to cry.

"So the security's coming. I don't know what they're going to do with me, but whatever," she says to the camera.

Both Ersson and the Afghan man were escorted off the plane, an airport press officer told the Washington Post, but it was unclear what happened after that.

"The deportation was interrupted," Ersson later posted on Facebook. "I don't know any more than that."

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



OUTSOURCING ASYLUM PROCESSING STRIKES ME AS BEING A POTENTIALLY GOOD IDEA, AS LONG AS THE HIGHEST HUMAN IDEALS AND BEHAVIOR ARE MAINTAINED IN THE PROCESSING CENTER; CALL IT IMMIGRATION, THOUGH. “PROCESS” SOUNDS TOO MUCH LIKE A FACTORY ASSEMBLY LINE. FOR INSTANCE, A VICIOUS GUARD WHO BRUTALIZES THE PEOPLE HOUSED THERE SHOULD BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY AND JAILED. THAT KIND OF THING IS A CRIME, NOT TO MENTION A SIN, AND IT IS VERY HARMFUL TO THE VICTIM. HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS SEEKING A PLACE TO GO ARE A BIG, BIG (BIGLY) PROBLEM, BUT A CLEAN, HUMANE AND ORGANIZED HUMAN SERVICES CENTER, VETTING THE PEOPLE, CHECKING THEM FOR COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, AND GIVING THEM PAPERS AS IS APPROPRIATE WOULD REALLY HELP. THE TRUMP-DESIGNED POLICIES THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE USA HAVE BEEN TOTALLY DISORGANIZED, WITH THE RESULT THAT THEY HAVE LITERALLY “LOST” A SIZEABLE NUMBER OF CHILDREN, DEPORTED THEIR PARENTS ALREADY, ETC.

IF THERE ARE SOME HUGE AND INSOLUBLE PROBLEMS WITH THIS IN ONE PLACE OR ANOTHER, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO RETHINK OR REORGANIZE IT. ALSO, HATE SPEECH OR BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE CRIMINALIZED AND THOSE WHO DO IT JAILED, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO START IT. TWO OR THREE MONTHS SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM REVIEW THEIR ATTITUDE. A WORD IS ALL IT TAKES TO START A FIGHT, SO DON’T THROW THE FIRST LOW-BROW SLUR.

THERE IS A LARGE MINORITY WHO ARE DEEPLY AFRAID OF THE IDEA OF “ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT,” BUT WE CAN’T EVEN ORGANIZE A COUNTRY THE SIZE OF THE USA. HOW COULD THE LEGAL AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES FOR ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT BE SET UP? ON THIS REFUGEE ISSUE, MASS STARVATION, GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEMS, SUCH AS LARGE AMOUNTS OF THE POTABLE WATER EVAPORATING OR OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE VAST IN SCOPE, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT WOULD REALLY HELP, BECAUSE IN THE SMALLER NATIONS WHICH HAVE A PURER POPULATION ETHNICALLY AND RACIALLY, THE POGROMS TEND TO EMERGE.

THE DOMINANT GROUP TENDS TO START TRYING TO BE THE ONLY GROUP. SOMETHING LIKE THESE SEVERAL MASS MIGRATIONS THAT ARE OCCURRING NOW COULD DESTABILIZE ALL OF THE NATIONS ONE AT A TIME, WITH CIVIL UNREST AND WAR BECOMING THE NORM. IMAGINE EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. THIS SITUATION REMINDS ME OF MY HISTORY BOOK LESSONS OF THE YEARS BEFORE WORLD WAR I. MILLIONS OF REFUGEES POURED INTO THE STABLE AND PROSPEROUS WESTERN NATIONS – JUST LIKE TODAY. THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT SITUATION IS FOR EVERYONE TO RELAX AND BE FRIENDLIER, BUT NO. THEY USUALLY FORM STREET GANGS AND FIGHT FOR “THEIR GROUP.” I’M GLAD I WON’T BE LIVING ON THIS EARTH TOO MUCH LONGER. I DOUBT THAT I’LL LIVE BEYOND 2035 OR SO.

LET’S TRY TO AVOID THE MISTAKES OF A MISHMASH OF CULTURES LIKE WE HAD IN THE NORTHEASTERN USA WHEN I WAS YOUNG, WITH CITIES BURSTING AT THE SEAMS, AND THEIR POPULATIONS UNABLE TO GET GOOD JOBS, HOUSING, FOOD, AND MEDICAL CARE. THE RESULT WAS EXTREME ETHNIC HOSTILITY. ANY GROUP, UNDER PRESSURE, TENDS TO BLAME SOME OTHER GROUP FOR THEIR PROBLEMS. A FRIEND OF MINE WHO WAS QUITE A FEW YEARS OLDER SPOKE ABOUT GROWING UP IN NEW YORK CITY IN A POOR ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOOD. HE SAID THAT IF YOU WERE IRISH YOU DIDN’T WALK DOWN THE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, AND IF YOU WERE ITALIAN, THE MIRROR IMAGE OF THE SITUATION WAS TRUE.

I AM A BELIEVER IN MORE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION THAN WE HAVE HAD SO FAR IN THE USA, OF A HUMANE NATURE, OF COURSE. SOME FIND THAT TOO RESTRICTIVE TO THEIR PERSONAL STYLE, BUT WHEN THERE IS PEACE, EVEN IF IT IS ENFORCED TO SOME DEGREE, EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS A FIGHTING CHANCE TO SURVIVE AND EVEN THRIVE.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europe-wants-to-outsource-asylum-processing-critics-say-its-abdicating-its-responsibilities/2018/06/29/eaada54c-7ba1-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?utm_term=.0e9904dc169f
Europe wants to outsource asylum processing. Critics say it’s abdicating its responsibilities.
By Chico Harlan and Sudarsan Raghavan
June 29, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Many migrants find themselves stuck in Ventimiglia, Italy, unable to cross to France, where police officers patrol the border. (Laurence Geai/For The Washington Post)

ROME — Europe’s splintered leaders proved during an intense summit this week that they could still unify behind one big idea: pushing this continent’s migration challenges farther from its shores.

In an agreement reached Friday, the European Union’s members said they would explore ways to build new centers, probably in Africa, where migrants could be screened for asylum — and from where only legitimate refugees might move on to Europe.

The idea echoes discussions elsewhere in the developed world, including in the United States, on how to outsource the contentious asylum process and cut down on the flow of arrivals. In Europe’s case, the proposal also broadens an existing strategy of using African countries as partners that are willing to crack down on smugglers and intercept migrant vessels.

The European Union says the processing centers would reduce the number of people who attempt to cross the deadly Mediterranean Sea and would better enable a triaging of the crisis — separating the neediest refugees from migrants seeking economic opportunities. Remote vetting would also let the E.U. avoid the quandary of what to do with migrants whose asylum applications are denied but who come from counties [sic] with which Europe doesn’t have deportation agreements.

But critics, including some politicians and analysts, say that Europe risks abdicating its responsibility at a time when migrant flows are drastically reduced from their 2015 peak, and that it would be inviting additional challenges with facilities hosted by poorer and less-stable countries, where people — including minors — could languish in unsafe conditions.

“Europe is really rolling the dice,” said Jill Goldenziel, an associate professor at the Marine Corps University, who is writing a book on the global migration crisis. “Europe would be required to maintain its own standards. It is incredibly hard to guarantee that, and particularly hard in a place like Libya or other developing countries that don’t adhere to the same human rights standards.”

In recent weeks, U.S. and Mexican officials have been discussing a somewhat different “safe third country” agreement, which could require Central American migrants crossing through Mexico to apply for settlement there and allow the United States to send back asylum seekers who do not do so. The United States and Canada have a similar agreement in place.

That would benefit the Trump administration by shrinking the number of Central American asylum seekers applying to live in the United States, but it remains unclear whether Mexican officials will embrace such a plan or whether they intend to use it as leverage in the ongoing trade talks with Washington.

Australia, meanwhile, has relied on a widely criticized strategy of holding asylum seekers in prisonlike detention centers on remote islands. At those centers, thousands of asylum seekers have been detained for years, and some have committed suicide.

The E.U. migration deal, which also calls for the creation of processing centers within Europe hosted by volunteer countries, offers few specifics about how the new system would work.

“This is, in fact, the easiest part of the task,” European Council President Donald Tusk said Friday of the agreement, “compared to what awaits us on the ground when we start implementing it.”

The European Union wants migrants to wait in centers in Africa, such as this detention facility in Tajura, Libya. (Lorenzo Tugnoli/For The Washington Post)

The E.U. said centers in outside countries would operate in “full respect of international law,” but it did not address how and where refugees would be resettled — a point of tension, because some countries in the bloc have refused to accept them, and swift handling of asylum seekers is necessary to prevent a backlog.

One key requirement, experts said, would be that the facilities have cooperation from outside monitors, including the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations’ refu­gee agency. In a joint letter Friday, the groups said that any reception centers must be “adequate, safe and dignified.”

Goldenziel said that although it is legal under international law to process asylum claims in one country before transferring successful applicants to another country, any resulting mistreatment of migrants — and the possibility that they might be sent back to places where their lives were endangered or they might be tortured — could raise challenges in the European Court of Human Rights.

Others have criticized the idea of the facilities on moral grounds. Gabi Zimmer, a member of the European Parliament and of Germany’s left-wing Die Linke party, said that the “E.U. is transferring its humanitarian responsibility onto other countries.”

The E.U. has gravitated to Africa in part because it has struggled to forge delicate agreements among its members about how to share the burden of asylum seekers once they arrive. Hungary’s anti-migrant leader, Viktor Orban, suggested two years ago that the E.U. should set up a “giant refugee city” in Libya to process asylum seekers as a way to keep the continent’s borders under “total control.” French President Emmanuel Macron has also been an advocate of the processing centers, saying last summer that if migrants were dealt with in Libya, they would avoid “taking crazy risks when they are not all eligible for asylum.”

“It’s the failure to reach key agreements [within Europe] that is driving this alternative agreement,” said Frank Mc Namara, an analyst at the Brussels-based European Policy Center.

As of Friday, no third country had offered to host the migrant reception centers, and at least two had rejected the idea outright.

On Thursday, Morocco’s foreign minister, Nasser Bourita, told reporters after meeting with his Spanish counterpart that such outsourcing of reception centers by the E.U. would be “counterproductive.” He criticized the proposed measures as “easy solutions” and said Morocco had always turned down that kind of approach to managing the flows of migrants.

If Morocco stands by its decision, it immediately throws a wrench into the E.U. effort to stop migrants from leaving North Africa’s shores. Morocco is becoming a key waypoint for migrants, who have increasingly moved westward in their route across the Mediterranean.

Tunisia, another country viewed by the E.U. as a possible host for migrant centers, has also reportedly rejected the idea. Tahar Cherif, Tunisia’s ambassador to the E.U., told the Guardian newspaper that his country had dismissed a similar proposal a few months earlier. Tunisia, he said, has “neither the capacity nor the means to organize these detention centers.” The country, he said, is grappling with high unemployment and other economic woes, as well as the spillover from the civil war in neighboring Libya.

France, one of the key proponents of the E.U. migration deal, considers Libya an ideal location for the processing centers, since it remains the primary migrant launchpad to Europe. But human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations have long criticized the E.U.’s policy of supporting the Libyan coast guard, which intercepts migrants’ boats and returns people to Libyan shores, where they are often warehoused in decrepit, overcrowded detention centers and face exploitation and violence. The E.U. said Friday that it would “step up its support” for the Libyan coast guard and other parts of the country.

Karline Kleijer, emergency program manager for Doctors Without Borders, said in a statement Friday that the E.U.’s goal was to “block people at the doorstep of Europe.”

“They attempt to pay off countries to do their dirty work, while seeking to ensure there are no inconvenient witnesses,” she said.

Last weekend alone, some 2,000 people were returned to Libya by its coast guard, the charity said.

Raghavan reported from Cairo. Joshua Partlow in Mexico City, James McAuley in Paris and Luisa Beck in Berlin contributed to this report.

Read more

The retreat of rescue ships from the Mediterranean is a sign of changing odds for migrants
Abuse of migrants is becoming systematic in Libya
Five myths about refugees and migrants
Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world
Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news


ANOTHER CLOSEUP VIEW OF EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION TODAY

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/11/german-leader-revels-in-deportations-in-a-week-when-a-refugee-sent-back-to-kabul-apparently-hanged-himself/?utm_term=.8d3b22d998b5
WorldViews
German leader revels in deportations in a week when a refugee sent back to Kabul apparently hanged himself
By Luisa Beck
July 11, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer. (Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters)

The comments clashed terribly with the day’s news: Not long after Interior Minister Horst Seehofer cheerfully noted that 69 asylum seekers were deported from Germany on his 69th birthday last week, local news outlets reported that one of those refugees was found dead in his hotel. He apparently killed himself.

The 23-year-old Afghan had spent nearly a third of his life in Germany before being forcibly returned on an airplane to Kabul last week, along with 68 other Afghan nationals. He had arrived at an emergency shelter on July 4 and was found dead six days later, according to the International Organization for Migration.

The comments from Seehofer, a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU)*, sparked outrage and calls for his resignation, and they could hardly come at a more volatile time for the German government. For the past month, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Seehofer, whose party is a partner in Merkel's governing coalition, have been embroiled in a debate about Germany’s migration policy that nearly torpedoed her government.

Anti-migrant rhetoric, such as that used by Seehofer and others, is part of a broader political strategy, according to Wolfgang Kaschuba, director of the Berlin Institute for Empirical Integration and Migration Research. “They dramatize in an inappropriate and disproportionate way that’s entirely divorced from reality,” Kaschuba said, citing past comments from Bavarian state premier Markus Söder of the CSU in which he cast asylum seekers as “asylum tourists” who come to Germany to vacation, not to flee war and poverty.

“They’re playing into the hands of right-wing populists who say that if we got rid of foreigners, we’ll have a quiet and peaceful society. [Viktor] Orban is doing that in Hungary, [Matteo] Salvini in Italy, [Sebastian] Kurz in Austria,” Kaschuba said.

A hard-line stance on immigration has been part of the CSU’s political strategy ahead of regional elections in the fall, but it hasn’t proved successful, according to recent polls, which show a drop in support for the CSU and the governing coalition. The real winners may be the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which made record gains in polls last year and has had a significant influence on parliamentary debates and mainstream rhetoric.

“Over the past months, the debate has gotten sharper and more intense,” said Hendrik Cremer, policy adviser at the German Institute for Human Rights. The CSU, he said, “talks only about deportation, and campaigns to increase the number of deportations as much as possible. But that we’re talking about people, many of whom are in need of protection, that’s lost in these debates.”

The 69 Afghans forcibly returned to Kabul last week were among the largest groups yet deported to Afghanistan, according to Spiegel Online. Since 2016, Germany has deported about 300 Afghans, despite the still-perilous state of security amid attacks by the Taliban and the Islamic State. Civilian casualties in Afghanistan numbered 2,258 in the first quarter of the year, a near-record level, according to U.N. officials.

“There’s been a turning point in German asylum politics,” Cremer said. “The way the German government is regarding the security situation there despite the frequent attacks and insecurity in the region is a clear indication of that.”

The Afghan man’s death is still being investigated by authorities. According to the German Interior Ministry, he was from the northern Afghan province of Balkh and last lived in Hamburg. A speaker for the Hamburg Immigration Authority said the Afghan national had committed several crimes in Germany, including theft and attempted injury, and had resisted authorities. He came to Germany in 2011 and applied for asylum that year. After his application was rejected in 2012, he appealed the decision and received temporary staying permits but not asylum status.

The man probably hanged himself, said Hafizullah Miakhil, who is with the Ministry for Refugees in Kabul.

On Wednesday morning, the German Interior Ministry tweeted that the man's death was a “deeply lamentable occurrence.”

Fareshta Queedes, a staff member at the International Psychosocial Organization in Kabul, told a German news outlet that the deported returnees are often in a poor mental state. “They don’t have any interest in living anymore,” she said, citing poor economic prospects, unsafe living conditions and a culture that often shames returnees.

Seehofer uttered his comments while presenting his “master plan” for migration, which included transit centers intended to expedite the removal of ineligible asylum seekers, as well as measures to speed up asylum processing and deportations.

Lawyers and human rights advocates have criticized the plan, saying it potentially violates European Union asylum rules, the Geneva Conventions and the German government’s coalition agreement.

“What’s missing is any sort of acknowledgment of the need to protect people who are threatened in their country of origin,” Cremer said. “There’s no mention of a migrant’s right to receive legal counsel, nor any process to identify persons with special needs — for example, those who are suffering from trauma or disabilities.”

Dominik Bartsch, the Germany representative of the U.N. Refugee Agency, or UNHCR, criticized Seehofer’s plan, saying it concentrates “solely on a sharpening of administrative and procedural processes and neglects what’s the most important point: the human being.”

About 68.5 million people are currently displaced worldwide, the highest number since World War II, according to UNHCR. At the same time, Germany and other E.U. members are increasingly tightening their borders and seeking to largely outsource the continent’s migration challenge. In 2015, Germany took in about 890,000 refugees. This year, new arrivals are projected to plummet to 132,000.

On Wednesday, the United Nations' migration agency tweeted that for the fifth year in a row, more than 1,000 migrants have died crossing the Mediterranean Sea.



I SUPPOSE IT IS TRUE THAT MADDOW COULD HAVE STATED THAT THE DISTURBING PORTION OF THE QUESTION “WAS MISSING OR INAUDIBLE” ON THE WHITE HOUSE AND WASHINGTON POST TAPE, TO PLAY IT SAFE. INSTEAD, SHE SAID THAT IT HAD BEEN EDITED OUT. THAT’S AN ACCUSATION. I DON’T KNOW THAT SHE IS WRONG, THOUGH. I LISTENED TO THIS TAPE BELOW, AND THE PHRASE IN QUESTION DEFINITELY ISN’T THERE; PLUS, THERE WAS SOME GARBLED TALKING RIGHT BEFORE THE TRANSLATOR SAID “YES, I DID.”

RACHEL HAD AN EDITED AND AN UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT, APPARENTLY. WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF BOTH OF THOSE? WHETHER THE WHITE HOUSE LIKES HER OBSERVATION AND REPORTING OR NOT, SHE IS APPARENTLY THE ONLY PERSON TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE WHILE READING THE TRANSCRIPT SIDE BY SIDE AND CATCH THE ERROR. SHE SHOULD HAVE CREDIT FOR THAT RATHER THAN CRITICISM. IF IT IS LATER PROVEN THAT SHE COOKED UP THE STORY, AND THAT SUCH ACCUSATION CAN BE PROVEN, THEN SHE WILL BE IN HOT WATER, I’M SURE.

I LIKE AND TRUST HER, HOWEVER, AND I DON’T TRUST THE WHITE HOUSE. THE MSNBC SOURCE OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE WAS, ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE, “THE OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT RECORD.” IS THAT THE EXACT SAME VERSION THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS? I WOULD HOPE THE “OFFICIAL” RECORD WOULD BE STORED SAFELY SOMEWHERE WHERE IT CAN’T BE CHANGED. THE WAPO VERSION IS WHAT MADDOW PLAYED LAST NIGHT, AND SHE COMPARED THE PRINT VERSIONS OF THAT SECTION SIDE BY SIDE.
THAT’S A GOOD THOROUGH CHECKING PROCEDURE.

I WONDER IF SOME OTHER TRUSTED AND RELIABLE NEWS SOURCE COULD LISTEN AND LOOK AT EVERYTHING AVAILABLE AND WEIGH IN AS AN ARBITER ON WHAT IS THE CORRECT STORY – NPR, NYT, GUARDIAN, BBC OR SOME OTHER HIGHLY TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE, PERHAPS. SOMEWHERE ON THE INTERNET, THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS CHANGED, BY WHOM AND WHEN. COMPUTER GEEKS DO THAT SORT OF THING ALL THE TIME IF THEY WANT TO. I THINK THE MOST LIKELY CULPRIT IS THE WHITE HOUSE. IT ISN’T JUST THAT I’M BIASED AGAINST THEM, IT’S BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE WORST RECORD OF LYING OF ANYBODY SHORT OF BREITBART.

I WONDER WHERE THE WASHINGTON POST GOT IT’S COPIES, FOR INSTANCE, AND WHERE MADDOW GOT HER COPY FOR LAST NIGHT’S SHOW. THE REASON I’M GOING ON AND ON ABOUT THIS IS THAT TAMPERING WITH THE PRESS OR ESPECIALLY WITH GOVERNMENT RECORDS IS A TERRIBLE THING TO DO, A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND HOPEFULLY IS ILLEGAL. I HOPE WE’LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO. COULD THE LABORATORY AND TECHNICAL FACILITIES OF THE FBI BE EMPLOYED TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maddow-claims-white-house-edited-trump-putin-video/
CBS NEWS July 25, 2018, 3:12 PM
What's the deal with the Trump-Putin press conference video?

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow aired a segment Tuesday night in which she claimed the White House misleadingly edited the official U.S. government transcript and video of President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin's press conference in Helsinki, Finland. The White House video, she alleged, cut out a key question from Reuters' Jeff Mason, who asked whether Putin wanted Mr. Trump to win the election.

"We can report tonight that the White House video of this exchange has also skillfully cut out that question from the Reuters reporter, as if it didn't happen," she said on her show Wednesday night, juxtaposing the White House's version of the video with MSNBC's version. "... What the White House has disappeared from the official U.S. government record of that meeting, both in print and in their video of the meeting, is President Putin answering in the affirmative when he's asked if he wanted Trump to win the election."


Maddow Blog
✔
@MaddowBlog
White House edits video to remove question about whether Putin wanted Trump to win.

9:26 PM - Jul 24, 2018
25.9K
20.3K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

In MSNBC's version of the exchange, Mason can be heard saying, "President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?"

"Yes, I did. Yes, I did," one can hear Putin respond, through the translator.

The video CBS News aired also plays that full question and answer from Putin, although translator voices muddle the audio slightly.

Trump and Putin hold joint press conference after Helsinki Summit by CBS News on YouTube

In the White House's version of the video, one can only hear the second half of Mason's question.

"And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?" one can hear Mason saying.

"Yes, I did. Yes, I did," one can hear Putin respond.

President Trump Holds a Joint Press Conference with the President of the Russian Federation by The White House on YouTube

The Washington Post pointed out that their transcript and audio of the press conference also do not include Mason's full question, similar to the White House's video.

"We did not edit the question out. This is the feed we were provided," the Post's Phillip Bump wrote.

So, what's the deal?

The discrepancy — although the question and answer were obviously key in the press conference — is both simple and complicated.

If one listens closely, it's possible to tell that the video feed in the White House version goes from the translator who says "president" before a delayed switch to Mason's question.

A White House official told CBS News that the White House stenographer uses the White House audio to produce the transcript. The audio mixer at the site did not bring up the question mic level in time to catch the beginning of Mason's question because the translator was still speaking, the official said. That the video and transcript did not include the first part of the question, the official said, was by no means malicious.

The White House official added the transcript has been updated for presidential records.

The White House's public version online, as of Wednesday afternoon just before 3 p.m., did not include the first part of Mason's question.

Maddow tweeted Wednesday afternoon that the video feed switches as first explained by the Post could be one explanation, but that she still stands by her report.


Rachel Maddow MSNBC
✔
@maddow
· 1h
Replying to @maddow
...and the White House transcript & video still does leave it out.

WaPo now says it has updated its own transcript. Will the White House?

After more than a week of reporting on the bad transcript (see link below)...

2/3https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/trump-putin-press-conference-transcript/565385/ …

N
Rachel Maddow MSNBC
✔
@maddow
(1): White House has let it stand uncorrected, and

(2): POTUS now asserts that Putin wants *Dems* to win, not him.

I love WaPo with the heat of 1000 suns, but nothing here from WaPo disproves our report.

3/3

2:23 PM - Jul 25, 2018
2,602
862 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

— CBS News' Kathryn Watson, Arden Farhi, and Emily Tillett contributed to this report.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


THE TRANSCRIPTS

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/trump-putin-press-conference-transcript/565385/
The White House Transcript Is Missing the Most Explosive Part of the Trump–Putin Press Conference
It’s not clear whether the omission was intended, but the meaning of a key exchange is dramatically altered as a result.
URI FRIEDMAN
JUL 17, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- KEVIN LAMARQUE / REUTERS

It was perhaps the most explosive exchange in an incendiary press conference: Russian President Vladimir Putin appearing to frankly admit to a motive for, and maybe even to the act of, meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, despite repeatedly denying Russian interference in American politics during the rest of his appearance with Donald Trump in Finland on Monday.


But the exchange doesn’t appear in full in the White House’s live-stream or transcript of the press conference, and it’s missing entirely from the Kremlin’s transcript of the event. The White House did not immediately provide an explanation for the discrepancy.

Make your inbox more interesting.

Sign up for The Atlantic Daily for an overview of the day’s biggest news and most fascinating ideas.

Email Address (required)
Enter your email
Sign Up
Thanks for signing up!

Understanding what Putin said depends on what you watch or where you look. If you watch the video of the news conference provided by the Russian government, or by news outlets such as PBS and the Associated Press, you will hear the Reuters reporter Jeff Mason ask a bombshell of a question: “President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”

MORE STORIES

Russian Speakers Explain What Putin Actually Said About Trump
URI FRIEDMAN

The End of All Illusions
QUINTA JURECIC

Trump's Rejection of Observable Reality
DAVID A. GRAHAM

Trump's Brazen, Effective Lie
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF
Putin then responds with a bombshell of an answer, according to the English translation of his remarks that was broadcast during the press conference: “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.”

But recordings of the exchange were muddled for two reasons. First, the English translation of Putin’s previous response was concluding as Mason began to speak. Second, the microphone seemed to pick up Mason’s question halfway through—making the latter half of it easier to hear. (Mason told me that he had held on to the microphone even though an official had tried to pull it away so that he could ask Putin a follow-up question. “I don’t know if they turned the sound off during the time when each of the presidents were speaking, or if it got flipped on and off. I certainly didn’t touch anything.”)

Technical difficulties aside, there’s further ambiguity. It’s unclear whether Putin said “Yes, I did” in reference to the question of whether he wanted Trump to win the 2016 presidential race, or in response to the question about whether he directed Russian officials to help Trump win. “You could interpret that to mean he’s answering ‘yes’ to both,” Mason told me, but “looking at it critically, he spent a good chunk of that press conference, just like President Trump did, denying any collusion. So I think it’s likely that when he said ‘Yes, I did,’ that he was just responding to the first part of my question and perhaps didn’t hear the second part.”

But if you watch the White House live-stream of the press conference or look at the transcript published by the White House, the first half of Mason’s question is not there. Without it, the meaning of the exchange is substantially different.

Compare this transcript, of what actually happened, to the White House’s version. Here is the record of what took place, starting with the last part of Putin’s comments before Mason’s questions. Putin is describing his willingness to assist with Robert Mueller’s probe (bolding is mine):

Vladimir Putin: That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

Jeff Mason: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

Putin: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.

And here’s the key section from the White House transcript, which makes it seem as though Putin is still talking about the Mueller probe:

PRESIDENT PUTIN: That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

Q: And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

PRESIDENT PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.

Another strange wrinkle comes from the Russian government’s English-language transcript of the press conference. In contrast to its footage of the press conference, which features what really happened, the transcript does not include any piece of that key exchange.

Transcripts published by the Federal News Service and Bloomberg Government mirror the White House transcript, while NPR’s contains the full exchange. Confusing matters further, C-span’s footage contains Mason’s full question but only the second half of Putin’s answer.

The varying accounts of the same remarks highlight the profound confusion that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have generated in the past 24 hours. The discrepancies in the accounts of what was said also underscore the extent to which the Trump presidency has challenged a common understanding of reality. Even if the omission was accidental, it appears suspicious at a moment marked by the president’s repeated claims that legitimate news reports are “fake.”

In an attempt to walk back other comments he made at the press conference, Trump said on Tuesday that he believed he had made himself “very clear,” but then changed his mind after reviewing the transcript and footage of the press conference. Referring to his remarks about election meddling, he walked back an extraordinary comment.

On Monday, Trump said “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia that interfered with the election. On Tuesday, he clarified that he had meant to say: “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.” One small word, one huge difference.

We want to hear what you think. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

URI FRIEDMAN is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he covers global affairs.


I’M GLAD TO SEE SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO ACTING LIKE A SECRETARY OF STATE. THERE HAS BEEN MUCH TOO LITTLE LINKAGE BETWEEN DAILY REALITY AND THE ACTIONS AND WORDS OF MANY OF THE TRUMP TEAM, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. IT IS DECEPTIVE AND DANGEROUS.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/25/pompeo-u-s-rejects-russias-attempted-annexation-crimea/833131002/?csp=chromepush
Secretary of State Pompeo says U.S. rejects Russia's attempted annexation of Crimea
Deirdre Shesgreen and Michael Collins, USA TODAY Published 2:37 p.m. ET July 25, 2018


PHOTOGRAPH – SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO (Photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday the U.S. rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and called on Moscow to end its occupation of the territory.

“In concert with allies, partners and the international community, the United States rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored,” Pompeo said in a statement released in advance of his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Pompeo said the U.S. calls on Russia “to respect the principles to which it has long claimed to adhere and to end its occupation of Crimea.”

“As democratic states seek to build a free, just and prosperous world, we must uphold our commitment to the international principle of sovereign equality and respect the territorial integrity of other states,” Pompeo said.

“Through its actions, Russia has acted in a manner unworthy of a great nation and has chosen to isolate itself from the international community,” he said.

Pompeo’s appearance before the committee Wednesday afternoon will mark the first time lawmakers have had a chance to grill him since President Donald Trump touched off bipartisan alarm and outrage at his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki nine days ago.

At a joint news conference with Putin after the two leaders met privately, Trump downplayed the conclusions of America’s intelligence agencies and said he accepted Putin’s assertion that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Trump later walked back his pro-Putin remarks, but he has not disclosed what he and Putin discussed during their controversial, closed-door tete-a-tete.

Senators are looking to Pompeo to provide clarity on what transpired during that meeting and what agreements, if any, were reached between the two leaders.

Senators also are expected to question Pompeo about Trump’s closed-door meeting in June with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and his administration’s recent hostile barbs aimed at Iran.

More: Donald Trump says he 'gave up nothing' in Putin summit but offers no specifics on talks


BOLTON IS BLAMING THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE SUGGESTED AUTUMN MEETING BETWEEN TRUMP AND PUTIN ON THE MUELLER “WITCH HUNT.” TUT, TUT, TUT.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh-trump-putin-meeting-on-hold-until-2019-when-russia-witch-hunt-is-over/
CBS/AP July 25, 2018, 3:08 PM
WH: Trump-Putin meeting on hold until 2019 when "Russia witch hunt is over"

PHOTOGRAPH -- President Trump, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin pose for a photograph at the beginning of a one-on-one meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, on Mon., July 16, 2018. AP

President Donald Trump's proposed Washington meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has been delayed until 2019. National security adviser John Bolton, in a statement, cites special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election as the reason for the delay.

Bolton says: "The President believes that the next bilateral meeting with President Putin should take place after the Russia witch hunt is over, so we've agreed that it will be after the first of the year."

The White House said last week that Mr. Trump had directed Bolton to invite Putin to Washington for a meeting in the fall. White House Sarah Huckabee Sanders had confirmed the meeting in a tweet after the summit, saying Mr. Trump had "agreed to ongoing working level dialogue between the two security council staffs." Sanders said Mr. Trump had asked Bolton to extend the invitation to Putin.


Sarah Sanders
✔
@PressSec
In Helsinki, @POTUS agreed to ongoing working level dialogue between the two security council staffs. President Trump asked @Ambjohnbolton to invite President Putin to Washington in the fall and those discussions are already underway.

3:51 PM - Jul 19, 2018
26.6K
17.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

This came amid the backlash over Mr. Trump's performance at a news conference with Putin following their Helsinki summit, and many members of Congress had objected to them meeting again in the fall.

This is a developing story.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



I PERSONALLY DON’T CARE MUCH ABOUT TRUMP AND HIS LADY FRIENDS, BUT IF HE WAS COMMITTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIMES, THEN THAT SHOULD BE ON THE LIST OF THINGS TO CHARGE HIM WITH.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-cohen-secret-tape-possible-a-crime-was-committed/
CBS NEWS July 25, 2018, 12:16 PM
Secret Trump-Cohen tape: Why it's "possible" a crime was committed

VIDEO – SECRET TRUMP-COHEN TAPE MADE PUBLIC 3:56

The much-anticipated secret recording between then-candidate Donald Trump and his lawyer, Michael Cohen was released by CNN Tuesday night but many questions about both what it says and what it means remain. According to CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman, the tape in and of itself does not indicate a crime was committed but it is "possible" since the recording raises serious questions about whether Mr. Trump violated campaign finance law.

Trump and Michael Cohen on tape: Did Trump say "cash" or "check?"
Was it legal for Michael Cohen to secretly tape Trump?

The conversation, surreptitiously but not illegally recorded by Cohen, came after American Media, Inc. reached a $150,00 deal to pay former Playboy model Karen McDougal to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Mr. Trump more than a decade ago. The president denies the affair.

"There's no question that the president knew about it," Klieman told "CBS This Morning" referring to the payment to McDougal. "The question becomes whether or not it's a campaign finance violation because if they knew about it, simply knew about it, they had to account for it because it's an in-kind contribution. The fact that they thought about paying David Pecker and American Media, [parent company of] the National Enquirer to continue this catch and kill and get the rights to Karen McDougal's story, that in and of itself might not be illegal but it certainly smacks of something that we don't like."

In the recording, which was taken just two months before the 2016 presidential election, Cohen tells Trump that he'll have to set up "financing." Mr. Trump initially says "what financing?" He then says the word "cash" and later the word "check."

"Well, besides the fact that it's a titillating fact and that we like to know about those kinds of things, that in reality if it's cash or if they set up a dummy organization – as was allegedly done in the Stormy Daniels case – it looks like they are trying to cover up something, hide something," Klieman said.

Mr. Trump's current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has downplayed the relevance of the tape and said the recording only proves the president's claims that he did not know about the transaction.

"They like to get out in front of something," Klieman said. "The best defense is often a good offense and I'm sure that Rudy Giuliani thought that this was going to leak so he wanted to get it out there first. Whether or not it's exculpatory, according to Giuliani, or incriminatory, according to other people, is yet to be decided. Remember this too: We don't know if the special master thought it was privileged or not."

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


IN LOOKING FOR BERNIE SANDERS NEWS, I CAME ACROSS THIS GEM. WATCH THE TAPE.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44777857
Sacha Baron Cohen's new series Who is America? set to launch
10 July 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sacha Baron Cohen has written, directed and stars in Who is America?

Sacha Baron Cohen is to return to TV with a new satirical comedy series that will begin next week on Channel 4 in the UK and Showtime in the US .

The Borat star has been secretly filming the seven episodes for a year.

The show, which premieres on Showtime on Sunday, marks his first full series for TV since Da Ali G Show in 2004.

Showtime said Who is America? "will explore the diverse individuals... across the political and cultural spectrum" in the US.

The network promises it will show the comedian and actor "as you've never seen him before". The series will begin in the UK on Channel 4 at 22:00 BST on Monday.

Last week, the comedian teased his comeback in a video showing Donald Trump berating him as a "third-rate character".

Another preview clip shows former US vice president Dick Cheney apparently agreeing to autograph a "waterboard kit" - in reality a plastic water jug.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption

The comedian has three children with his wife, Australian actress Isla Fisher
"Sacha is a comedic genius who shocks you with his audacity, bravery and inventiveness," Showtime president David Nevins said. "He is the premier provocateur of our time.

"Nobody knows how to cause a stir like Sacha Baron Cohen, and it's going to be fascinating to watch what happens when Who is America? is released on the world."

Baron Cohen is best known for hoaxing interviewees as comedy characters Ali G, Borat Sagdiyev and fashion reporter Bruno, all of whom inspired big-screen films.

His other movie credits include Alice Through the Looking Glass, Les Miserables, Sweeney Todd and The Dictator.

How Borat hoaxed America
Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at bbcnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@bbc.co.uk.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
MADDOW BLOG


HELP THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/25/18
NRA quiet on alleged role as Russian conduit in Butina charges
Rachel Maddow shows that prosecutors in the Mariia Butina case say their evidence overlaps with other investigations, and notes that the NRA has been oddly silent on how they're cast as a tool of Russia in the Butina charges. Duration: 22:41


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/25/18
Republicans introduce articles of impeachment against Rosenstein
Kyle Cheney, congressional reporter for Politico, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly introduced resolution from pro-Trump Republicans in the House to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Duration: 7:20


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/25/18
Legal pressure on Trump-friendly publish could be bad for Trump
Rebecca O'Brien, law enforcement reporter for the Wall Street Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about how legal pressure on Donald Trump-friendly publisher American Media over payments to Karen McDougal could end up becoming a legal problem for Trump. Duration: 9:14


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/25/18
White House hasn't corrected online record of Putin backing Trump
In a follow-up to Tuesday night's story, Rachel Maddow reports that while the White House admits the question about Vladimir Putin supporting Donald Trump is missing from its online transcript, it hasn't corrected that transcript or the corresponding video. Duration: 2:25


HELP THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/25/18
Investigators have 100 Michael Cohen tapes: WaPo
Rachel Maddow relays breaking news from The Washington Post that federal investigators have roughly 100 tapes secretly recorded by Michael Cohen that may relate to Donald Trump and his businesses. Duration: 2:33


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/24/18
Courts a stopgap to Trump's failings on loyalty to Americans
Michael McFaul, Chuck Rosenberg, and Matt Axelrod talk with Rachel Maddow about whether Donald Trump could unilaterally hand over American citizens at Vladimir Putin's request. Duration: 7:10


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/24/18
Trump White House cuts Putin support for Trump out of transcript
Rachel Maddow shows how the White House transcript and video of the Trump Putin press conference in Helsinki has been edited to remove the question asking Putin if he wanted Trump to win the election, part of a broader campaign of information warfare the Trump administration is waging with Russia against the American people. Duration: 22:24


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/24/18
Cohen Trump tape offers bevy of new leads for investigators
Rachel Maddow shares the CNN broadcast of an audio tape of Donald Trump speaking with Michael Cohen ostensibly about paying a former Playboy Playmate who says she had an affair with Trump, and discusses with a distinguished panel. CNN says the tape came from Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis. Duration: 11:11


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/25/18
Butina case emblematic of multi-faceted Putin strategy against US
While Mariia Butina faces American due process, the crime of which she is accused is not a rarity given Vladimir Putin's regard for the United States as an enemy and his desire to gain any upper hand he can. Michael McFaul, Chuck Rosenberg, and Matt Axelrod ... more Duration: 4:29


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/23/18
Big week of news in store with Manafort and Butina court dates
Rachel Maddow alerts viewers that jury selection in the Paul Manafort trial starts Tuesday, and Wednesday will see another hearing in the Mariia Butina case. Duration: 0:26


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/23/18
Warrants show Trump camp adviser was believed to be Russian agent
Rachel Maddow reports on the FISA warrant application for Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Duration: 3:58

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/23/18
FISA applications' release tests bounds of protecting FBI sources
David Kris, former head of the National Security Division at the Department of Justice, talks with Rachel Maddow about the unprecedented nature of the declassification of the Carter Page FISA warrant applications and how the FBI is limited in how it can refute invented claims by Donald Trump. Duration: 7:05


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/23/18
Kavanaugh voicing of uncommon view on Nixon tapes sparks furor
Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about a view expressed by Donald Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that the decision to force Richard Nixon to produce his Oval Office tapes was incorrect - an uncommon perspective and one sure to be probed in the confirmation process. Duration: 6:49


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/20/18
Trump legal team leaks to undercut Cohen's ability to cut a deal
Emily Jane Fox, senior reporter for Vanity Fair, talks with Rachel Maddow about how Rudy Giuliani and Trump's legal team can waive privilege on evidence, essentially handing it to prosecutors so Michael Cohen can't use his exclusive possession of the material as a bargaining chip to cut a deal. Duration: 5:43


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/20/18
Trump camp changed strategy after Russians stole DNC analytics
Rachel Maddow looks at the timing between the theft by Russian military intelligence of DNC analytics data in September 2016, as described in the recent indictment brought by Robert Mueller, and an abrupt change in campaign strategy by the Donald Trump campaign in early October. Duration: 3:39


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 7/20/18
Nightly protests turn up the volume to get Trump's attention
Rachel Maddow reports on the continuing protests outside the White House, as well as outside Donald Trump's New Jersey golf course. Duration: 1:41