Trump’s own words add fuel to questions about the legality of firing Comey

With his own words over the past two days, President Trump has vastly escalated the stakes and potential consequences of his decision to fire James B. Comey as FBI director, provoking questions about whether his motivations and tactics may have run afoul of the law.

The president also suggested via Twitter that he may have “tapes” of private conversations with Comey, evoking echoes of Watergate and demands by Democrats that he produce what could be critical evidence.

All of that undermines Trump’s credibility as he seeks to name a new FBI director whose independence will be under intense scrutiny and whose most critical job will be to lead the probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

The point of greatest sensitivity raised by Trump’s decision to fire Comey is its potential connection to the former FBI director’s role in investigating what he described as “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

In a television interview and on Twitter, the president has given ammunition to arguments by some legal experts that his actions constitute a possible case of obstruction of justice — a central charge in the impeachment proceedings against two presidents in the last 43 years.

Obstruction is “a very mental-state-based crime,” said Duke University law professor Samuel W. Buell, a former federal prosecutor. “It’s all about the purpose with which it’s done. In theory, trying to intimidate, silence, or even influence someone who is investigating you could be obstruction of justice.”

But whether the unfolding controversy ultimately puts Trump’s presidency at risk is more a question of politics than law.

Given that both houses of Congress are in Republican control, it would take an enormous public outcry for lawmakers to begin the process of attempting to remove the president from office. The same, it appears, probably would have to happen before the Justice Department that reports to him would be compelled to appoint a special prosecutor, much less actually bring charges.

Democrats have escalated the pressure for a more vigorous probe amid statements by Trump that contradict his White House’s initial contentions that Comey’s dismissal was based on the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

In an interview with NBC News’s Lester Holt on Thursday, the president said: “I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.” He also said that he had pressed Comey during a private dinner to tell him if he was under investigation.

Trump further revealed that the ongoing probe into questions of Russian influence on the 2016 election, which includes a look at the possibility that Moscow was coordinating with the Trump campaign, was one of the factors he considered before firing Comey.

“In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won,’ ” he said.

On Friday, the president created another stir with a flurry of tweets, one of which warned that Comey “better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

In an interview with Fox News, Trump declined to say such tapes actually exist, even as congressional Democrats demanded that he produce them.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking Democratic senator and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Trump’s tweet was a “thinly veiled threat” that “could be construed as threatening a witness in this investigation, which is another violation of federal law.”

In an interview, Sen. Richard J. Blumenthal (D-Conn.) added that “there is so much that smacks of obstruction of justice that is swirling around this dismissal and the meetings that preceded it. The exchange that took place with Comey, whichever version you believe, raises very, very serious questions about attempts to pressure an FBI director investigating wrongdoing potentially implicating the president.The issue is not Trump’s legal authority to dismiss Comey, which he possesses with or without cause.

“From a constitutional perspective, Trump can make whatever demands of his principal officers he wishes, and can fire them at will,” said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.

Comey wrote in a farewell letter to his former colleagues: “I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or for no reason at all.”

That decision in Comey’s case, however, becomes legally problematic if it is done with the intent of circumventing an investigation.

“If shown that Trump removed Comey to avoid being investigated? Yes impeachable: abuse of power, corruption, undermines rule of law,” Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman tweeted Friday.

The questions about Trump’s motives are being fueled, increasingly, by his own words in interviews and on Twitter.

“The fact that Trump is saying these things in the midst of all of this is proof positive that he is not listening to counsel — in fact, he may not even be talking to counsel,” Buell said.

Then again, he added, the many contradictory statements by Trump and top officials may have served to “muddy the waters” enough that it is impossible to determine his actual intent.

Whether all of this could jeopardize the survival of Trump’s presidency is another question, and one whose answer is much farther down the road.

The Constitution specifies that the president can be removed only for treason, bribery, or “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” the definition of which it leaves to Congress.

Obstruction of justice, however, was deemed to be one of the infractions meriting impeachment proceedings both in the case of Richard M. Nixon in 1974 and of Bill Clinton in 1998.
Nixon, having lost the support of his own party, resigned after the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment in connection with the Watergate scandal; Clinton remained in office after being acquitted by the Senate in articles that stemmed from his alleged efforts to cover up an extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Thus far, only a handful of the more strident Democrats have engaged the possibility of impeachment in Trump’s case.

The better strategy at this point, party leaders have decided, is to pepper Rosenstein and others at the Justice Department with letters of inquiry, call for hearings and pressure Republicans to get on board with a more aggressive investigation.

Asked if he thinks that the controversy could be leading to impeachment proceedings, Blumenthal said: “Prejudging the results of any inquiry now is premature. Right now, the important point is to follow the evidence, to pursue every investigative lead and every potential witness diligently and promptly, and — I just might add this point — providing the resources that are needed.”

Democrats are also coalescing in their demand for the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor — something they are certain to press when Rosenstein visits Capitol Hill to brief the full Senate next week.

With Trump’s approval ratings already at record lows for a president at this early point in his term, public opinion will be an important factor. Republicans are already bracing for a difficult midterm election next year — and some fear that their control of the House may be at risk.

In the end, public perceptions may matter more than the letter of the law in determining if and how Trump weathers the most severe storm to hit his turbulent young presidency.

“This remains, I think, a political problem only,” Blackman, the law professor, said. “What will take Trump down is not the Constitution, but public opinion polling and the ballot box.”

Westminster attack: Funeral held for Romanian woman who died after falling in Thames

The funeral service has taken place for the Romanian woman thrown into the River Thames in the Westminster terror attack.

Andreea Cristea became the fifth victim of the attack carried out by extremist Khalid Masood when she died last month after a 15-day fight for life.

Miss Cristea was hurled into the Thames when Masood drove his car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge on 22 March.

She was pulled alive from the water and taken to the Royal London Hospital, where she died two weeks later after suffering multiple organ failure and extensive brain damage.

The 31-year-old had been visiting London with her boyfriend Andrei Burnaz, who was reportedly planning to propose to her during the trip. The day of the attack had been his birthday.

Dozens of mourners attended the service for Miss Cristea at St Mary's Church near the dockyards in the Black Sea city of Constanta, in Romania.

In a statement released after her death, her family and Mr Burnaz, who suffered a broken foot in the attack, said Miss Cristea would "always be remembered as our shining ray of light that will forever keep on shining in our heart".

Masood injured scores of people when he drove his car at speed along the pavement, coming to a halt close to the Palace of Westminster.

He stabbed and killed police officer PC Keith Palmer before being shot dead by armed officers.

Others who lost their lives in the attack were 75-year-old retired window cleaner Leslie Rhodes, Spanish teacher and mother-of-two Aysha Frade and American tourist Kurt Cochran.

Anatomy of a hack and the anonymous hero who stopped it

As hospital after hospital went offline, security researchers around the world started poring over the ransomware that had gone round the globe.

And one 22-year-old in the UK ended up saving thousands more computers across the world being infected.

Working together through the night on an IRC channel - an online chatroom themed around a topic, in this case #wannadecryptor - researchers shared their findings.

Despite the spread of the ransomware, researchers weren't impressed.

"It really doesn't seem like a sophisticated attack at all," one hacker told me. "It's embarrassing the NHS got caught out by this."

Other researchers found that the malware was using Tor - anonymity software originally developed by US defence - to communicate with its command and control centre on the deep web (the part of the internet not visible to search engines).

That command and control wasn't active - a sign perhaps "these folks didn't even properly set up their command infrastructure properly before launching", according to another researcher.

And there was another weakness in the malware, found by a 22-year-old security researcher in the UK, who goes by the handle of MalwareTech (MT).

The malware checked a site. MT bought the domain for a few pounds - and ended up slowing the spread of the attack. Without realising it, he had stumbled on a kill switch for the ransomware.

"The kill switch wasn't discovered until about three hours after we'd bought the domain which had already killed all subsequent infections," MT told Sky News.

"From what I can see it killed every infection that contacted our C2 (command and control server)."

:: Hack exposes serious NHS vulnerabilities

The hackers had built in the kill switch, but not registered the site.

If that site was active, a kill switch would activate, stopping the worm's spread. By activating the domain, MT slowed the spread.

Nor was MT impressed by the sophistication of the attack.

"Although the exploit used is very sophisticated (taken from NSA leak), the ransomware itself seems somewhat amateur", he told Sky News.

That raises more questions about NHS systems, which a Sky News investigation found to be underfunded and lacking last year - and also why the UK government didn't do more to make sure they were secure.

While everyone, including the newish National Cybersecurity Centre, part of GCHQ, was "monitoring the situation", a handful of volunteers actually brought the ransomware to a halt.

Boris Johnson says Brussels should pay 'preposterous' Brexit bill

Brussels could be forced to pay the UK a Brexit divorce bill, rather than the other way round, Boris Johnson has said.

The Foreign Secretary accused the EU of trying to "bleed this country white" with an expected bill of as much as €100bn (£84bn) to settle liabilities on withdrawal.

He claimed the UK could "definitely" walk away without paying, and said Britain's share of EU assets is so valuable that Brussels may end up having to hand over money.

Asked whether he agreed with former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith that Britain might end up receiving a payment, Mr Johnson told the Daily Telegraph: "I do, I think there are very good arguments.

"There are assets, I don't want to get too much into the detail of the negotiation but there are assets that we share, that we have paid for over the years and there will need to be a proper computation of the value of those assets.

"I certainly think the bill that's been presented at the moment is absurd."

Mr Johnson said the "shameful" leaking of details of a Downing Street meeting between Prime Minister Theresa May, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier showed "Brussels is ruthless in its negotiating techniques".

Accusing the EU of "trying it on", he said: "They are going to try to bleed this country white with their bill.

"The logic behind this bill is absolutely preposterous. We could definitely walk away."

Mr Johnson also warned that Russian interference in the General Election is a "realistic possibility", and claimed Russian president Vladimir Putin would "rejoice" if Jeremy Corbyn got into Number 10.

He told the Daily Telegraph: "I think it is a realistic possibility. Clearly we think that is what he (Mr Putin) did in America, it's blatantly obvious that's what he did in France. In the western Balkans he is up to all sorts of sordid enterprises, so we have to be vigilant."

Mr Johnson suggested Mr Putin's motive was "to undermine faith in democracy altogether and to discredit the whole democratic process".

Michelle Obama criticises Trump administration on school food decision

Michelle Obama has launched stinging criticism at the Trump administration over its school lunch policy.

As first lady, Mrs Obama championed healthy eating and physical activity among children, and one of her few high-profile appearances since leaving the White House was at a health conference in Washington.

She said that healthier school meals are needed since obesity rates among youths are rising and millions of kids nationwide eat federally subsidised breakfast and lunch at school.

The Trump administration has recently delayed federal rules aimed at making school lunch healthier.

Without mentioning President Donald Trump by name, she urged parents to think about the government's recent decision and to "look at motives".

"You have to stop and think, 'Why don't you want our kids to have good food at school? What is wrong with you and why is that a partisan issue?" Mrs. Obama said.

"Why would that be political? What is going on?"

"Moms, think about this. I don't care what state you live in, take me out of the equation, like me, don't like me, but think about why someone is OK with your kids eating c***," she said.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced this month that the department will delay an upcoming requirement to reduce the amount of sodium in school meals.

Mr Purdue said he also planned to keep issuing waivers to a regulation requiring that more whole grains be served. Schools could also serve 1% flavoured-milk instead of the non-fat variety now required.

The move partially rolls back rules the former first lady supported as part of her "Let's Move" anti-childhood obesity initiative, but leaves most of the Obama administration's school meal rules in place.

Those rules include requirements that students must take fruits and vegetables on the lunch line. But some schools have said students often throw those items into the trash and demanded that the policy be changed.

But Mrs Obama said adults - not kids - should be in charge of what the young ones eat.

"How about we stop asking kids how they feel about their food because kids, my kids included, if they could eat pizza and French fries every day with ice cream on top and a soda they would think they were happy, until they get sick," she said.

"That to me is one of the most ridiculous things we talk about in this movement," the former first lady continued.

"You know what? Kids don't like math either. What are we going to do? Stop teaching math?"

The Obamas have started to re-emerge into public life after leaving the White House.

Mrs Obama said she and her husband are busy settling into their new home and offices in Washington and making sure daughters Malia and Sasha are settling in their new lives.

NHS braces for weekend of chaos after cyberattack

The NHS is bracing for a weekend of chaos after a cyberattack forced hospitals to close wards, turn away patients and delay treatment across the country.

At least 30 health service organisations in England and Scotland have been affected by thehack attack, while others have shut down servers as a precautionary measure to avoid contagion.

Across the world, at least 74 countries have been targeted by the attack that locked up computer and held users' files for ransom, with Russia appearing to be hardest hit.

:: Hacking for cash: Ransomware threats on the rise

An alleged hacker unconnected to the incident told Sky News the attack could spread to nearly every country in the world.

"I'm sad to say that this is probably only just beginning; administrators are in for a very difficult weekend," Lauri Love said.

"We should expect to see this in almost every country in the world.

"If you've been infected, not only have your files been encrypted and you're being held to ransom, but your machine is being used as a zombie to attempt to affect other machines on the internet.

"This means it will tend to grow at an exponential rate until it runs out of vulnerable hosts to infect."

Ransomware strike gives glimpse of 'cyber-apocalypse'

Up to 99 countries may have been affected by the ransomware cyberattack that has struck the NHS, according to some experts.

It is believed to be the biggest attack of its kind ever recorded.

Russia appeared to be the hardest hit nation, with its interior and emergencies ministries and biggest bank, Sberbank, saying they were targeted.

:: NHS braces for weekend of chaos after cyberattack

The interior ministry said on its website around 1,000 computers had been infected but it had localised the virus.

Spain, Ukraine and India were also severely affected, according to researchers from the Kaspersky Lab.

By the group's count, the malware struck at least 74 countries. However, researchers with security software maker Avast said they had observed 57,000 infections in 99 countries, also citing Taiwan among the top targets.

:: Hackers' hitlist: Cyber criminals and their targets

Cyber security expert Varun Badwhar said the attack gave a glimpse of what a "cyber-apocalypse" would look like.

He said: "This is an unprecedented scale. We've never seen something spread this quickly in a 24-hour period across these many countries and continents.

"So it's definitely one of those things we've always heard about that could happen and now we're seeing it play out. It's really a cyber-apocalypse that we're seeing."

Mikko Hypponen, from tech firm F-Secure, called it "the biggest ransomware outbreak in history".

Chris Wysopal of the software security firm Veracode said criminal organisations were probably behind the attack, given how quickly the malware spread.

"For so many organisations in the same day to be hit, this is unprecedented," he said.

Spain's Telefonica, a global broadband and telecommunications company, was among the companies hit.

Portugal Telecom and Telefonica Argentina both said they were also targeted.

International shipper FedEx Corp said some of its Windows computers were also infected.

"We are implementing remediation steps as quickly as possible," it said in a statement.

Ransomware is malicious software that infects machines, locks them by encrypting data and then attempts to extort money to let users back in.

:: Ransomware explained - hacking for cash is on the rise

The software used in the latest attacks is called WannaCry, or Wanna Decryptor, and exploits a vulnerability in the Windows operating system.

It allows the malware to automatically spread across networks, so it can quickly infect large numbers of machines at the same organisation.

The Cyber extortionists tricked victims into opening malicious attachments to spam emails that appeared to contain invoices, job offers, security warnings and other legitimate files.

The ransomware encrypted data on the computers, demanding payments of $300 to $600 to restore access.

Security researchers said they observed some victims paying via the digital currency bitcoin, though they did not know what percent had given in to the extortionists.

Spain took steps to protect critical infrastructure in response to the attack.

Authorities said they were communicating with more than 100 energy, transportation, telecommunications and financial services providers about the attack.

Telefonica said the attack was limited to some computers on an internal network and had not affected clients or services.

In the US, the effect of the hack did not appear to be widespread, at least initially.

Hacking group Shadow Brokers reportedly released the malware last month, after claiming to have discovered the flaw from the US National Security Agency.