Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump tried to end the special counsel probe in December, marking the second known attempt to do so, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

 The Times report on Tuesday evening came as CNN reported that Trump is considering firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , who has oversight of the Mueller probe, following a federal raid on Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen.

 In December, angered by reports of subpoenas for information on his business with Deutsche Bank, Trump told advisers he wanted the investigation to be shut down, according to the Times' report.

 The Times report, based on interviews with eight sources, said the President backed down after Mueller's office told Trump's lawyers and advisers that reports about the subpoenas were inaccurate.

 The report outlines the second time Trump is known to have moved to quash the probe, and follows previous reporting that the President moved to fire Mueller last June, which a source said White House counsel Donald McGahn refused. Trump denied the story at the time.

 Read More ||||| Over the next couple of days, Mr. Trump pestered Mr. McGahn about the firing, but Mr. McGahn would not tell Mr. Rosenstein. The badgering by the president got so bad that Mr. McGahn wrote a resignation letter and was prepared to quit. It was only after Mr. McGahn made it known to senior White House officials that he was going to resign that Mr. Trump backed down.

 The articles that provoked Mr. Trump’s anger in December — which were published by Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and Reuters — said one of Mr. Mueller’s subpoenas had targeted Mr. Trump’s and his family’s banking records at Deutsche Bank. Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who have studied Mr. Trump’s bank accounts, did not believe the articles were accurate because Mr. Trump did not have his money there.

 The lawyers were also able to learn that federal prosecutors in a different inquiry had issued a subpoena for entities connected to the family business of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The news outlets later clarified the articles, saying that the subpoena to Deutsche Bank pertained to people affiliated with Mr. Trump, who was satisfied with the explanation and dropped his push to fire Mr. Mueller.

 The White House did not respond to an email seeking comment.

 Acutely conscious of the threat Mr. Mueller’s investigation poses, Mr. Trump has openly discussed ways to shut it down. Each time, he has been convinced by his lawyers and advisers that taking the step would only exacerbate his problems. In some cases, they have explained to Mr. Trump how anything that causes him to lose support from congressional Republicans could further imperil his presidency.

 But Mr. Trump’s statements to his advisers have been significant enough to attract attention from Mr. Mueller himself. Mr. Mueller’s investigators have interviewed current and former White House officials and have requested documents to understand whether these efforts show evidence the president is trying to obstruct the Justice Department’s investigation, according to two people briefed on the matter.

 Mr. Trump’s frustrations have tended to flare up in response to developments in the news, especially accounts of appearances of witnesses, whom Mr. Trump feels were unfairly and aggressively approached by investigators. They include his former communications director, Hope Hicks, and his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski.

 The venting has usually been dismissed by his advisers, many of whom insist they have come to see the statements less as direct orders than as simply how the president talks, and that he often does not follow up on his outbursts.

 One former adviser said that people had become conditioned to wait until Mr. Trump had raised an issue at least three times before acting on it. The president’s diatribes about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Mr. Rosenstein and the existence of the special counsel have, for most of the White House aides, become a dependable part of the fabric of life working for this president. ||||| President Trump Donald John TrumpStone: 'I’ve never had any discussion' with Trump about a pardon White House: Trump will move forward on wall 'with or without' Dems Pelosi after Stone indictment: 'What does Putin have on the president'? MORE’s showdown with Robert Mueller Robert Swan MuellerSasse: US should applaud choice of Mueller to lead Russia probe MORE headed toward a crisis point on Tuesday, with the White House saying Trump has legal authority to fire the special counsel.

 Republicans unnerved by the president’s anger in public and private sought to talk him down, fearing a “Saturday night massacre”-style series of firings harking back to the Nixon era was growing more likely.

 GOP lawmakers fear presidential firings of Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions Jefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsWe can end the shutdown with billion — Trump and Democrats already agree on border security Nadler sends Whitaker questions on possible contacts with Trump over Mueller probe Graham angers Dems by digging into Clinton, Obama controversies MORE or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Rod Jay RosensteinBarr’s first task as AG: Look at former FBI leaders’ conduct 5 myths about William Barr William Barr's only 'flaw' is that he was nominated by Trump MORE would cause chaos in Washington and dim Republican hopes of holding their congressional majorities.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley Charles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyOvernight Health Care: Lawyer alleges migrant kids behind held in unlicensed facilities | Poll shows 46 percent haven't heard of 'Medicare for all' | Lawmakers set up dueling drug pricing hearings As it applies to veterans, it is time for pay-go to go Proposed drug importation bill would expose Americans to counterfeit meds MORE (R-Iowa) declared in a CNN interview Tuesday that “it would be suicide for the president to fire him.”

 “I have made my views public, and I hope he’s listening to those of us who say it would be a mistake,” said Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn John CornynGeorge Conway: GOP senators bear responsibility for shutdown because they took 'idiot' Trump seriously GOP senator reportedly slams McConnell over shutdown: ‘This is your fault’ Dems strengthen hand in shutdown fight MORE (Texas).

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOn The Money: Trump agrees to end shutdown without wall funding | Senate quickly clears short-term funding measure | House to vote tonight | Federal workers could get back pay within days | Dems take victory lap Shutdown ends without funding for Trump’s border wall Senate expected to pass bill to end shutdown on Friday MORE (R-Ky.) insisted legislation to protect Mueller was unnecessary because cooler heads would prevail.

 “I haven’t seen a clear indication yet that we needed to pass something to keep him from being removed because I don’t think that’s going to happen, and that remains my view,” McConnell told reporters. “It’s still my view that Mueller should be allowed to finish his job. I think that’s the view of most people in Congress.”

 Trump’s fury at the FBI’s raid on Monday on Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer, has triggered the latest crisis surrounding the Mueller probe.

 Federal prosecutors were reportedly seeking information on payments made to two women, adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who both claim to have had affairs with Trump years ago.

 The personal nature of the probe has clearly angered the president, who decried an unfair witch hunt of his presidency in a Tuesday morning tweet.

 “Attorney–client privilege is dead!” Trump tweeted. “A TOTAL WITCH HUNT!!!”

 The president also canceled a planned weekend trip to two South American nations.

 Allies of Trump were egging him on, saying they would understand if he took the step of firing officials at the Department of Justice — a decision some Republicans have said could spark a constitutional crisis.

 “I understand the president’s frustration with the hypocrisy playing out at the Department of Justice,” freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz Matthew (Matt) GaetzHouse passes bill expressing support for NATO Maduro starts new term in Venezuela facing US sanctions, lack of legitimacy abroad Rick Scott threw party at Florida governor’s mansion after DeSantis and family had moved in: report MORE (R-Fla.) told Fox News. “Frankly, it would be warranted if we made changes at the very top of the Department of Justice.”

 “I think there is a sufficient basis to fire Rosenstein in particular, and likely the attorney general for not doing his job,” he added.

 That suggestion shocked other Republicans.

 “If the president were to fire the deputy attorney general, that would be an extraordinary crisis and a real problem, and I just don’t think he’s going to do it,” said Sen. Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsShutdown ends without funding for Trump’s border wall Senate expected to pass bill to end shutdown on Friday GOP Sen. Collins: I'm not sure Trump understands living 'paycheck to paycheck' MORE (R-Maine).

 GOP lawmakers couldn’t escape questions about Trump, Cohen, Mueller and Rosenstein from reporters at the Capitol — even on a day when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Mark Elliot ZuckerbergHillicon Valley: Roger Stone indicted in Mueller probe | Zuckerberg defends Facebook's data practices | Irish data regulators probing Twitter | Zinke vows to make his crypto company 'great again' Zuckerberg defends Facebook data practices in op-ed On The Money: Shutdown Day 33 | Fight over State of the Union | Pelosi tells Trump no speech on Tuesday | Trump teases 'alternative' address | Trump adviser warns shutdown could hurt growth | Mulvaney seeks list of vulnerable programs MORE was testifying on Capitol Hill for the first time.

 Pushback from fellow Republicans against firing Mueller has grown stronger since the beginning of the year, when Trump’s allies mostly shrugged off speculation that the president would somehow cut short the special counsel investigation, dismissing it as an unlikely prospect.

 While most Republicans maintain they don’t think Trump will quash the probe, they’re less confident than before.

 And statements from the White House podium on Tuesday from press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders only added to their fears.

 Sanders announced that Trump “certainly believes that he has the power” to end Mueller’s investigation. The comments suggest the White House may be looking for legal arguments to back a decision to fire Mueller.

 Legal experts say Trump does not have the power to fire Mueller directly. Under Justice Department regulations, that authority falls to the agency official in charge of the investigation — in this case Rosenstein.

 It is easy to see why a Trump decision to fire Mueller would make Republicans queasy.

 A Quinnipiac University poll conducted this month found that 69 percent of American voters oppose Trump firing Mueller while only 13 percent support it. More than half of the Republicans polled, 55 percent, said Trump shouldn’t interfere.

 Republicans are worried about a wave election this fall that could cost them their House majority. There are also fears about the Senate, though the fact that Democrats are defending many more seats in the upper chamber gives Republicans more confidence about holding it.

 Still, many GOP senators fear firing Mueller would pose new risks to their majority.

 Trump also has reason to fear a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, which would unleash investigations of his administration.

 Amid uncertainty over what Trump will do next, some Republicans are pushing for legislation to protect Mueller, although that path doesn’t yet have much support in the party.

 Sens. Thom Tillis Thomas (Thom) Roland TillisShutdown deal may be in hand; Trump to make remarks Dems strengthen hand in shutdown fight White House immigration agenda hurts Senate Republicans in 2020 MORE (R-N.C.) and Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamHouse votes to reopen government, sending bill to Trump Shutdown ends without funding for Trump’s border wall The Hill's Morning Report — McConnell tells Pence shutdown must end MORE (R-S.C.) have sponsored bipartisan bills to protect the special counsel.

 The Tillis measure would empower judges to reinstate Mueller if a court found his firing to be improper. Tillis on Tuesday called for a vote on the measure.

 Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerLou Dobbs slams Trump's move to end shutdown: 'Illegal immigrants are surely pleased’ A law enforcement solution to security on the Southern border Senators pitch three-week stopgap bill to resolve shutdown fight MORE (N.Y.) tried to ramp up pressure on Republicans Tuesday by defending the integrity of Mueller’s work and calling for Senate floor action.

 – Jordain Carney contributed

Summary: – President Trump tried to fire Robert Mueller in December, which is the second known time the president has attempted to get rid of the special counsel, according to the New York Times. which cites interviews with eight White House officials and other people close to Trump. The sources say Trump demanded the firing because he was enraged by media reports that Mueller had crossed his "red line" and subpoenaed Deutsche Bank seeking records on the financial dealings of the Trump family. The insiders say that Trump backed down after lawyers contacted Mueller's team and determined that the reports were what the president would describe as "FAKE NEWS." The Times reported earlier this year that the chief White House lawyer refused Trump's order to fire Mueller last June. The Times report heightened worries that Trump will fire Mueller out of anger at Monday's raid on the offices of Michael Cohen, his personal lawyer. After the raid—the result of an investigation Mueller passed to the Manhattan US attorney—Trump said it was a "disgrace" and told reporters he hadn't made up his mind yet about firing Mueller, CNN reports. Republicans, who fear firing Mueller could cause chaos, have been trying to talk him down, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell say he doesn't see a need to pass legislation to protect him from being removed, the Hill reports. "I don't think that’s going to happen, and that remains my view," McConnell said Tuesday. "It's still my view that Mueller should be allowed to finish his job. I think that's the view of most people in Congress."


As they attempt to sound distressed over Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, Western governments are understandably being less than candid about their records of facilitating Saudi violence at home and regionally.

 French President Emmanuel Macron has been among the worst culprits, recently claiming that it was false to say Saudi Arabia is a major client of the French arms industry. Macron's defence minister, however, told lawmakers those arms sales were crucial for French jobs.

 France is the world’s third-largest weapons dealer, with exports rising considerably during the past decade. Saudi Arabia was its second-largest customer in that period.

 With his background in banking, Macron can surely calculate that there is big money involved: Saudi Arabia bought more than €11 billion ($12bn) in French arms between 2008 and 2017.

 Audacious spin

 Since becoming president last year, Macron has acted as something of an image consultant to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. When the crown prince visited Paris in April, Macron hosted a dinner for him and Saad Hariri, Lebanon's prime minister. Photos were circulated of the three admiring Delacroix’s masterpiece Liberty Leading the People. All the tension caused by the Saudis holding Hariri hostage several months earlier was magicked away.

 Macron pledged full support for Saudi Arabia’s “security” as it warded off ballistic missiles fired from Yemen. It was audacious spin. Saudi Arabia is the chief aggressor in Yemen; its military offensive has exacerbated a humanitarian crisis to such an extent that the UN is warning a famine may be imminent. Yet, Macron has cast Saudi authorities as blameless victims.

 Assurances from Paris that the weapons have only been used for defensive purposes along the Saudi-Yemeni border have been contradicted by the arms industry

 European Union law stipulates that weapons may not be sold abroad if there is a "clear risk" they will be used in conflicts. France is not respecting its obligations. The Saudi air strikes on Yemen began in 2015. Last year, the Saudis ordered more than €1 billion ($1.1bn) worth of weapons from France, according to Le Monde.

 Assurances from Paris that the weapons have only been used for defensive purposes along the Saudi-Yemeni border have been contradicted by the arms industry.

 One French firm, Nexter, has bragged about how the region’s armies were strongly impressed by the performance of its tanks in Yemen. Flying tankers made by Airbus have been used to refuel the F-15s that are vital to the Saudi war effort, and France has provided training to Saudi military pilots within the past year.

 Oil supplies

 Following Khashoggi’s murder, numerous corporations withdrew from the Future Investment Initiative, a Riyadh conference. Total, the French energy giant, nonetheless insisted on participating. It is not hard to work out why: Saudi Arabia is a top supplier of oil to France.

 Total has been active in Saudi Arabia for decades and has lately been eyeing opportunities in its petrol station market. The "reformers" of Riyadh are now allowing women to drive. Under different circumstances, Total might very well be presenting its new investments as a contribution towards gender equality.

 People attend the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh on 24 October 2018 (AFP)

 Earlier this year, Macron said that France and Saudi Arabia shared a determination to "fight actively against all forms of terrorism". If Macron really holds that rosy view, he should read a recent paper from Institut Montaigne, a think-tank with documented connections to his political "movement" En Marche.

 Saudi Arabia, that paper notes, has been exporting the extremist religious ideology since the 1960s through "theoretically autonomous institutions" that are actually at the heart of the state. As well as seeking to have a monopoly on Islam, the Saudis display an "expansionist fervour" that has been “supported by funding from the oil industry”.

 Eroding civil liberties

 Scholar Gilbert Achcar has called Saudi Arabia "the least democratic, most misogynist, most fundamentalist country on the planet".

 Rather than holding Saudi authorities responsible for promoting extremism, France has entered into lucrative arms and oil deals with them. France has simultaneously eroded civil liberties at home. Dissent has been severely curtailed through a far-reaching "counter-terrorism" bill. French Muslims have been treated as a suspect people. Intentionally or otherwise, state policy encourages bigotry.

 READ MORE ► How Jamal Khashoggi's murder could reshape the Middle East order

 A few months before he became president, Macron described colonisation as a “crime against humanity”. More recently, he acknowledged that France practised torture in Algeria.

 Macron made his admission due to persistent campaigning by the widow of Maurice Audin, a political activist killed by French forces in Algeria 61 years ago. France’s meddling in the Middle East stretches back much further. Through the 1916 Sykes-Picot accord, Britain and France in effect carved up the region between them. The imperial powers of that epoch chose a network of strongmen to run affairs in their interests.

 Lip service has subsequently been paid to the idea of self-determination. Yet the philosophy - for want of a better word - behind Sykes-Picot still pervades in the foreign ministries of London and Paris. Power, cash and influence trump almost everything else.

 More interventionism

 Expecting Macron to bring any kind of progressive change would be naive. The programme on which he fought the 2017 election indicated that he wished to be even more interventionist in the Middle East than his predecessors.

 About half of all French arms exports are destined for the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is not the only state to have used French weapons in its attacks on Yemen: up to 80 French tanks sold to the United Arab Emirates - part of a Saudi-led military coalition - have been deployed during that war.

 France’s conduct in the Middle East proves it is more than happy to facilitate violence

 Egypt, meanwhile, bought more than €4 billion ($4.5bn) in French weapons from 2012 to 2017. Some of the Egyptian troops who committed the August 2013 massacre against protesters in Cairo fired from armoured vehicles supplied by France.

 Macron apparently does not want to mark the 100th anniversary of the armistice ending the First World War with a military parade. His decision may disappoint US President Donald Trump, according to The Telegraph. It does not mean that Macron has come out as a pacifist: France’s conduct in the Middle East proves it is more than happy to facilitate violence.

 - David Cronin is a journalist and activist living in Brussels. His book Balfour's Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel is published by Pluto Press. He is also the author of Europe's Alliance With Israel: Aiding the Occupation (Pluto, 2011) and Corporate Europe: How Big Business Sets Policies on Food, Climate and War (Pluto, 2013).

 The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

 Photo: French President Emmanuel Macron shakes hands with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Paris on 10 April 2018 (AFP)

 This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition. ||||| Uploaded on Nov 30, 2018

 The Saudi crown prince and the French president have an informal conversation on the sidelines of the summit, standing close together and apparently unaware their conversation is being recorded. It is unclear what the subject of the snatched and only partly audible conversation is, but it sounds like Macron replies to the crown prince’s assurances: 'I do worry. I am worried ... I told you.' Macron then says something inaudible, to which the Saudi leader says: 'It’s OK. I can deal with it.' The Khashoggi murder and the threat of mass starvation in Yemen have cast a heavy shadow over the crown prince’s attendance at the meeting of the world’s 20 biggest economies ||||| The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, suspected of ordering the murder of the dissident writer Jamal Khashoggi and accused of war crimes in the Yemen conflict, has told the French president, Emmanuel Macron, “Don’t worry” at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires.

 The two leaders were having an informal conversation on the sidelines of the summit, standing close together and apparently unaware their conversation was being recorded. The subject of the snatched conversation was not immediately clear but a French presidential aide said afterwards that the Khashoggi murder and the Yemen conflict were the two key topics of the short exchange.

 According to a Guardian analysis of their only partly audible conversation, Macron replies to the crown prince’s assurances: “I do worry. I am worried … I told you.”

 G20 summit: can world leaders find unity – or is it simply showboating? Read more

 “Yes, you told me,” the prince says. “Thank you very much.”

 “You never listen to me,” Macron says.

 “No, I listen, of course,” replied Prince Mohammed, smiling broadly after apparently becoming aware of a television camera.

 “Because I told you. It was more important for you,” Macron says, and gives a tight smile, before turning away from the camera to speak further to the prince.

 Macron then says something inaudible, to which the Saudi leader says: “It’s OK. I can deal with it.”

 After another indecipherable segment of conversation, Macron says: “I am a man of my word.”

 The Élysée Palace said the two leaders had a five-minute exchange on the sidelines of the summit in which Macron conveyed a “very firm” message to the prince over the killing and the need to find a political solution for the situation in Yemen.

 Play Video 0:24 Putin and Saudi crown prince high-five at G20 summit – video

 The Saudi prince’s decision to attend the G20 summit in Buenos Aires represented a calculated risk, as it was unclear whether the other leaders would condemn him. Many of his closest aides and security staff were involved in Khashoggi’s murder on 2 October in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and the CIA has reportedly assessed that the prince gave the order for the execution.

 The results of the 33-year-old Saudi leader’s gambit were mixed at the start of the two-day summit. Macron and the UK’s prime minister, Theresa May, agreed to meet him. May insisted she had strong words to convey about the Khashoggi murder and the need for a full accounting of Riyadh’s alleged involvement.

 During a group photo marking the start of the summit, the prince stood at the far edge of the group, largely ignored and left alone as soon as it was over. But a few minutes later, Vladimir Putin greeted the Saudi prince warmly, giving him a high five as they sat down together at the large ring-shaped table for the first group session.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Mohammed bin Salman, top centre, stands apart as Theresa May passes by in front. Photograph: Ricardo Mazalán/AP

 Putin also came to the Argentinian capital fighting pariah status after an incident in the Azov Sea on Sunday in which Russian vessels rammed a Ukrainian tugboat and opened fire on two small Ukrainian navy cutters it was accompanying.

 Russian forces seized the vessels and their crew and Moscow’s refusal to return them was the reason Donald Trump offered for his decision to cancel a bilateral meeting with Putin, which had been planned for Friday morning.

 As Russian actions in the Sea of Azov had been known for days, there was speculation in Washington that the real reason for the change of mind was the court appearance of Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, on Thursday in which he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the extent and duration of negotiations with the Kremlin about a possible Trump hotel in Moscow, continuing up to July 2016, at the height of the presidential election campaign.

 Trump, whose campaign is being investigated for its alleged links to the Kremlin, had denied any business dealings in Russia.

 On Friday, Russian media reported that Trump and Putin would meet informally at the fringes of the full G20 summit, but a White House official said no such “pull aside” had been scheduled.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump, right, looks at Vladimir Putin at the G20 leaders’ summit. Photograph: Juan Mabromata/AFP/Getty Images

 There was similar uncertainty over whether Trump would meet the Saudi crown prince, whom the president has supported in the face of US intelligence findings of his alleged culpability in the Khashoggi murder. The administration also suffered a significant rebuke from the Senate, which ignored the urging of top Trump officials and refused to shelve a debate on whether to cut US military support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen.

 The Saudi-owned broadcaster Al Arabiyah reported that the crown prince and Trump had held a “friendly meeting” on the sidelines of the summit, but the White House said the encounter only amounted to an exchange of pleasantries, similar to the US president’s greeting with every other leader.

 Before arriving in Buenos Aires, Trump had declared himself willing to meet the crown prince, while his national security adviser, John Bolton, ruled it out, saying there was no room in the president’s schedule. The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, met his Saudi counterpart, Adel al-Jubeir, separately in a meeting that a statement said was focused on planned Yemen peace talks next week, “as well as the importance of making progress on the investigation into Jamal Khashoggi’s death”.

 On leaving the meeting, the Saudi foreign minister described it as “very productive”, saying they have discussed “challenges in the region and the bilateral relationship and ways of moving it forward”. Asked if they had also discussed Khashoggi, he did not reply.

 Trump began the day by attending a signing ceremony for a new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, the USMCA, to replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). .

 “Just signed one of the most important, and largest, Trade Deals in US and World History,” Trump announced in a tweet. “The United States, Mexico and Canada worked so well together in crafting this great document. The terrible NAFTA will soon be gone. The USMCA will be fantastic for all!”

 Experts say the USMCA is a slightly tweaked and updated version of Nafta, which Trump has persistently pilloried. In his own remarks the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, repeatedly referred to the deal as “the new Nafta”, a formulation he must have known would annoy the prickly US president.

 Play Video 0:31 Trump walks off leaving Mauricio Macri standing alone at G20 – video

 The leaders began the summit without Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, whose plane had broken down on the way to Argentina and who was making her way to Buenos Aires on commercial flights, leaving May the only female leader at the meeting.

 As the proceedings began, it was unclear whether the participants would be able to agree on a final statement as the US had objected to some of the draft language on free trade and the need for multilateralism. The statement had not been settled by Friday afternoon, according to diplomats at the summit.

 Referring to some of the difficulties in finding even the most basic common language, the European council president, Donald Tusk, told journalists: “As this is a difficult moment for international cooperation, I would like to appeal to the leaders to use this summit, including their bilateral and informal exchanges, to seriously discuss real issues such as trade wars, the tragic situation in Syria and Yemen and the Russian aggression in Ukraine.”

 “I see no reason why the G20 leaders shouldn’t have a meaningful discussion about solving these problems. Especially because all the instruments lie in their hands,” Tusk said. “The only condition is goodwill.”

Summary: – French President Emmanuel Macron chatted privately Friday with Saudi Arabia's controversial crown prince on the sidelines of the G-20 summit, but some intriguing snippets were caught by microphones. (Watch the video.) The Guardian provides some highlights as Macron appears to be trying to advise and/or warn Mohammed bin Salman, while the prince seeks to reassure him that he's got a handle on things: Macron: “I do worry. I am worried … I told you.” Prince: “Yes, you told me. Thank you very much.” Macron: “You never listen to me." Prince: “No, I listen, of course." Macron: "Because I told you. It was more important for you." Prince: “It’s OK. I can deal with it.” So what are they talking about? A spokesman for Macron said later that the two primarily discussed allegations of Saudi war crimes in Yemen and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. A critical analysis at Middle East Eye before the summit began noted that Saudi Arabia is an important buyer of French weapons and finds that Macron "has acted as something of an image consultant" to the prince over the last year. (The prince had an enthusiastic greeting for Vladimir Putin.)


6 years ago

 (CNN) – No one has emerged spotless from the debt-ceiling debate, according to a survey conducted in the aftermath of the agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

 A CBS News/New York Times poll released Thursday revealed that eight in 10 Americans say they disapprove of how Congress is handling its job – the highest number in the poll's history since 1977.

 A CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday echoes the nation's displeasure with congressional leaders. Eighty-four percent of the nation disapproved of the way Congress is handling its job in the poll; only 14 percent approved.

 But the country is split over how the president is handling his responsibilities in the White House. Forty-eight percent said they approve of how President Barack Obama is handling his job and 47 percent disapprove in the CBS News/New York Times survey.

 When it comes to the debt-ceiling negotiations, 66 percent said they disapprove of how Democrats handled the talks and more – 72 percent – said they disapprove of the way Republicans negotiated to broker the deal.

 The nation may be split over how it views the president's role in debt negotiations – almost half both approve and disapprove of how he handled the talks – but it's clear most agree that all of the players were more interested in gaining an upper hand.

 Eight in 10 believe the debt disagreement was mostly about gaining political advantage while a minority – 14 percent – say it was about doing what's best for the country.

 While no one walked away from the debt debate unscathed, opinions of the GOP took a slightly bigger hit. Half say Republicans in Congress compromised "too little" during negotiations, compared with Democrats: roughly one-third say they compromised the right amount or too little and 26 percent say they compromised too much.

 Republicans are also more to blame for the budget standoff in the survey – 47 to 29 percent – over the president and Democrats in Congress.

 The poll indicates that it's difficult for everyone to be pleased with the debt-ceiling deal. The country is split with the outcome since 46 percent approve of the agreement and 45 percent disapprove.

 Looking to the future, congressional members may be spending some time at home smoothing ruffled feathers: 75 percent of the country feels that most members of Congress do not deserve to be re-elected and 15 percent say they do. ||||| CBS

 CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

 Americans have looked disapprovingly at their representatives in Congress for decades. But it's never been this bad.

 In the wake of the hard-fought debt limit debate, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job - the highest disapproval rating since polling began in 1977. Just 14 percent approve of Congress' performance.

 The uptick in frustration comes after Congress narrowly avoided an economic catastrophe of its own making by failing to hammer out a deal to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit until the deadline for action. And neither side was happy with the outcome: Conservatives said the final deal, which is projected to cut around $2.5 trillion over ten years from a projected $24 trillion debt, didn't go far enough; liberals complained that the initial deficit reduction came entirely in the form of spending cuts, not revenue increases as Democrats initially demanded.

 Meanwhile, the stock market has plummeted in the wake of the deal, dropping more than 500 points Thursday.

 The survey, taken on August 2nd and 3rd - immediately after the deal was reached - found Americans more frustrated with congressional Republicans than their Democratic counterparts when it came to the negotiations.

 That's not to say congressional Democrats have much to crow about. Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of their handling of the debt ceiling debate; just 28 percent approve.

 But Republicans fare worse: Seventy-two percent of Americans disapprove of their performance during the debt ceiling debate, while just 21 percent approve.

 And Republicans get most of the blame for the standoff. Forty-seven percent blame Republicans in Congress, while 29 percent blame President Obama and congressional Democrats; 20 percent say both are to blame.

 A majority of Americans - 52 percent - says Republicans in Congress compromised too little in the debate. Fewer - 34 percent - say Democrats, including President Obama, compromised too little. Republicans were more likely to think members of their party compromised too little (34 percent) than to say they compromised too much (26 percent).

 By contrast, Democrats were more likely to think members of their party compromised too much (41 percent) rather than too little (20 percent). Overall, 26 percent say Democrats compromised too much in the negotiations; just 15 percent say the same of Republicans

 CBS

 Americans overwhelmingly say the debate was more about politics than policy. Just 14 percent said the debt ceiling disagreement was mostly about doing what was best for the country; 82 percent said it was about gaining political advantage. Large majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents agree the debate was grounded in political considerations.

 Americans see Mr. Obama more positively than members of Congress when it comes to handling the debt ceiling debate, though Americans are split. Forty-six percent approve of his handling of the situation, while 47 percent disapprove. Forty-nine percent say he showed strong leadership in the debate, while 48 percent say he did not.

 Overall, Mr. Obama's approval rating stands at 48 percent, largely unchanged from CBS News findings throughout the year. Forty-seven percent disapprove of his performance.

 As for House Speaker John Boehner, perhaps the most prominent Republican in Congress? His disapproval rating has risen from 40 percent in April to 57 percent in the new survey. Thirty percent approve of his performance on the job.

 Dissatisfaction, Anger toward Washington

 Eighty-four percent of Americans are either dissatisfied (56 percent) or angry (28 percent) with Washington, a record high in CBS News/New York Times polling. Only 14 percent are satisfied with Washington, and just one percent is enthusiastic.

 On the question of whether or not most members of Congress deserve to be reelected, three in four Americans say no. Two in three say they are pessimistic about Congress' ability to deal with issues in the wake of the debt ceiling debate.

 Asked to survey the economy, 86 percent characterized it negatively - the highest number in two years. Only 12 percent characterized the economy positively. Asked who they trust more to guide the economy, 47 percent say Mr. Obama, while 33 percent say congressional Republicans. Fourteen percent say neither.

 In regard to whether creating jobs or cutting government spending should be a higher priority, Americans overwhelmingly pointed to jobs. Sixty-two percent said creating jobs should be the higher priority for the nation, including majorities of Democrats and independents and 42 percent of Republicans; just 29 percent said America should prioritize cutting spending.

 More from the poll:

 Americans divided on debt limit deal

 Read the full poll (PDF) ||||| The debate over raising the debt ceiling , which brought the nation to the brink of default, has sent disapproval of Congress to its highest level on record and left most Americans saying that creating jobs should now take priority over cutting spending, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

 A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.

 More than four out of five people surveyed said that the recent debt-ceiling debate was more about gaining political advantage than about doing what is best for the country. Nearly three-quarters said that the debate had harmed the image of the United States in the world.

 Republicans in Congress shoulder more of the blame for the difficulties in reaching a debt-ceiling agreement than President Obama and the Democrats, the poll found.

 The Republicans compromised too little, a majority of those polled said. All told, 72 percent disapproved of the way Republicans in Congress handled the negotiations, while 66 percent disapproved of the way Democrats in Congress handled negotiations.

 The public was more evenly divided about how Mr. Obama handled the debt ceiling negotiations: 47 percent disapproved and 46 percent approved.

 The public’s opinion of the Tea Party movement has soured in the wake of the debt-ceiling debate. The Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the public and favorably by just 20 percent, according to the poll. In mid-April 29 percent of those polled viewed the movement unfavorably, while 26 percent viewed it favorably. And 43 percent of Americans now think the Tea Party has too much influence on the Republican Party, up from 27 percent in mid-April.

 “I’m real disappointed in Congress,” Ron Raggio, 54, a florist from Vicksburg, Miss., said in a follow-up interview. “They can’t sit down and agree about what’s best for America. It’s all politics.”

 There were signs that the repeated Republican calls for more spending cuts were resonating with the public: 44 percent of those polled said the cuts in the debt-ceiling agreement did not go far enough, 29 percent said they were about right and only 15 percent said they went too far. More than a quarter of the Democrats polled said that the cuts in the agreement did not go far enough.

 But by a ratio of more than two to one, Americans said that creating jobs should be a higher priority than spending cuts.

 Though Republicans prevented tax increases from being included in the debt-ceiling deal, half of those polled said the agreement should have included increased tax revenue, while 44 percent said it should have relied on cuts alone. That issue is likely to be revisited soon: Congress is preparing to appoint a special committee to recommend ways to reduce the deficit. Sixty-three percent of those polled said that they supported raising taxes on households that earn more than $250,000 a year, as Mr. Obama has sought to do — including majorities of Democrats (80 percent), independents (61 percent) and Republicans (52 percent).

 The poll found that Mr. Obama was emerging from the crisis less bruised than the Republicans in Congress.

 The president’s overall job approval rating remained relatively stable, with 48 percent approving of the way he handles his job as president and 47 percent disapproving — down from the bump up he received in the spring after the killing of Osama bin Laden, but in line with how he has been viewed for nearly a year. By contrast, Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, saw his disapproval rating shoot up 16 points since April: 57 percent of those polled now disapprove of the way he is handling his job, while only 30 percent approve.

 Americans said that they trusted Mr. Obama to make the right decisions about the economy more than the Republicans in Congress, by 47 percent to 33 percent. They were evenly divided on the question of whether he showed “strong qualities of leadership” during the negotiations, with 49 percent saying he did and 48 percent saying he did not. And they were still more likely to blame President George W. Bush for the bulk of the nation’s deficit: 44 percent said that the deficit was mostly caused by the Bush administration, 15 percent said it was mostly caused by the Obama administration and 15 percent blamed Congress.

 The growing fears about the economy — amid a sinking stock market and warnings that the nation risks sliding back into recession — were reflected in the nationwide telephone poll, which was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday with 960 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

 The number of Americans who rated the economy “very bad” was the highest it had been in a year. But there was uncertainty about whether the debt-ceiling deal would help or hurt the economy: nearly half said it would have no effect, while 24 percent said it would make the economy worse and 22 percent said it would improve it.

 Americans were evenly divided on the parameters of the debt-ceiling deal, in which Congress agreed to allow the federal government to borrow the money needed to pay its current obligations and avoid default on the condition that it reduce the deficit by at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Over all, 46 percent of those polled approved of the deal, while 45 percent disapproved of it.

 Most of those polled said that the spending cuts included either did not go far enough or were about right. But with the nation’s unemployment rate at a stubborn 9.2 percent, 62 percent of those polled said that creating jobs should be the priority.

 “Cutting spending is important, but getting people back to work is more important,” said Diane Sherrell, 56, a Republican from Erwin, N.C. “If people are working, they are more productive. There is less crime, there is less depression, there is less divorce. There are less hospital and medical bills. If you put people back to work, you are cutting spending.”

 Stanley Oland, 62, a Republican from Kalispell, Mont., said that the government needed new jobs to generate the economic activity and the revenue it requires.

 “That revenue supports the basic foundation for the economy, creates more jobs and stimulates the economy,” he said. “Unless you have working people you don’t have revenue from taxes. If you cut spending, jobs will be eliminated and you won’t get any revenue. Every dollar spent creates jobs.”

Summary: – The debt ceiling mess has pushed Congress' already dismal approval ratings into the abyss, according to the latest New York Times/CBS poll. Some 82% of Americans don't approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the lowest rating since the Times started asking the question in 1977. CNN's poll gave lawmakers even lower grades, with just 14% of respondents approving of how Congress is handling its responsibilities. More than 80% said the debt debate was more about scoring political points than doing what's best for America. The public isn't impressed with either party, but the GOP fares worse in the Times poll, with 72% of those surveyed disapproving of congressional Republicans' performance versus 66% down on the Democrats. Poll respondents were more evenly split on President Obama's performance in the debt talks, with 47% disapproving and 46% approving of how he handled the situation. Only a fifth of Americans now view the Tea Party movement positively, the poll found, and more than two-thirds say creating jobs should be a higher priority than cutting spending.


By Barbara Starr

 An Iranian fighter jet targeted an unarmed U.S. Predator drone over the Persian Gulf this week, the Pentagon says.

 It was the latest Iranian move aimed at thwarting American military airborne intelligence efforts in the region.

 Defense Department spokesman George Little said on Thursday the unmanned MQ-1 drone was conducting routine classified surveillance over international waters on Tuesday when approached by an Iranian F-4.

 The two aircraft came within 16 miles of each other.

 The American drone was escorted by two U.S. military aircraft, which remained over international waters, Little said, adding that the Iranian jet departed after a verbal warning.

 No shots were fired. However, Obama administration officials told CNN that the United States is concerned with Iranian intentions in incidents like this and whether such episodes could unintentionally trigger hostilities.

 In December 2011, a highly sensitive U.S. Sentinel drone gathering intelligence on Iran's nuclear program for the CIA was captured by Iran after it crashed. In November, an Iranian warplane fired on a Predator over the Gulf.

 After the November incident, the United States told Tehran that it would continue surveillance flights over international waters "consistent with longstanding practice," Little said.

 "We also communicated that we reserve the right to protect our military assets as well as our forces and will continue to do so going forward," he said.

 The use of U.S. drones so close to Iran remains a highly sensitive issue for American military intelligence.

 The aircraft are capable of using sensors to gather information about Iranian military movements. ||||| WASHINGTON—A U.S. drone conducting surveillance was approached by an Iranian fighter jet earlier this week, only to be warned off by American aircraft providing a security escort, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

 When the American fighter planes escorting the drone approached the Iranian plane, it broke off its pursuit of the drone, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said. The Iranian plane never got closer than 16 miles from the drone, the Pentagon said.

 However, when the U.S. fighters spotted the Iranian plane, they closed to within two miles of the approaching craft. U.S. officials wouldn't specify what kind of American planes were involved or precisely where the incident took place.

 Officials said earlier Thursday that one of the U.S. planes fired a flare to ward off the Iranian fighter, but later said no flare had been fired.

 The encounter came as the latest incident between the U.S. and Iran as tensions ratchet up. Last November a pair of Iranian fighter planes fired on a drone conducting surveillance of Iran, but missed.

 After that incident, Mr. Little said in his statement, the U.S. told Iran it would conduct surveillance flights in international airspace and that it would protect its assets.

 "The United States communicated to the Iranians that we will continue to conduct surveillance flights over international waters consistent with long-standing practice and our commitment to the security of the region," Mr. Little said.

 Corrections & Amplifications

 The Pentagon said on Thursday that a U.S. fighter fired a flare to ward off an approaching Iranian jet, but Pentagon officials later updated that statement to say no flare had been fired.

 Write to Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com

Summary: – US and Iranian fighter pilots have had another close encounter. The Pentagon says an Iranian jet began following an unmanned surveillance drone in international airspace earlier this week, reports the Wall Street Journal. It didn't break off pursuit until two US jets approached within two miles of the Iranian craft and warned it away. CNN says the incident took place over Oman. Last November, Iran jets fired at a US drone and missed, and in 2011, Iran captured a US spy drone that crashed.


Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Mr. Ayers has signaled to multiple major Republican donors that Mr. Pence wants to be ready.

 Mr. Obst denied that he and Mr. Ayers had made any private insinuations and called suggestions that the vice president was positioning himself for 2020 “beyond ridiculous.”

 For his part, Mr. Pence is methodically establishing his own identity and bestowing personal touches on people who could pay dividends in the future. He not only spoke in June at one of the most important yearly events for Iowa Republicans, Senator Joni Ernst’s pig roast, but he also held a separate, more intimate gathering for donors afterward.

 When he arrived in Des Moines on Air Force Two, Mr. Pence was greeted by an Iowan who had complained about his experience with the Affordable Care Act — and who happened to be a member of the state Republican central committee.

 The vice president has also turned his residence at the Naval Observatory into a hub for relationship building. In June, he opened the mansion to social conservative activists like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and representatives of the billionaire kingmakers Charles G. and David H. Koch.

 At large gatherings for contributors, Mr. Pence keeps a chair free at each table so he can work his way around the room. At smaller events for some of the party’s biggest donors, he lays on the charm. Last month, Mr. Pence hosted the Kentucky coal barons Kelly and Joe Craft, along with the University of Kentucky men’s basketball coach, John Calipari, for a dinner a few hours after Ms. Craft appeared before the Senate for her hearing as nominee to become ambassador to Canada.

 Other Republicans eyeing the White House have taken note.

 “They see him moving around, having big donors at the house for dinner,” said Charles R. Black Jr., a veteran of Republican presidential politics. “And they’ve got to try to keep up.”

 Mr. Cotton, for example, is planning a two-day, $5,000-per-person fund-raiser in New York next month, ostensibly for Senate Republicans (and his own eventual re-election campaign). The gathering will include a dinner and a series of events at the Harvard Club, featuring figures well known in hawkish foreign policy circles such as Stephen Hadley, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser. ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

Summary: – President Trump may be away from the White House for a while, but he's not taking a vacation from Twitter. He unleashed several tweets Monday morning on everything from a defense of his base to a personal attack on Sen. Richard Blumenthal. "The Trump base is far bigger & stronger than ever before (despite some phony Fake News polling)," he wrote, citing recent rallies in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Iowa. "The fact is the Fake News Russian collusion story, record Stock Market, border security, military strength, jobs, Supreme Court pick, economic enthusiasm, deregulation & so much more have driven the Trump base even closer together. Will never change!" he added. Trump's statements come after a weekend report by the New York Times that several big-name Republicans, including VP Mike Pence, were beginning to consider 2020 runs of their own because Trump's support was showing cracks. (Pence rejected the report.) As for Blumenthal, Trump wrote that the Connecticut Democrat "told stories about his Vietnam battles and conquests, how brave he was, and it was all a lie. He cried like a baby and begged for forgiveness like a child. Now he judges collusion?" (It's a reference to this.) The president also reiterated that he's not on vacation as the White House undergoes renovation and is "working hard from New Jersey."


Anchorwoman Christine Chubbuck of WXLT in Sarasota, Fla., as photographed by a co-worker in 1974, less than two weeks before she killed herself on television. (Photo: John Cloud, AP)

 It's one of the most shocking moments in TV history that virtually no one has ever seen.

 In the midst of an afternoon broadcast on July 15, 1974, reporter Christine Chubbuck informed viewers that "in keeping with Channel 40's policy of bringing you the latest in 'blood and guts' ... you are going to see another first: Attempted suicide." The Sarasota, Fla., newswoman pulled a gun from under the WXLT anchor desk and shot herself in the head, dying hours later at age 29.

 Since then, the footage has been seemingly impossible to find. It doesn't exist online, and the only known tape has been in the possession of the former TV station owner's widow, Mollie Nelson, who told Vulture she gave it to a law firm for safekeeping after her late husband refused to release it. The irony that Chubbuck wanted her death to be seen, yet it's now lost, is part of what intrigued Robert Greene, writer/director of Kate Plays Christine (now playing in Columbus, Ohio, and Lake Worth, Fla.; expands to 10 additional cities throughout fall).The quasi-documentary follows actress Kate Lyn Sheil as she goes through the exercise of preparing to play the late journalist, conducting interviews and doing research around Sarasota.

 "A lot of people have that vague sense of 'I thought I knew about it,' since it reverberated through pop culture," says Greene, noting how Chubbuck supposedly inspired the 1976 black comedy Network, in which a character vows to kill himself on air. Instead, her suicide has become something of an Internet urban legend, inspiring clickbait lists of "most shocking deaths" and conspiracy theories that she may have never died at all.

 That the footage has been kept under wraps for so long is not something "that'd exist today," Greene says. "It comes from another era where, for good or bad, it was more swept away. People didn't necessarily think they should see that type of thing. We live in an era today where we think we have a right to see everything."

 In 'Christine,' Rebecca Hall plays the real-life Christine Chubbuck, a reporter for a small Sarasota, Fla., TV station who committed suicide on-air. (Photo: The Orchard)

 But for actress Rebecca Hall, Chubbuck's life is just as fascinating as her death. Hall plays the troubled reporter in a new drama, Christine (in theaters Friday in New York, Oct. 21 in Los Angeles; expands nationwide throughout fall), which explores how her severe depression and frustrations at work may have contributed to her demise. Chubbuck repeatedly clashed with her dismissive boss (Tracy Letts) over his desire to sensationalize the news to goose ratings.

 "Her story is a harbinger of a lot of things we have trouble talking about," Hall says. "We're still having discussions about how we judge a woman in the workplace, the likability factor and different standards" that men are held to.

 Chubbuck struggled with mental health issues and suicidal thoughts long before they entered the national conversation, which is part of what makes her story relatable for many.

 "We all know what it's like to feel stymied at work, to get depressed and feel unloved," Hall says. "The film asks you to notice that (with the culmination of) those things — plus arbitrary circumstances of time and place, gender and brain chemistry — we might all go over the edge. ... I related to knowing what it feels like to feel thwarted by life and that you're not going to get over it, but I do, because I have the tools and she didn't."

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2e0Xa9s ||||| The late Christine Chubbuck.

 A few months back, we published an article that centered around a curious and tragic figure in the history of American broadcasting: Christine Chubbuck, an on-air correspondent for a news station in Sarasota, Florida, who in 1974 shot herself on live television. In an odd coincidence, there were two movies about Chubbuck at Sundance this year, and we explored the ongoing search for footage of her death. It had long been unclear if such a tape exists, despite years of searching by the so-called “death hags” on Findadeath.com.

 Yesterday, we got a call that confirms the tape’s existence. While reporting the original story we had reached out to Mollie Nelson, the widow of the owner of Chubbuck’s news station, but never heard back from her. She called us back Tuesday to explain that she had the video for years — her late husband Robert Nelson had kept a copy of the tape, though Mollie says he never told her why.

 When he died, it stayed in her possession. But after the Sundance debut of the quasi-documentary Kate Plays Christine, in which a former news station employee suggests that Nelson might have the tape, people started contacting her asking to see it. The attempts made her uncomfortable, so she gave it to an unnamed “very large law firm” for safekeeping. She says she has no plans to ever make it available and only held on to the tape to honor her husband’s wishes. It seems, then, that the wait to see a tape nobody really needs to see continues.

Summary: – It was one of the most shocking moments on TV, but because it happened before everyone had DVRs (or even VCRs), barely anyone has seen it. Now, USA Today reports, two movies are hitting theaters based around the incident: the suicide of Florida journalist Christine Chubbuck, who killed herself on the air during a June 15, 1974, broadcast for Sarasota station WXLT. "In keeping with Channel 40's policy of bringing you the latest in 'blood and guts' ... you are going to see another first: attempted suicide," Chubbuck, 29, said to viewers before shooting herself in the head with a gun she'd hidden under her desk. She died shortly after. USA Today notes the irony of how a death she'd wanted to be seen by so many ended up being relegated to virtual secrecy. The lone tape of the broadcast was thought to be lost, but in June, Mollie Nelson, the station owner's widow, told Vulture her husband had the tape, and when he died, she gave it to a "very large law firm" to guard. Fascination about the case and Chubbuck's life, which included bouts with depression and struggles as a woman in the workplace, has spurred Christine—a drama debuting Oct. 21 in select theaters and elsewhere in the fall—and Kate Meets Christine, soon to be playing in a dozen theaters. USA Today calls the latter film a "quasi-documentary" that follows actress Kate Lyn Sheil around Sarasota as she preps for the part of Chubbuck. Its director, Robert Greene, notes how we wouldn't see something like this today kept hidden. "It comes from another era where, for good or bad, it was more swept away," he says. "We live in an era today where we think we have a right to see everything." As for the original tape now being harbored by some unnamed law firm? Nelson told Vulture she has no intention of ever showing it to anyone. (A bullfighter was gored to death on live TV in July.)


Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

 With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

 Pima County, AZ Sheriff Clarence Dupnik held a press conference during which he blamed vitriolic political rhetoric for provoking the mentally unstable, and lamented Arizona's becoming the "mecca of prejudice and bigotry." Video courtesy of AFP.

 The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

 There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

 Jared Lee Loughner, the man suspected of a shooting spree that killed a Federal Judge and critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, had left a trail of online videos in which he railed against the government. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports.

 American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"

 Set aside as inconvenient, apparently. There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday. Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a tea partier upset with the ObamaCare bill.

 Enlarge Image Close Associated Press Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

 So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?

 To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

 To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

 I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

 Where is the decency in that?

 Mr. Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He hosts "InstaVision" on PJTV. ||||| POLITICO launched Arena in 2008 with the hopes of creating a vibrant forum where Washington’s sharpest minds could debate and dissect the issues of the day. And Arena became just that. Over the past four years, Arena has hosted thousands of constructive, serious, provocative and civil debates on issues facing Washington and the nation.

 But the spirit of innovation that led to the creation of Arena now drives us to think about new ways in which POLITICO can present outside opinion with maximum impact. And as we plan our next steps in the opinion space, we’ve decided to draw the curtains on Arena.

 We’re grateful to everyone who participated in Arena over the years – as contributors, as moderators, as producers and as readers. Thanks for making Arena a success, and we look forward to continuing the conversation in the pages of POLITICO soon. ||||| I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have. ||||| In a recent video, Sarah Palin used the phrase "blood libel" to discuss the media's reaction to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting: "[E]specially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."In this case, Palin is likely using the phrase "blood libel" to mean a false accusation. But it's a somewhat strange thing to say, given that the history of the phrase is itself quite bloody -- and loaded.Historically, blood libel refers to anti-Semitic accusations from the Middle Ages, when some believed that Jews made Passover matzo from the blood or organs of murdered Christian children. Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf told Politico, "The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews -- the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable."The first example of blood libel, which is sometimes called "blood accusation," surfaced, as far as we know, in the writings of a monk. In 1173, Thomas of Monmouth wrote " The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich ," which told the story of a young boy who was allegedly killed in England around Easter 1144. According to Thomas of Monmouth, the town believed that local Jews were responsible. Afterward, a Jewish man was murdered. Since Thomas of Monmouth was the only one to write about the story, we have no idea whether the events, or some form of them, ever took place.Despite the questionable origins, the rumors took hold in Europe, lasting through approximately the 14th century. Some Jews were tortured, even executed, after being accused of such abductions and murders of Christian children; others converted to Christianity to save themselves.Though blood libel allegations declined after the Middle Ages, they still cropped up occasionally, even in the United States: In 1928, in upstate New York, the Jewish community of the town of Massenna stood accused when a 4-year-old girl disappeared. It was Yom Kippur, and the police questioned the town rabbi to see whether the local Jews might have been responsible. Even when the girl reappeared, having been lost, the Jewish community was still looked at with suspicion.The phrase was first used this week by Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Reynolds wrote, "So as the usual talking heads begin their 'have you no decency?' routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?"In the National Review Online, blogger Jonah Goldberg questions Palin's and Reynolds' use of the phrase this week. "I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have," he writes.But at least one political writer thinks that Palin was using the phrase to be intentionally provocative, fully aware of its associations. Politico's Ben Smith tweeted

Summary: – Sarah's Palin's "blood libel" is the phrase of the day, even setting off an online debate at Politico about her loaded word choice on victimhood. Palin didn't invent the phrase: As AOL News explains, it goes back to the Middle Ages, usually in reference to the myth that Jews used the blood of Christian children in rituals. It first got used in context with Arizona in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, in which Glenn Reynolds blasted the criticism of Palin and others, asking, "Where is the decency in blood libel?" Much of the debate centers on whether Palin intentionally used it to be provocative, perhaps a testament to how her every utterance can drive a media conversation: Jonah Goldberg, National Review: "I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have." Ben Smith, Politico (via tweet): "A quick 'blood libel' thought. Palin's aides, including @thegoldfarb, get the context—so this is a pot being stirred, not an accident." Ernest Istook, Heritage Foundation: "It is but one term within Sarah Palin's thoughtful discourse about the Arizona shootings and our ability to discuss our differences vigorously but without violence. Anyone who listens to her entire comment should appreciate that."


A week before Christmas 2013 Christine, a sexual assault forensic nurse from suburban Chicago, went out for a night of dinner and drinks with friends. It was a night that forever changed her life.

 "I don't remember anything after leaving the dinner portion," Christine told CBS News. "I woke up naked and I don't remember anything else after that."

 She says she was a victim of sexual assault, and would feel victimized again by the hospital where she received a forensic medical exam, commonly known as a rape kit. At her request, CBS News is withholding Christine's last name because she was the victim of a violent crime.

 "The next day I got my first bill for my copay," Christine said through tears. "The bills just kept coming after that."

 The bills should have never come. Illinois has a voucher system that pays for medical expenses not covered by insurance incurred up to 90 days following a sexual assault.

 Since 2005, the federal Violence Against Women Act has prohibited sexual assault survivors from being billed for the forensic collection of evidence, including copays. VAWA requires that the exam, at a minimum, include assessing physical trauma, determination of penetration or force, a patient interview and the collection of evidence. But, sexual assault victim advocates say, the medical guidelines for the rape exam goes beyond what the law provides for. Who pays for that treatment varies by state and at times, county by county.

 We contacted Victim Advocates in all 50 states. Thirteen reported survivors getting billed for medical services related to a sexual assault forensic exam in their state. Stretching coast to coast, those advocates described a hodgepodge of laws that for some victims means a rape kit and the associated medical treatment come at a price.

 "When you keep getting revictimized once a month you get a reminder in the mail, hey you were raped, hey this happened, you know, it's hard to move on," said Christine.

 For Christine, the horror of her assault was made worse by the medical bills that kept coming. She was unable to get out of bed for months. The hospital threatening to send her to collections if she didn't pay was the very same hospital where she'd worked on crafting a sexual assault response protocol.

 "It becomes extremely devastating for them and oftentimes triggers reliving the assault itself or the forensic-medical exam," said Sarah Layden, Director of Advocacy Services at Rape Victim Advocates in Chicago.

 RVA says it receives as many as six calls a month from survivors of sexual assault who wrongly receive bills. The organization says the errant billing happens at hospitals across the state and at some with regularity.

 "It is very common for a survivor to get a bill," Layden said during an interview with CBS News Correspondent Kris Van Cleave. "We have a full time staff advocate who spends the bulk of their time helping clients resolve bills."

 The Illinois Department of Public Health it infrequently receives complaints regarding billing. In a statement to CBS News IDPH investigates complaints of patient billing. It requires hospitals found to be out of compliance to provide "evidence of its billing policy and how the hospital will make its system better moving forward."

 Earlier this year, reports surfaced of rape victims in Louisiana receiving large medical bills after seeking a rape kit at state-owned LSU Hospitals. Operations of those hospitals had recently been turned over to a private company that ended the state's practice of writing off those related charges.

 "For two nights in a row, I was raped and sexually assaulted, most of which I don't remember," a college student, whose name was withheld, told a Louisiana Senate committee during the legislature's first hearing on the billing issue. "It was around $2,000 of which my insurance covered none of it at all."

 Hours after her testimony, Governor Bobby Jindal issued an executive order calling for changes to medical billing practices in the state and pledging to work with legislators to change the law.

 "I believe that the victim should never be charged," said Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Secretary Kathy Kliebert. "The next part of this is that we would work with legislators for next session to make sure providers could bill directly to fund to assure that victims were not billed and that there are statutes in place to make sure the victims are not billed."

 The Louisiana Hospital Association acknowledged to state lawmakers during the Oct. 20 hearing that there are a number of inconsistencies across the state and that reimbursement policies vary by hospital.

 "We are committed to working through this and try to figure out how to make this as painless for the victim as possible," Sean Prados, Executive Vice President of the Louisiana Hospital Association, told the state Senate Select Committee on Women and Children.

 Advocates in Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin all expressed concern about victims receiving bills in their states. The laws are different and the reasons for the charges vary.

 Quantifying the scope of the billing issue is challenging. The Department of Justice estimates more than 237,000 sexual assaults occur annually in the United States, but only 40 percent are reported--and other studies put that number even lower. In at least 34 states, a survivor who reports the attack and cooperates with law enforcement may be eligible to have medical bills reimbursed by state run crime victim compensation funds, according to a 2014 Urban Institute case study. Survivors who choose not to report their attack, such as Christine and the college student who testified in Louisiana, are blocked from accessing that money.

 A 2012 AEquitas study found 33 states cover specific 'collateral' services to victim care, 15 states will pay for tests for sexually transmitted infections, 15 states cover medications prescribed during the forensic exam, 10 states pay for emergency room and hospital fees, 13 states cover the cost of a pregnancy test, six will pay for emergency contraception and at least two will pay for victims' counseling related to the sexual assault. According to the study, only five states will pay for treatment of injuries caused by the attack, another four states provide payment for reasonable medical care related to the assault. Several states allow the victim's insurance to be billed for uncovered medical expenses.

 Delaware does not allow a survivor to be billed. And just last summer Colorado passed a law creating a state fund to pay the entire bill for the forensic medical exam and related charges regardless of reporting after survivors received medical bills for thousands of dollars.

 In the majority of cases victims are not billed says Janine Zweig, the lead researcher on the Urban Institute study, "but that left a substantial minority" who, in some fashion were billed.

 Her report finds, while victims typically are not billed for the costs associated directly with the forensic collection of evidence, "they might be billed for other services that are not covered by the public payer in state statutes. This distinction may be lost on victims--a bill is a bill."

 In six states the payment is left up to the individual counties. Advocates in all six--Minnesota, Kansas, Arizona, South Dakota, Nevada and Louisiana--told CBS News about reports of survivors receiving bills for medical care. In Minnesota that means 87 counties with their own individual policies about what gets paid for and by whom.

 The Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault Executive Director Donna Dunn says the system results in inconsistency across the state and "a lot of confusion."

 The Urban Institute report concludes "victims in some portions of the states may have more services paid for...than do victims in other portions of the states."

 "We have heard anecdotally that this is a significant issue," says Allie Bones, the CEO of Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence. Her office just hired someone to study the hospital billing practices in the state.

 "The choice to go to the hospital to get the exam is not theirs to make. It's the only place to get it," she said.

 Advocates in Nebraska cited several examples of victims receiving bills in the last six months alone. Similar story in South Dakota and Kansas where some survivors may be billed for medical treatment associated with the forensic exam and can languish in a system advocates say can be hard for survivors to navigate. In Nevada, the county is required to pay for all medical care in the first 72 hours, but in rural counties there have been reports of victims being billed anyway. While the numbers are likely small, so is the population in smaller Nevada counties and advocates admit a small number of people could still be a big problem.

 In essence, while the medical treatment a sexual assault survivor receives during a forensic medical exam is similar nationwide, who pays for that care varies widely. The end result is a patient may end up being billed for a service that a patient in another state may not.

 For victims in California, the bill for the exam goes to law enforcement, but the state law does not require medical care beyond the scope of the federal requirements to be paid by that agency. Those who choose not to report to law enforcement may ultimately find they themselves, or their insurance, billed for those costs.

 "It's not something that people expect at all," says Sandra Henriquez, the Executive Director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. She believes the state's victim compensation fund should cover rape kit related medical costs for all survivors, "it's a matter of prioritization, I think they should have to pay for it and not have survivors revicitimized by getting a bill."

 Maryland hospitals are not supposed to bill for related medical costs, but there remains confusion over what's covered, says Lisae Jordan, Executive Director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. She's received complaints from victims who were hit with costs like ambulance fees, and follow up testing.

 "There is not consistent application of the law," said Jordan. The state has formed a panel to study access to forensic exams. The panel's first meeting is Thursday.

 Katie Hanna, the Executive Director of Ohio Alliance to end Sexual Violence would like to see changes in her state as well. In Ohio the state pays $532 dollars for an exam, the excess can be passed on to the survivor.

 "It varies county to county and hospital to hospital, and needs to change," said Hanna. "The level of care and the amount of charges a survivor incurs should not depend on the zip code in which they live or the hospital that just so happens to be nearest to them after being raped."

 The Texas coalition against sexual assault hears about survivors surprised by medical bills "with frequency."

 "Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault is receiving fewer reports of victims receiving bills associated with the forensic exam," Executive Director Pennie Meyers told CBS News in an email, "However, there is more work to be done."

 Officials from the Wisconsin Department of Justice acknowledged receiving complaints, but say the agency is working on preventing similar problems in the future. State officials in Minnesota, Texas, Nevada, Kansas, Ohio, and Maryland said they have not received billing complaints. In South Dakota complaints would be handled at the county level. Government agencies in Arizona, California and Nebraska have not offered comment.

 "Across the United States, victims are being victimized by the very system that is set up to help and protect them after they've been a victim of this crime," said Kellie Greene, the Founder and Director of Speak Out Against Rape, or SOAR.

 For Greene, the billing issue is a very personal one. On January 18th, 1994 Greene was brutally raped by a stranger who broke into her Florida home. After being taken to the hospital for the forensic exam and medical treatment, she began receiving bills for the entire procedure, from the rape kit to the towel used on her bleeding head in the ambulance.

 "It's like being punched in the gut when you open that mailbox and you see that bill."

 Greene refused to pay and the hospital sent her bills to collections. She worked with the state attorney general to change Florida's law a year later.

 Now through her Washington, D.C. non-profit she tries to help other survivors by speaking about her experiences. In the last few months she says SOAR has been contacted by at least a half dozen survivors across the country looking for help with medical bills. Her group pays some of the bills itself.

 Greene believes the change needs to come on a national level. Senator Al Franken introduced legislation in 2009 and 2011 to address the issue, but both bills died in committee.

 In response to our investigation, Senator Franken told CBS News, "I'm committed to making sure that survivors of sexual assault never see the bill for their rape kit exam, and we made significant progress with my provision in the Violence Against Women Act. But I'm very troubled that some women are still being charged for services related to their rape kits. That's unacceptable, and I'll be looking into options to fix this problem."

 In a statement the American Hospital Association says "it is every hospitals' goal to treat and care for sexual assault victims in a safe and compassionate manner. While fees related to their care vary by state, we encourage all hospitals to review their policies on charges related to sexual assault victims."

 "Would we like to see a standardized best practice response across the country? Of course," says Dr. Kimberly Lonsway, Ph.D., the Research Director for End Violence against Women International, "we are working very hard to get there but we aren't there yet."

 In Christine's case, her bills were due to hospital error, she had been marked as self-pay; a simple coding error that took more than 10 agonizing months to resolve.

 "We regret that this happened," Highland Park Hospital officials said in a statement. "We have implemented a new series of protocols and procedures in our billing system to ensure this does not happen again."

 Later this year, Christine will complete her master's program to become a nurse practitioner. She and her husband are considering a move west and away from the memories of her attack.

 CBS News Producers Polly Leider and Laura Strickler and researcher Bianca Brosh contributed to this report ||||| CHICAGO (CBS) — A sexual assault forensic nurse from suburban Chicago was thinking of moving away from Illinois, to get away from memories of her own rape, and the nightmare she experienced afterwards when the hospital demanded she pay for her rape kit.

 WBBM Newsradio’s Veronica Carter reports Illinois is one of 13 states where rape victims often have to pay for their medical bills after they’ve been attacked, including the rape kits used to collect physical evidence of the assault.

 Christine went to the hospital in 2013 after she was raped in Chicago. She had gone out for a night of dinner and drinks with friends, and said she does not remember the attack itself.

 “I don’t remember anything after leaving the dinner portion,” Christine told CBS News. “I woke up naked and I don’t remember anything else after that.”

 She went to the hospital for a forensic medical exam, commonly known as a rape kit, and was mortified when she started getting bills from the hospital — the very same hospital where she’d worked on crafting a sexual assault response protocol.

 “Lots of them, and for thousands of dollars,” she said.

 Christine said she felt victimized again by being billed for her treatment.

 “Once a month, you get a reminder in the mail ‘Hey, you were raped. Hey, this happened.’ It’s hard to move on,” she said.

 Rape kits are instrumental in helping police and prosecutors convict rapists, but an investigation by CBS News found, in some states, the cost of rape kits is not completely covered by state law, leaving the victim to foot the bill.

 Congress twice has rejected legislation that would have prevented victims from having to pay for their rape kits.

 In Christine’s case, she was billed as the result of an error. Illinois has a voucher system that pays for medical expenses not covered by insurance for up to 90 days after a sexual assault; but Christine mistakenly had been marked as self-pay, due to a simple coding error that took 10 months to correct.

 She was unable to get out of bed for months after her attack. The hospital threatened to send her to collections if she didn’t pay.

Summary: – Christine is a sexual assault forensic nurse from suburban Chicago; helping to put together Highland Park Hospital's sexual assault response protocol was one of her duties. So it was a particularly unwelcome surprise when, after she went to that same hospital in 2013 after being raped, she received a bill from the hospital for the cost of her rape kit. A state voucher system is supposed to pick up whatever part of the tab insurance doesn't regarding expenses incurred within 90 days of a sexual assault. But Christine had incorrectly been coded as "self-pay," CBS Chicago reports, and that mislabeling took 10 months to correct. During that time, the bills kept on coming: "Lots of them, and for thousands of dollars," she says. The hospital even threatened to send her account to collections, she says. Her story highlights what victims face when state law doesn't cover the cost of rape kits, which are integral in getting rapists convicted. "Once a month, you get a reminder in the mail, 'Hey, you were raped. Hey, this happened,'" Christine says. "It's hard to move on." The 2005 federal Violence Against Women Act bars sexual assault victims from being charged for their exam, which includes collecting forensic evidence; but a CBS News investigation found 13 states in which victim advocates relayed stories of victims being billed. Rape Victim Advocates in Chicago says it gets up to half a dozen calls about billing issues a month. Sen. Al Franken has twice introduced legislation that would address the issue, but both times the bills didn't make it out of committee. (Out of New Orleans this week: an explosive report on how police handled sex-assault cases.)


Sponsored Links

 Weeks after Egypt's vibrant, youth-led revolution, disturbing details are emerging about the treatment of some young female protesters briefly detained by Egyptian soldiers. Some of the women say they were strip-searched, photographed naked, beaten and forced to undergo "virginity tests" on threat of prostitution charges.At least 18 women were captured and held in military detention after army officers violently cleared Cairo's Tahrir Square on March 9, nearly a month after pro-democracy protesters ousted President Hosni Mubarak from power. After their release days later, several of them complained to Amnesty International about their treatment. The human rights group issued a public report on the allegations Wednesday, calling on the Egyptian government to investigate such claims of torture.One of the women is Salwa Hosseini, 20, who said she was arrested and taken to a military prison where she and other women were forced to take off all their clothes. They were searched by a female prison guard, she said, but male soldiers were able to look inside through two open doors and a window -- and snap photos of the degraded prisoners. In a different room, she said, a man in a white lab coat subjected them to "virginity tests" and threatened that those who didn't "pass" would be charged with prostitution.For one of the girls who claimed to be a virgin, the test purportedly declared otherwise -- and she was then tortured with beatings and electric shocks."Forcing women to have 'virginity tests' is utterly unacceptable," Amnesty International said. "Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women. All members of the medical profession must refuse to take part in such so-called 'tests.'"Amnesty continued: "Women and girls must be able to express their views on the future of Egypt and protest against the government without being detained, tortured or subjected to profoundly degrading and discriminatory treatment."Some of the alleged beatings outlined by Amnesty International even took place inside an annex of the famed Egyptian Museum, where thousands of the country's most precious antiquities are housed. An Egyptian journalist detained along with some of the victims, Rasha Azeb, said she heard the screams of women being tortured and given electric shocks inside the museum. The building was also looted during violent clashes between protesters and Egyptian security forces in February.On Monday, 16 Arab and Egyptian rights groups sent a letter to Egypt's Health Ministry urging an investigation into the alleged conduct by Egyptian doctors, soldiers and officers. The letter, excerpted by the Abu Dhabi-based newspaper The National , accused them of "violating the sanctity of the human self and human body."One of the signatories, Aida Saif el Dawla, who co-founded the El Nadim Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence , laughed off the idea that the Egyptian government might actually do something about the abuse. "Of course not," she told the newspaper. "But there is always somebody who knows somebody on the military council, and from that we hear them say they don't have any idea of what was happening in the military prison."El Dawla's group said it too gathered testimony similar to the complaints published by Amnesty International.In Egypt, many women face diminished chances of getting married if their "honor" is not intact. Surgical procedures to "restore" a woman's virginity are common in Egypt and across the Muslim world, as are products that claim to help women fake their virginity and make it seem as if they are having sexual intercourse for the first time.Serious crime is relatively scant in Cairo, a city of 20 million that has a fraction of the number of rapes and violent attacks of other big world capitals. But sexual harassment has long been a problem in Egypt, where poverty and sexual repression amid conservative Muslim norms have been blamed for misconduct by mostly young, uneducated Egyptian men.Many foreign tourists and workers also complain of harassment, but attacks rarely reach the severity of that suffered by CBS News correspondent Lara Logan , whose network said she was brutally sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square in February.The women interviewed by Amnesty International appeared before a military court on March 11 and were released two days later. Hosseini was convicted of disorderly conduct, destroying private and public property, obstructing traffic and carrying unspecified weapons. Several were given suspended, one-year prison sentences.Civilians are often tried before military tribunals in Egypt, where defendants are denied adequate access to a lawyer and also the right to appeal. Pro-democracy protesters who managed to push Mubarak from power Feb. 11 have also called for an end to such trials -- a move Amnesty International has supported. ||||| Columbia University LibrariesArchive-It Partner Since: May, 2008Organization Type: Colleges & UniversitiesOrganization URL: http://library.columbia.edu The Columbia University Libraries (CUL) web resources collection program archives selected websites in thematic areas corresponding to existing CUL collection strengths, websites produced by affiliates of Columbia University, and websites from organizations or individuals whose papers or records are held in CUL's physical archives.

Summary: – A group of female protesters detained by Egyptian soldiers say they were beaten, stripped, given electric shocks, and humiliated with so-called "virginity tests" while male soldiers were allowed to watch and take photos, reports AOL News. The women complained to Amnesty International, which found the allegations credible and demanded that the new government investigate. (Amnesty's report is here.) The 18 women were arrested in Tahrir Square not during the protests to oust Hosni Mubarak, but in a rally weeks after he left office. They were told they'd be charged with prostitution if they failed the virginity tests. “Forcing women to have 'virginity tests' is utterly unacceptable," Amnesty says. "Its purpose is to degrade women because they are women." For more, click here.