Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said his country will not leave Syria until a general election is held in the war-torn Middle-Eastern nation.
“Whenever the Syrian people hold an election, we will leave Syria to its owners,” Erdogan said at the TRT World forum in Istanbul on Thursday.
Turkey sent troops to Syria in August 2016 to clear a border area of fighters belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also referred to as ISIS).
It launched another operation earlier this year in the northern Syrian enclave of Afrin to remove Kurdish fighters affiliated with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
Erdogan agreed with President Vladimir Putin of Russia last month to establish a “demilitarised zone” between rebel and government fighters in northern Syria.
The zone, which will have a depth of 15 to 20km will see groups deemed radical by Moscow withdraw from the area by October 15.
Erdogan added on Thursday that Ankara did not encounter difficulties in conducting talks with various rebel factions in northern Syria’s Idlib province, the last major rebel-held stronghold that is outside Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s control.
Hay’et Tahrir al-Sham, which includes the al-Qaeda-linked group formerly known as al-Nusra Front, is believed to be the most powerful armed group in Idlib.
Turkey designated the group a terrorist organisation in August, matching a decision by the United Nations in June.
On Thursday, Erdogan said that in addition to 12 observation points hosted by Turkey in the Idlib region, Russia has 10 and Iran has six.
“Securing this corridor means securing Idlib,” he said. “And we have started fortifying our observation posts.”
Seven-year war
Since the brutal Syrian civil war began in 2011, some 5.6 million people have fled the country, with as many as 6.6 million others internally displaced, according to the United Nation’s refugee agency.
Last week, while addressing the UN General Assembly, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said his country’s “battle against terrorism is almost over” and that it is now ready to welcome the millions who fled back.
Turkey, which backs opposition fighters seeking to overthrow the Syrian government, fears a large-scale offensive against the rebels could trigger a mass exodus towards its border.
As part of its diplomatic efforts to prevent what the UN fears may be a “bloodbath” in Idlib, Turkey has been reaching out to other stakeholder nations.
Later this month, a four-way talk between Turkey, Germany, Russia and France over the Idlib situation is expected to be held after Erdogan made a rare trip to Berlin in September.
WASHINGTON – Democratic Sen. Chris Coons once dodged elephants in Mozambique with GOP Sen. Jeff Flake. He lunched with Ivanka Trump. And he helped pass legislation Wednesday by partnering with GOP Sen. Bob Corker and the ultra-conservative Rep. Ted Yoho, a member of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus.
Amid the partisan grandstanding and noise on Capitol Hill, Coons’ wonky, soft-spoken approach is unusual – and he seems to have colleagues’ ear.
That’s why it’s no surprise to those who know Coons that he was in the middle of the Senate’s singular bipartisan moment during the spectacle that has been Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing.
Progressives want him to take a harder line with Republicans. But Coons’ history of bipartisanship allowed him to strike an agreement with Flake on the Senate Judiciary Committee, leading to an FBI investigation of sexual misconduct complaints against Kavanaugh from high school and college. Coons got an investigation Democrats wanted; Flake got a weeklong limitation. Kavanaugh denies all allegations.
“Ever since I’ve known Chris he’s always been in the middle of everything,” said his friend, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., who serves with him on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on Africa.
Coons, a Delaware Democrat, is a one-time college Republican who has made a point of building relationships across the aisle, through travel, prayer meetings and work on legislation.
“We’ve been through a lot,” Flake, R-Ariz., said, describing the trust he’s developed with Coons, while speaking with him at a forum on Monday.
Along with serving on Judiciary, the two have traveled together as members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on Africa, which led to their close call in an open-back Jeep with the charging elephants.
“That’s how compromises are possible. And there’s less and less of that going on,” Flake said.
The two senators may have had different takes on the FBI report on Thursday, but Coons said he can live with that.
“Senators are now in a better position to reach conclusions than they were a week ago,” Coons told reporters. “And I think we demonstrated that through a relationship built on travel and bipartisanship and legislating, you could accomplish at least that much.”
There’s a reason why Coons seems to speak Republican: “I would say it’s my mother tongue,” he joked during an interview in his office with USA TODAY.
Coons once described himself, during his early years at Amherst College, as “sort of an Alex P. Keaton,” the fictional, Ronald Reagan-loving teenager from the 1980s sitcom “Family Ties.”
“George Will was one of my heroes when I was an undergraduate,” he said.
His political conversion came after he grew disillusioned with U.S. policy in South Africa and was exposed to extreme poverty while studying in Kenya. Within a year of founding a college Republican group, he was arguing the Democratic side in a debate and setting a new life course.
After Amherst, Coons volunteered for relief efforts in South Africa and later advocated for the homeless while at Yale University, where he graduated in 1992 with both ethics and law degrees.
As an outlet, Coons tried his hand at stand-up comedy in New York, but only once.
Isakson said that’s just as well.
“I’m glad he didn’t choose that career,” Isakson said. “He’d probably be pretty hungry right now. I don’t say that as a cut – he’s to a higher calling.”
Coons got to know Isakson through committee work, prayer breakfasts and travel to Africa. Both from poultry-producing states, they worked together to fight South African duties on U.S. chicken exports.
Earlier this year, Coons made headlines when he changed his committee vote from “no” to “present” on then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s nomination for secretary of State. He did that to spare Isakson from having to rush back from a close friend’s funeral services to vote in favor.
The pairing didn’t change the final outcome of the committee vote and Coons opposed Pompeo on the Senate floor. But the kind gesture toward Isakson left Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praising Coons’ “statesmanship” – and fighting back tears.
“He came here to make a difference, he wants to solve problems,” Corker said of Coons on Tuesday. Their measure to promote economic growth in developing countries is now headed to President Donald Trump for his signature after passing the Senate Wednesday as part of a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. “So, yes, many Republicans seek after him when they want to work on a bill they want to see go into law.”
The Corker-Coons measure was drafted in close consultation with the White House – including adviser Ivanka Trump. A White House official confirmed that she and Coons have met multiple times to discuss bipartisan legislation. Coons also co-sponsored a bill she is promoting to help women entrepreneurs in emerging markets.
“I am embarrassed. I’m overdue to respond to her last email,” Coons said.
Coons was first elected in 2010 to fill the Senate seat Vice President Joe Biden held for 36 years. His state has long valued bipartisanship. Delaware politicians have a tradition of riding together in a parade and burying a hatchet in a box of sand after an election.
After his Sept. 28 compromise with Flake, he returned home to a standing ovation at a previously scheduled town hall meeting, and some criticism. A woman who identified herself as former U.S. attorney told him she didn’t believe an investigation could be done in one week.
“The alternative to having one week was no week,” he replied.
Progressives have attacked Coons’ moderate approach. He was the first senator the Progressive Change Campaign Committee targeted last year with a barrage calls to his office when they believed he didn’t take a tough enough stance against then-Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch during a series of media interviews.
“There is zero appetite among the public for weakness from Democratic politicians,” said Stephanie Taylor, PCCC co-founder, said then.
Coons ultimately opposed Gorsuch’s confirmation. He has already said he will oppose Kavanaugh.
Coons has grown increasingly critical of his party’s leftward shift, arguing that an ultra-liberal agenda will damage Democrats’ electoral prospects. At a centrist strategy session in July, he dismissed ideas such as free college and guaranteed jobs for all as “wild-eyed” proposals.
Coons voted with the majority of his party, against a majority of Republicans, 91 percent of the time last year, according to a CQ vote study. Even so, he was still among the senators who voted most often against his party on these votes.
To those who say he should push back harder against Republicans, Coons asks, “to what end?”
Coons said his votes, speeches and actions reflect core Democratic principles, but it can’t be the case that he’ll never work with Republicans or compliment Trump when he gets something right.
“If that’s the rule, then we’ll never get anything done,” he said.
Coons is now looking ahead to a Senate without Flake and Corker, who are retiring, and without the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. When he returned home from McCain’s funeral in August, he said he made a point of telling three new Republican senators that he wants to get to know them, visit their states, worship with them, and find a way to legislate with them.
“This place only works if we actually know each other,” Coons said he told them. “I’m hoping some of those efforts will bear some fruit.”
Contributing: Christina Jedra, The News Journal, and Deirdre Shesgreen, USA TODAY.
Comedian Amy Schumer thinks the Royal Wedding is going to ‘suck’ for Meghan Markle, Fox News reports. Veuer’s Sam Berman has the full story. Buzz60
Amy Schumer had a hunch she would get arrested protesting Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in Washington. She was right.
The comedian, 37, was among dozens of demonstrators detained in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill Thursday, including model Emily Ratajkowski.
In a video posted to twitter by @bennyjohnson, a Capitol police officer asks Schumer and other demonstrators if they want to be arrested, including the camera man.
Schumer confidently answered, “Yes.” She was holding a “We believe Anita Hill” sign while wearing a green top with “This today, then #ERA” emblazoned on the back.
Ratajkowski also took to Twitter to share her detention.
“Today I was arrested protesting the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a man who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault,” the model posted, along with a picture of her marching with a group of women in front of the Capitol. She is holding a sign, reading “Respect Female Existence or Expect Our Resistance.”
Today I was arrested protesting the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a man who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault. Men who hurt women can no longer be placed in positions of power. pic.twitter.com/nnwq1O4qk3
She continued on Instagram: “Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is a message to women in this country that they do not matter. I demand a government that acknowledges, respects and supports women as much as it does men.”
Earlier in the day, Schumer and Ratajkowski attended the #CANCELKAVANAUGH protest outside the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, with the likes of Lena Durham and Whoopi Goldberg.
At the rally, Schumer fired up demonstrators, saying “let’s stay together, let’s fight, let’s keep showing up.” Ratajkowski flanked Schumer on the stage during her speech.
The protest comes on the heels of the FBI concluding its investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified last week that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her during a small gathering when they were teenagers. He has denied all allegations.
Stanley Druckenmiller has made billions by reading market signals and investing accordingly.
But as machine-driven passive-investment strategies have exploded in popularity over the past decade, those signals have all but vanished.
That has resulted in a treacherous environment unlike any Druckenmiller previously experienced in his long, fruitful career — one that’s seen him lead George Soros’ Quantum Fund and later become chairman and president of his own $12 billion hedge fund.
Druckenmiller is now being forced to reassess his approach and recalibrate strategies that have worked for decades.
“These algos have taken all the rhythm out of the market and have become extremely confusing to me,” Druckenmiller told Sokoloff. “When you take away price action versus news from someone who’s used price-action news as their major disciplinary tool for 35 years, it’s tough, and it’s become very tough. I don’t know where this is all going.”
He added: “If it continues, I’m not going to return to 30% a year anytime soon.”
These algos have taken all the rhythm out of the market and have become extremely confusing to me.
That last comment hints at what’s at stake for Druckenmiller: a 30-year track record of 30% average annual returns. He’s also never experienced a down year and has been down in just five of the past 120 quarters.
To comprehend why the machines pose such a threat to Druckenmiller’s peerless track record, it helps to first understand his investing style.
It starts with a core thesis — preferably one that’s unique or contrarian in some way. Once Druckenmiller has that established, he starts building a position. Then, after momentum seems to be shifting toward the trade, he makes a big play.
“You really go for it,” he said. “You pile into the trade. It’s what my former partner George Soros was so good at.”
But as passive investing has grown in popularity, Druckenmiller has found the rug pulled out from under him on multiple occasions. Right when the tide seems to be shifting in his favor, automated programs push it back the other way.
“A lot of these algos apparently are based on standard deviation models,” Druckenmiller said. “So just when you would think you’re supposed to pile on and lift off, their models must tell them. Because you’re three standard deviations from where you’re supposed to be, they come in with these massive programs that go against the beginning of the trend.”
They come in with these massive programs that go against the beginning of the trend.
He continued: “If you’re a guy that uses price signals and price action versus news, it makes you question your scenario.”
When asked pointedly about the future of machine-based trading, Druckenmiller pulled no punches. “I hope it blows up,” he told Sokoloff.
But Druckenmiller is realistic enough to see that machine-driven investing is here to stay. And in a fashion befitting a market legend, he’s already thinking of ways around this new obstacle.
Rather than avoiding passive strategies altogether, he’s studying them to refine his existing arsenal of market signals — and even formulate some new ones. In the end, he’s embracing machine investing to the extent that it can help him.
“I can’t see me passing my money onto a machine, but I think I’d be an idiot not to know the effect these machines are having,” Druckenmiller said.
“Frankly, using them is just one more input that I didn’t have 20 or 30 years ago. But you’ve got to understand when the signals are real and when they’re driven” by machines.
He continued: “I have money with a couple of machines. It’s a very small amount of money. It’s just enough money so they send me signals when they think something dramatic is happening. I’m going to watch this for a year or two and see if they’re on to something.”
Jessica Peet thought she would be staying in Fiji to play Survivor: David vs. Goliath, but that location ended up being a mere layover for her final destination of Blindside City. Jessica was ousted by the tribe after she and others made a play to get rid of their “weakest” member, Lyrsa. But Lyrsa’s ally Elizabeth then turned the tables and rallied the troops to flip the script, sending the 19-year-old waitress from Florida out instead.
Where did Jessica’s plan go wrong? Why did she lie about her age? What happened after she got voted out? We asked her all that and more when Jessica called into EW Morning Live (EW Radio, SiriusXM, channel 105) this morning. Here are some highlights from our chat.
EW RADIO: Were you cringing a little bit last night when you watched back Tribal Council and heard yourself admonishing contestants for not playing the game before they got there and saying “if that’s the way you’re playing the game, then you need to recheck yourself.” JESSICA PEET: I knew that the plan had been to get Lyrsa out for such a long time that it was obvious to me that’s the way the votes were going. I never would have thought that my name would have come up at all. It didn’t make sense to me why they would want to keep Lyrsa over me. So I was a little confident in that, and there are so many emotions going on at Tribal Council that I obviously didn’t realize I was making those faces so it’s a little funny watching them back. But everybody at my watch party got a good laugh at it because that’s just my personality. I’m really sarcastic all the time.
Was there anything you saw in the episode that surprised you about the plan to get you out? During the conversation I had with Gabby where she was saying that we weren’t giving her enough, I didn’t know she felt that way. I thought that we had the plan in place and I didn’t want to keep on talking about it because I didn’t want to give Lyrsa time to look for an idol or something like that. So I wish that I would have given her more of what she needed. So what was probably the most surprising part of watching it back was just not knowing that someone I had an alliance with wasn’t getting what they needed from me. That was a little hard to watch.
There was all this talk about Lyrsa being the weakest, but we didn’t really see that in last night’s challenge. The only one we really saw clearly putting you at a deficit was Bi. But, of course, you all see lots that we, as viewers, do not. What was it about Lyrsa that you all felt made her the weakest member of the tribe? This is a hard question because I love her now, but being in the game you are playing as individuals, and going into the game of Survivor you just kind of expect to constantly do things, and she wasn’t doing anything at camp. And then at challenges, I understand that Bi may not have looked like she was going at the quickest pace, but she was the only one who was like, “You know what? I’m going to do this” and was stepping up to the plate, which I admire about her. So with Lyrsa, there were just certain things that would frustrate you. As a David tribe member, you want her to do more around camp or feel like she’s putting in effort at challenges and not always using excuse like “Oh, well, we’re going to lose anyway because the Goliaths are bigger than us.” And that’s why Bi got so angry when we got back to camp, because she was tired of the excuses and I completely understand where she’s coming from. But in my eyes, I understand a lot of people are saying that I didn’t fit into the David tribe, like, visually, but after seeing all the people I was bonding with, I didn’t expect it. It really was a blindside.
Wait, a lot of people are telling you that you didn’t fit in visually to the tribe? Yeah, I’ve gotten so many messages on Instagram and people that just come up to me and talk about the show. Everybody is confused, like, “Why are you on the David tribe?” They’re saying I stick out a lot and it wasn’t good, and they were worried about me because of that. I thought out on the island, they keep asking me about showmances, but then they give me two 40-year-old guys, and Nick and Christian both have girlfriends, and then there’s Davie and he’s 30. And they just said I looked different from all the girls. That was something that I never even noticed, but since I’ve bene home there have been a lot of people that have said that to me. So I don’t know if that affected anything at all, but that’s just what people are saying.
Why lie about your age and tell people you were 22 instead of 19? I just think whenever you are a young person that wants to play this show you kind of feel like you have to either lie about it or try to prove yourself every single day, and I didn’t want to have to worry about people misjudging me because I was young. And 22 is a very dominant number in my life and has always been a lucky number, so when I was discussing “Hmmm, what number can I do? I’ll just do 22.” And it’s amazing the difference people see in you whenever you say that you’re 19 or 22. It doesn’t sound like a lot of a difference to me, but I know if I say to other people that I’m 19 they’re going to be like, “You’re 19?” But 22 sounds a little bit more acceptable. Plus, there’s a lot of life experience and growing that goes on in that age gap in my opinion. So I went in and said I was 22 and just rolled with it, and I felt more confident saying I was 22 rather than if I had said I was only 19.
You were making a lot of deals out there but who was your ride or die? Whom did you see as your biggest ally in the game? That’s a great question. I wish they would have highlighted it more, but in my opinion, I had two number ones. Bi and I were very close, but I wish they would have shown more of my relationship with Carl, because Carl and I from day 1, there was just something about him where we just knew. A lot of times I was having numerous conversations with Carl about gameplay, so those were really my two allies and I felt like I was sitting in a good position with that because Bi had a good relationship with me as well as Carl. But then Bi also had a good relationship with Gabby and Carl had a good relationship with Davie. So I didn’t really have to talk to Davie that much. Anytime I was talking to Carl, my things were getting communicated to Davie. So I felt like I was sitting in a good position and I was a swing in the group of five. So my two top people were Bi and Carl from the beginning.
Was Pat back from the hospital when you got to Ponderosa? As soon as I got on the boat to go to Ponderosa, one of the first questions I asked was “Is Pat okay? Because that was a genuine relationship I had also, and the vote would have been completely different if Pat had bene there. So ugh! Screw those waves! I was so mad! But I got back to Ponderosa and Pat was there. He was waiting. So that was emotional. He said, “I wasn’t expecting to see you here, kiddo, but I’m proud of you.” And as soon as he said that, there were more tears. But he’s a great guy and I was really glad I got to share a Ponderosa experience with him. He was in the hospital for three days and got back to Ponderosa the same day that I did, earlier in the afternoon.
Be honest. After his accident, what percentage of you was worried for his health and what percentage of you was worried about how it impacted your game? And I won’t believe you if you say that didn’t enter your head at all. Honestly, I want to say it was like 50-50. I was very, very, very concerned about Pat. He was a very dominant person on our tribe and I was sad that he was leaving. But yes, of course, I’m thinking in my head, “Crap, that was one of my numbers. What am I going to do now?” Because we had all discussed, if we go to Tribal and we have Pat, it was either Nick or Lyrsa that would have been on the chopping block if we would have had Pat there. So it definitely impacted my game because first round at Tribal I didn’t have Pat there, and I didn’t have another number that we could have used to make sure that the 5-4 vote was turned around. So it definitely impacted my game.
The US Department of Justice is charging seven Russian military intelligence officials over the alleged hacking of doping agencies and other organisations.
The officials were indicted for conspiring to hack computers and steal data in a bid to delegitimise international anti-doping organisations and expose officials who revealed a Russian state-sponsored athlete-doping programme.
The charges of conspiracy to commit computer fraud and abuse and to commit wire fraud and money laundering came hours after Dutch authorities said they had disrupted an attempt by Russian intelligence agents to hack into the Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in April.
In a news conference in The Hague, Dutch Minister of Defence Ank Bijleveld called on Russia to cease its cyber activities that aim at “undermining” Western democracies.
“The Dutch government finds the involvement of these intelligence operatives extremely worrisome,” Bijleveld said.
“Normally we don’t reveal this type of counter-intelligence operation.”
The revelations come as the United Kingdom accused Kremlin spies of directing a host of cyber attacks aimed at undermining Western democracies by sowing confusion in everything from sports to transport and the 2016 US presidential election.
Britain’s Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said Moscow’s “reckless and indiscriminate” attacks left it isolated in the international community.
“This is not the actions of a great power, this is the actions of a pariah state and we’ll continue working with allies to isolate, make them understand they cannot continue to conduct themselves in such a way,” Williamson told reporters in Brussels.
Russia on Thursday rejected British accusations that its spies were behind global cyber attacks, saying the allegations were unworthy and part of a disinformation campaign designed to damage Russian interests, the TASS news agency reported.
Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told a news briefing that the accusations were the product of someone with a “rich imagination”.
“It’s some kind of a diabolical perfume cocktail [of allegations],” TASS quoted Zakharova as telling reporters.
“The vivid imagination of our colleagues from the UK has no boundaries indeed […] it’s undignified for the country, which pretends to play one of the leading roles in the world,” she said.
Al Jazeera’s Paul Brennan, speaking from London, said Thursday’s reaction is notable.
“Most, if not all, advanced intelligence agencies engage in hacking,” he said. “But it seems today that what we’re seeing is a coordinated campaign against Russia specifically because the activities that Russia has been engaging in go far beyond what in normal intelligence circles would be regarded as acceptable.”
WASHINGTON – Seven Russian GRU intelligence officers were charged with hacking computers associated with 250 athletes and anti-doping sports organizations in the U.S. and around the world, Justice Department officials announced Thursday.
The criminal activity described in the 41-page indictment came in retaliation for people and organizations who revealed Russia’s doping program for its athletes — revelations that led to stripping dozens of OIympic medals from Russian athletes and banning that country’s athletes from the 2016 Summer Olympics.
The hacking that began in December 2014 and continued until at least May 2018 intruded into computers and networks of U.S. citizens and corporations, and international corporations and their workers around the world, officials said.
The conspiracy aimed to publicize stolen information as part of an influence and disinformation campaign designed to undermine and retaliate against the efforts of international anti-doping organizations and officials who had publicly exposed a Russian state-sponsored athlete doping program, officials said. Another goal was to damage the reputations of athletes around the world by falsely claiming that such athletes were using banned or performance-enhancing drugs, officials said.
“All of this was done to undermine those organizations’ efforts to ensure the integrity of the Olympic and other games,” said John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security.
Other targets of the conspiracy included a chemical-weapons lab in The Hague and Westinghouse Electric Co., a nuclear-power company in Pennsylvania that provides nuclear fuel to Ukraine.
The charges were related to an intelligence operation against Russian agents in The Hague attempting to breach the cyber security of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which Dutch and United Kingdom officials announced Thursday. The prime ministers of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement condemning Russia’s behavior.
The latest charges follow indictments earlier this year against 12 Russian GRU military intelligence officers and 13 Russian nationals and businesses. Those stemmed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of interference in the 2016 election. GRU is an acronym for the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
While the latest charges are not tied to Mueller’s investigation, some of the same GRU officers are charged, Demers said. The latest charges were investigated by the U.S. Attorney for western Pennsylvania, the FBI’s cyber division, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Besides the 250 individual athletes in 30 countries, targets included the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado; the World Anti-Doping Agency in Montreal, Canada; the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports in Ottawa, Canada; the International Association of Athletes Federations in Monaco; and the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The group known as Fancy Bears’ Hack Team targeted athletes and anti-doping officials to reveal personal health information about them, according to Eric Welling, FBI’s deputy assistant director for the cyber division. When the GRU officers couldn’t hack computers remotely, they traveled to Switzerland, the Netherlands and Brazil to gain access to computers of traveling officials through hotel Wi-Fi systems, he said.
“The GRU is breaking traditional international norms and the law in using cyber tools and resources in the way that they have,” Welling said. “The charges reinforce this behavior is not acceptable, and violates international norms as well as U.S. criminal laws.”
All the officers were charged with conspiring to access computers without authorization, wire fraud and money laundering for buying computer equipment with cryptocurrencies. Five of the officers were charged with aggravated identify theft. One, Ivan Segeyevich Yermakov, 32, was charged with wire fraud for targeting Westinghouse employees for hacking through a technique called “spearfishing.”
The other six GRU officers charged Thursday are: Aleksei Sergeyevich Morenets, 41; Alexey Valerich Mirin, 46; Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, 30; Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, 27; Evgenii Mikhaylovich Serebriakov, 37; and Oleg Mikhaylovich Sotnikov, 46.
“We are fighting back to protect U.S. citizens and organizations from criminal cyber attacks funded by the Russian government,” said Scott Brady, U.S. Attorney for western Pennsylvania. “These seven defendants are charged with the pervasive campaign of hacking, stealing private and sensitive information and publicizing that information to retaliate against Russia’s detractors and sway public opinion in Russia’s favor.”
Thursday’s charges followed the July indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers who were charged in a far-reaching hacking scheme that targeted the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The 11-count indictment alleged that Russians “engaged in a sustained effort” to penetrate Democratic Party repositories of information. The group also allegedly conspired to hack into computers of state election boards, secretaries of state and U.S. companies that supplied technology for elections.
But the indictments contained no allegations that the actions altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the election.
The July charges followed a February case charging 13 Russian nationals and three businesses – including an internet firm tied to the Kremlin – with waging “information warfare against the United States.”
“The Big Bang Theory” will end its run in May 2019 at the conclusion of the twelfth and final season. USA TODAY
BURBANK, Calif. – Expect plenty of tears – along with the laughs – when “The Big Bang Theory” ends its 12-season run in May.
But the crying has already started.
“When we heard the news, I went through a terrible week,” says Kaley Cuoco, who plays Penny. “I was so upset. I cried every single day.”
Preliminary talks were under way to extend the show for up to two more seasons, so the August announcement of its impending finale brought an event that always seemed in the distant future much closer.
“The first few days were very emotional. I think it was an adjustment for all of us,” says Steven Molaro, a longtime “Big Bang” executive producer.
Some of the stars, including Jim Parsons and Kaley Cuoco, posted their reactions on Instagram shortly after the announcement.
Executive producer Steve Holland says the cast and crew, like fans, felt the impending loss, too.
“This has been such a big part of their lives, so there were definitely tears,” he says. “But everyone wants to make this last season great. The next day we had a run-through, and everyone came to work to make the best show. I think in some way it’s really energized everyone to put everything out there and make this last season incredible.”
As for news reports that said some cast members wanted to continue but that Jim Parsons, who plays Sheldon, was ready to leave, Holland says, “Different people had different feelings about what should happen. I think ultimately, everyone knew there was a chance this was going to be the end and that the show needed to end in a way we could still finish strong.”
“Big Bang” writers generally don’t plot too far ahead, so Molaro and Holland say there’s plenty of time to craft a satisfying conclusion.
“For years, we’ve talked about what the last episode could be but now we have to sit down and plan it. It’s good we knew early enough in the season,” Holland says. As for the final episode, “We have some ideas we’re really excited about but nothing set in stone yet.”
Adds Cuoco: “We’re really determined to make it a fantastic final season that people will remember, really, forever. Twelve years is something to be very, very proud of.”
In the meantime, early storylines include picking up on the scientific breakthrough Sheldon and Amy teamed on during last season’s wedding finale; Raj considers an arranged marriage in his search for a wife; and Stuart (finally) gets a girlfriend.
Favorite guest stars will return: Bob Newhart as Professor Proton and Keith Carradine as Penny’s father are locked in, and producers hope Sheldon’s mother (Laurie Metcalf) and Leonard’s mother (Christine Baranski), two fan favorites, will reappear, along with Mark Hamill, who officiated at Sheldon and Amy’s wedding in the Season 1 finale.
But “the focus has to be on these characters,” Holland says.
Will they all have happy endings?
“I don’t know exactly what the finale is, so I can’t make that promise, but I think we’ve always felt this show is a happy, positive show about people who love each other, so we’re not looking to kill everyone off in the finale,” he says. “You have to find a way to end this show that feels real to these characters.”
Amazon and Apple were among 30 companies targeted by Chinese spies through a tiny microchip that infiltrated the supply chain for American technology firms, according to Bloomberg.
The Bloomberg Businessweek investigation found that Chinese operatives managed to insert microchips, no bigger than a grain of rice, into hardware supplied to US firm Supermicro, described as one of the world’s biggest sellers of server motherboards.
Supermicro’s compromised motherboards were built into the servers of the US companies targeted. China’s reported goal was to access these data centers and swipe confidential information. No consumer data is known to have been stolen, Bloomberg said.
Amazon first spotted the microchips while doing the due diligence for its $500 million acquisition of US video service firm Elemental in 2015. Amazon hired a third-party to test Elemental’s servers, which had been put together by Supermicro. After spotting tiny chips on the servers’ motherboards which were not part of the original design, Amazon reported its findings to US authorities, “sending a shudder through the intelligence community.” A secret investigation remains open three years later.
Citing three internal sources, Bloomberg said Apple also discovered the malicious chips in motherboards supplied by Supermicro in 2015. A year later, Apple ended its relationship with Supermicro for what it described as unrelated reasons.
Amazon, Apple, and Supermicro did not immediately respond to Business Insider’s request for comment. All three companies, however, strongly disputed the findings in statements to Bloomberg.
Amazon said: “It’s untrue that Amazon Web Services knew about a supply chain compromise, an issue with malicious chips, or hardware modifications when acquiring Elemental.”Apple added: “Apple has never found malicious chips, ‘hardware manipulations’ or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server.”
Supermicro said it was unaware of an investigation, while US investigators, including the FBI, declined to comment. The Chinese government did not address the report. “Supply chain safety in cyberspace is an issue of common concern, and China is also a victim,” it told Bloomberg.
Bloomberg said its report was based on confirmations of the hack by 17 unnamed people. These included six current and former national security officials, two Amazon insiders, and three sources at Apple.
One official told Bloomberg Businessweek that investigators found that the microchip problem affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank and government contractors.
It’s a story of romance, regret, and dancing in a bank in the newest video from prog-rock mainstays Coheed and Cambria.
The fourth single off their upcoming album Vaxis – Act I: The Unheavenly Creatures, “Old Flames” traces the story of lost love and remorse. It’s all part of the band’s epic 16-year-old Amory Wars, a science-fiction saga that has spanned music, comic books, and novellas.
“This record didn’t really present itself until I was maybe a third of the way through it,” Claudio Sanchez, the band’s frontman, tells EW, about the new LP. “I knew, I was returning to the Amory Wars, I just need to kind of figure out how to do that. Where is the most interesting part that has the most mystique to it?”
Some of it certainly lies in this “Old Flames” video, which you can check out above. Vaxis – Act I: The Unheavenly Creatures is out Oct. 5.
@bigbangtheory_cbs
Viral Eyes 