Inauguration Day 2017: Pomp and chaos collide as Trump becomes president

The nation’s stark divide was on full display in Washington Friday as Donald J. Trump became America’s 45th president amid joyous roars of support and eruptions of chaos throughout the city, including the removal of a half-dozen protesters who tried to disrupt the swearing-in ceremony.

Less than two miles from where Trump and former president Obama joined hundreds of other elected officials at the west front of the U.S. Capitol, anarchists armed with crowbars and hammers marched through the city’s streets, toppling over news boxes, smashing bus-stop glass, vandalizing businesses, spray-painting buildings and, in one case, bashing in the windows of a black limousine.

The acts of violence prompted helmeted police to chase the protesters with batons, hose them with pepper spray and apparently toss flash bangs into their ranks. Three D.C. police officers were injured and nearly 100 activists were arrested as the sound of explosions and sirens filled the air – marking the most intense confrontations in a day that began with protesters shutting down at least a few security checkpoints.

The confrontations intensified during the afternoon as protesters hurled objects — including concrete bricks — at police in black riot gear, who fired back with more flash bangs and pepper spray. As helicopters swirled overhead and about two dozen booms echoed through downtown buildings, dozens of demonstrators fled, coughing uncontrollably and pouring milk in their eyes to wash out the stinging liquid. Traffic throughout the area was left gridlocked. An hour later, the abused limousine was set ablaze, spreading dark smoke throughout the area before firefighters extinguished the flames. The sound of more booms and sirens soon followed.

D.C. Interim Police Chief Peter Newsham told CNN that there were “maybe a couple of hundred” protesters involved in the violence, noting that the city was hosting “thousands of others who are peacefully demonstrating.”
Council member Anita Bonds (D-At Large) worried that the violent demonstrations would unfairly reinforce the image of the nation’s capital as a liberal bastion hostile to Trump and his supporters.

“Protesting is, in my opinion, your civil right. But I don’t want you coming in to my town and destroying my property,” Bonds said, suggesting that out-of-towners were at fault. “Go home and do it.”

Trump’s inauguration capped a campaign that galvanized millions of Americans who were eager to embrace a Washington outsider willing to say, or tweet, whatever is on his mind. The 70-year-old real estate mogul — who has never before held elected office — was jubilant Friday morning.

And legions of his supporters were on hand to embrace their new president.

As his parade began around 3:45, thousands of people standing along the route — some who had woken up before dawn to get there — endured an intermittent chilly rain to cheer for and wave banners at the New York real estate mogul.

“The president’s coming,” parade-goers near the start said to each other as they peered down Pennsylvania Avenue. They readied their cell phone cameras, fidgeting and arching their necks as the bass of brass instruments and drums came closer and closer.

Just before reaching his newly opened $212 million Trump International Hotel, the president and First Lady Melania Trump exited their armored limousine to wave toward the crowd.

But the time Trump reached the front of his hotel — where protesters had gathered across the street — he’d returned to the limo.

Beneath the gloomy lighting of a winter afternoon, few could tell which vehicle the president was in.

“Was that him?” asked a man from Tennessee at the western edge of the hotel, near 12th Street. Hardly anyone applauded as the president passed. An announcement came minutes later that Trump had reached Freedom Plaza.

“Worst parade ever,” said another man in a “Make America Great Again” hat. “I waited three hours for that?”

Up the street, 37-year-old Kelly Dolin had come from Waynesboro, Va., with his family to watch his 17-year-old son, who attends Fishburne Military School, march in the parade.

Dolin was surprised at the subdued mood of the crowds he had seen. “It wasn’t what I expected,” said Dolin, who voted for Hillary Clinton. “It seems like you’d hear more cheering.”

Earlier in the day, at least, Trump’s many supporters didn’t lack in enthusiasm.

Kathy Davis and a friend sat in yellow ponchos in a light rain west of the Capitol, awaiting a moment they’d long anticipated. Both evangelical Christians, they’d driven down together from upstate New York on Thursday.

“We have just known that Donald Trump was supposed to be president, ” said the 59-year-old. “When we saw the miracle happen on Election Day, I can’t tell you the feelings that rose up.”

One 68-year-old grandmother so adored Trump that she and her family drove 19 hours from Missouri to D.C. to watch him become commander in chief. Security had confiscated Marian Curry’s pepper spray and taser but let her keep a small folding chair because of her arthritic knees.

Curry insisted she’s neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but something about Trump drew her in.
“He woke me up,” she said.

Donna Lutz, a 71-year-old teacher from Florida, said she’d lost friends over her support for him.

“For the first time in my life, I have not been able to have an opinion,” said Lutz, dressed in a bright red coat, fuzzy red earmuffs and a button with Trump’s face. “I was very passionate, so now I get to see that my passions were shared.”
But her feelings certainly weren’t shared by everyone.

Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has angered and offended millions of Americans others, making him the most unpopular incoming president in at least four decades. Friday, Trump supporters and detractors came face to face on the National Mall, around the White House and throughout downtown D.C.

In one case, 10-year-old Josh Wheeler’s anti-abortion sign was thrown to the ground, driving him to tears.
Wheeler’s father, Todd, said a protester had pushed the boy and called him names, though another anti-Trump activists helped comfort Josh afterward.

“We’re disappointed in the police for letting them do that,” said Wheeler, whose family came to Washington for the inauguration from Indianapolis.

At John Marshall Park’s checkpoint, Black Lives Matter protesters — chanting “Shut it down” — did just that. Five men chained themselves together, preventing anyone from passing and forcing police officers to redirect attendees to other entrances.

“It feels great that we closed the checkpoint,” said 28-year-old Aaron Goggans, one of the organizers. “But we know this is just the beginning.”

At the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and 20th Street, a very different sort of demonstration was being held as the earthy scent of burning pot wafted, and reggae pumped from a sound system. A cry went up from the crowd of marijuana enthusiasts waiting for their free joints.

They were reacting to a herd of motorcycles roaring past, one bike flying a Trump campaign flag.

“What’s up Bikers for Trump? ” said the DJ. “Come for some free weed?”

Across the street stood five D.C. police officers, hands in their pockets.

As the newly inaugurated Trump signed paperwork on Capitol Hill, hundreds of protesters meandered up Massachusetts Avenue from Union Station, occasionally blocking both sides of the thoroughfare.

The march had taken on a carnival feel, with stilt walkers, large puppets, a brass band and a giant inflatable elephant adorned with the word “racism.”

“Immigrants are welcome here!” People chanted. “No hate! No fear!”

Trump supporters leaving the inauguration taunted the peaceful protesters, waving their ubiquitous red “Make America Great Again” hats.

Earlier, at 10th and E streets, protesters had blocked the entrance to a checkpoint.

A group of women tied themselves together with purple yarn and sat on the ground to prevent people from passing through.
“Hey, hey, ho, ho! Donald Trump has to go!” the group of about 100 mostly young protesters. “End white supremacy!”

Armed with signs, brass instruments and life-size wooden crosses, the assembly danced, blew whistles and sang peacefully along with a small marching band.

The protest continued until a large group of inauguration goers — many dressed in suits and dress clothes — tried to push through the human barricade. People starting falling to the ground and swearing until police officers helped create a lane for the attendees to pass through.

Throughout the city, other anti-Trump protests popped up.

At 14th and I streets NW, about 100 anti Trump marchers chanted, ‘Whose streets? Our streets!”
One man carried a bundle of American flags over his shoulder.

“It’s not enough to continue shouting into the echo chamber of social media,” said Clara Mystif, 31, a writer from Florida. “We’re here to actually put our bodies on the line in support of our friends who are going to be targeted by this regime.”

Law enforcement was prepared to contend with more than 60 demonstration groups that planned to gather in the District, including DisruptJ20, which drew thousands of participants. The activists’ website promised “a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations.”

They set out to challenge a security plan that took months of planning and millions of dollars to execute. Among the obstacles facing agitators: Checkpoints, roadblocks, truck-barricaded streets, hundreds of Jersey barriers, miles of fencing and 28,000 security officials deployed across 100 square blocks in the heart of Washington.

On Friday, counter-demonstrators also arrived to support their new president — most notably, Bikers for Trump, a group that served as a vigilante security force at the Republican National Convention and expected 5,000 members in Washington.

The region’s normally packed Washington-bound Metro trains were mostly empty early Friday. In a yellow line car headed south, two groups of four wearing Trump gear — beanies saying “Trump America’s 45th president” and American flag scarves — sat ebulliently at the end.

One bearded man in a North Face vest and sweatpants, clearly new to Metro, propped his feet on a divider and later asked if he could smoke his cigarette. He hopped off his seat to record a selfie video with his friends.

“It’s the best day in America,” he beamed.

The man swiveled the camera to show the rest of the crowd.

“Washington sucks,” he bellowed, before turning the camera off.

“I said ‘Grab them by the p—y,’ 17 times yesterday,” he joked later, referring to Trump’s vulgar comments on the set of Access Hollywood in 2005. He casually repeated the phrase several times, until his female companion shushed him.

“Today’s a huge day,” he said as the train approached their stop.

“Yuuuuge!” his friend responded.

Meanwhile, just before 9:30 a.m., the outgoing president left the Oval Office for the final time.

As Obama did, reporters asked, “Feeling nostalgic?”

Obama responded, “Of course.”

Another reporter shouted, “Any words for the American people?”

The 44th president of the United States answered, “Thank you.”

Despite Trump’s reputation as a showman, the celebration in honor of the former “Apprentice” star was smaller than the one in 2009 for the nation’s first African American leader.

Trump’s 3 p.m. parade is expected to last just 90 minutes. Obama’s took more than four hours. Trump is expected to appear at three official balls. Obama attended 10. Just 450 bus permits had been sought for Friday. About seven times that many – more than 3,000 – registered eight years ago.

Though Trump suggested “record numbers” of people would attend Friday’s festivities, at least one longstanding ball had to cancel due to a lack of interest, and others have struggled to sell tickets. Compared to past celebrations, far fewer notable celebrities and musicians are attending or performing, and a number of the city’s great halls haven’t been rented.

Trump’s hotel has frequently been targeted by protesters in recent months. An extra layer of high metal fencing appeared outside its front doors this week, and staff have carefully monitored everyone coming and going.

Washington’s lack of enthusiasm for Trump’s arrival may be due in part to the adversarial relationship he’s long had with the fiercely liberal capital, a place he described as a “swamp” that needs draining.

Just 4 percent of D.C.’s residents voted for the new occupant of the city’s most hallowed quarters: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Pakistan Looks toward A Year Of Stability But Little Rights Progress

Pakistan seems on track in 2017 for another year of just getting by. The country seems likely as in the recent past to avoid fully confronting its most challenging problems yet managing to do enough to avoid their becoming seriously worse.
Measures to curb domestic violence undertaken by Pakistan’s military and civilian government can be expected to fall short of making the hard choices needed to eliminate ensconced extremist groups.

The military’s campaign in the FATA and paramilitary actions in Karachi and elsewhere in conjunction with the country’s National Action Plan (NAP) are given credit for lowering the number of terrorist attacks nationwide. Even so, the intelligence coordination envisioned by NAP has not been achieved and the high incidence of deadly high-profile attacks in 2016 may well continue in 2017.

Also lacking is the political will among Pakistan’s leaders to target those violent jihadi groups like Lashkar-e Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, which along with the Afghan Taliban continue to be treated as strategic assets in Pakistan’s security calculus involving Kashmir and Afghanistan.

Indications are that Pakistan’s policymakers will do little in 2017 to address the structural weaknesses in a sluggish economy. Declining direct private investment and weakening balance of payments are unlikely to be reversed this year, and the country’s heavy debt burden will continue to grow.

But Pakistan is not expected to face economic crisis or pay a price politically for inaction. Low oil and gas prices and strengthened currency reserves have taken pressure off the government to confront such difficult issues as tax reform and inequality.

Public discontent, so visible in recent years over shortages in electricity, has been lessened by the country’s increasing megawatt capacity. Above all, the popular euphoria over the agreement with China that promises more than $50 billion to construct an economic corridor uplifting the country’s transit and energy infrastructure has created the popular impression that Pakistan will be eventually relieved of all its economic ills.

Politically, most predictions foresee a year of greater political stability. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s overseas financial holding, as revealed by the Panama Papers, will continue to plague him for some months as will efforts of opposition parties to weaken and delegitimize his leadership. Yet Sharif will probably continue to outmaneuver his political enemies and be buttressed by popular approval of his government’s development projects.

Imran Khan’s movement shows signs of running out of steam, and its longtime rival, the People’s Party, has not regained its footing as a national party.

Sharif’s Muslim League stands a good chance of being returned to power in the event early national elections are called in 2017.

A modus vivendi seems to be largely in place between Pakistan’s civilian leaders and its military. Despite the generals’ disdain for Sharif and much of the political class, the military appears content with a status quo in which its domain of foreign and defense policy remains secure and it can avoid the responsibilities that come with assuming the powers of government.

In this often delicately balanced relationship, the Sharif government has acquired a newfound confidence. Its successful management of a new army chief’s selection in November has probably gained the Sharif regime a better hearing from the military and greater assurance that the ruling party will be allowed to serve out its term in office.

The government’s hand has also been strengthened as it has assumed the lead role in negotiating the direction of Chinese economic investment in Pakistan.

The year 2017 will not mark progress in expanding human and civil rights or legislation curbing corruption. More problematic still is the future of a blasphemy law.

However, closure should finally be achieved in long-overdue integration politically and administratively of Pakistan’s tribal areas with the rest of the country. In all probability, the seven tribal agencies of FATA will be consolidated within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. Less certain is whether the Pakistani Taliban, which found refuge from the army’s Zarb-e Azb campaign across the border in Afghanistan, will begin to seep back into North Waziristan.

For the time being at least, barbed rhetorical exchanges and periodic border clashes are likely to mark relations between Pakistan and India. Although both nuclear-capable powers seek to avoid deeper conflict, another major terrorist attack inside India could, however, end the restraint heretofore shown by the Modi government.

Pakistan’s suspicions of Indian activities in Afghanistan may increase further in 2017 should Taliban military gains force the Kabul government to lean heavily on India for meeting its security needs.

The optimism expressed in Pakistan that a new U.S. administration may be more understanding of the country’s policies will probably fade quickly. Under a Trump administration, the long-lasting U.S. alliance with Pakistan can be expected to become more transparently transactional and carry more sticks than carrots.

Marvin Weinbaum is a scholar in residence and director of the Pakistan Studies Center at the Middle East Institute think tank in Washington.

Pakistani right cries ‘blasphemy’ to muzzle progressives

A virulent social media campaign to paint five disappeared Pakistani activists as blasphemers deserving execution has spotlighted how right-wing efforts to muzzle liberal voices using the country’s draconian laws have found a powerful new platform online.

The five men had stood against religious intolerance and at times criticised Pakistan’s military, with several of them running progressive Facebook pages.

They vanished within days of each other earlier this month, sparking fears of a government crackdown. No group has claimed responsibility. Security sources denied being involved.

As publicity surrounding their disappearances grew, with protests in major cities, observers such as Digital Rights Foundation founder Nighat Dad began to notice a worrying trend online.

“There are people trying to label these missing bloggers blasphemers. And the people supporting…(them) are being labelled blasphemers,” Dad told AFP.

The allegation can be fatal in deeply conservative Muslim Pakistan, where at least 17 people remain on death row for blasphemy.

Rights groups have long criticised the colonial-era legislation as a vehicle for personal vendettas. Even unproven allegations can result in mob lynchings.

And now such accusations targeting the disappeared activists are multiplying on Facebook and Twitter.

“The group of atheists committing blasphemy on Facebook… have been defeated,” said a recent post by Pakistan Defence, a powerful pro-military Facebook page run by anonymous right-wing elements which has 7.5 million likes.

The post, liked more than 5,400 times, triggered a flood of threats including one suggesting the activists’ “bullet riddled corpses should be found beside any gutter”.

Other pages such as ISI Pakistan1, with 192,000 Facebook likes, called for such “enemies of Islam” to be “eliminated”.

– Self-censorship –
The attacks are perpetuated by right-wing trolls such as 25-year-old Farhan Virk, who admits he has few real friends but has 54,000 followers on his verified Twitter account.

By re-tweeting the blasphemy charges against the activists, Virk gives them a prominence on social media that can influence the mainstream news agenda.

A number of NGOs and observers believe the campaigns to silence progressive voices are carefully coordinated.

Digital rights activist Dad points to what she says is a periodic surge of new right-wing Twitter accounts with just a handful of followers whose “only purpose is to attack us.”

The end result is often self-censorship, with the online attacks following a well-worn pattern.

Journalist Rabia Mehmood criticised Pakistan online after human rights activist Sabeen Mahmud was assassinated in 2015.

Mehmood received a barrage of death and rape threats on Twitter and Facebook, including many from newly created accounts, accusing her of being anti-state and an enemy of Islam.

“Overnight there were tweets warning me that there were bullets with my name on them for criticising the military and the intelligence agencies,” she said.

“Since then I have started watching what I say.”

The new wave of blasphemy charges that followed the activist disappearances prompted a number of liberal online commentators to close their accounts completely.

– Shrinking space for dissent –
Pakistan used its legal agreements with Facebook and Twitter to temporarily remove a slew of left-wing accounts in 2014, and enacted a cybercrime law last year that critics say will stifle genuine dissent.

Meanwhile, pages such as Pakistan Defence appear to operate freely, despite content that would appear to contravene basic community standards.

A Twitter spokesman said support teams have been retrained on enforcement policies, “including special sessions on cultural and historical contextualisation of hateful conduct”.

Facebook said it routinely worked to “prohibit hateful content and remove credible threats of physical harm”.

Observers say the blasphemy allegations against the missing activists have already put their lives in danger of vigilante attack.

In 2011 a liberal governor who criticised the laws was gunned down in Islamabad, while in 2014 a Christian couple falsely accused of desecrating the Koran were killed by a mob, their bodies burned in a brick kiln, to cite just two examples.

“If they come back I don’t think they have a life in this country,” said Shahzad Ahmed, director of campaign group Bytes For All. “They will have to leave.”

World’s 8 Richest Have as Much Wealth as Bottom Half of Global Population

How concentrated has wealth become in the globalized modern world? Here’s one answer: Just eight of the richest people on earth own as much combined wealth as half the human race.

That’s a notable change from last year, when it was reckoned to take 62 of the superrich to match the assets of the 3.6 billion people in the poorer half of mankind.

The charity Oxfam does the math each year and publishes its results just in time for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where many of the spectacularly wealthy are often among the attendees, along with diplomats, political figures, and business and cultural leaders. The Oxfam report on inequality is on the agenda for discussion at the forum.

Oxfam bases its figures in part on Forbes’s annual list of billionaires and the magazine’s estimates of their wealth. This year, Oxfam said, new data gathered by Credit Suisse about the global poor led it to lower its estimates of their assets, and revise its findings about how few rich men — the eight are all men — were needed to equal the wealth of 3.6 billion people.

Here are the eight, with their net worth as estimated by Forbes, whose annual survey depends on a range of sources:

Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, led the list with a net worth of $75 billion. He is scheduled to speak at the forum in Davos this year.

Amancio Ortega Gaona, the Spanish founder of the fashion company Inditex, best known for its oldest and biggest brand, Zara, has a net worth of $67 billion.

Warren E. Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, $60.8 billion.

Carlos Slim Helú, the Mexican telecommunications magnate, $50 billion.
Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, $45.2 billion.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s creator, $44.6 billion.

Lawrence J. Ellison, the founder of Oracle, $43.6 billion.

Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York and founder of the media and financial-data giant Bloomberg L.L.P., $40 billion.

In Pakistan, Justice for the Killers Among Us

KARACHI, Pakistan — The army chief of Pakistan recently confirmed the death sentence of Saad Aziz, a business-school graduate and restaurant manager who was convicted of killing my friend Sabeen Mahmud. Sabeen, who was 40 then, ran The Second Floor in Karachi, a cafe where many writers and artists, including me, got their first break. It was also a hub for activists advocating controversial, often lost, causes. She was shot dead on April 24, 2015, minutes after a talk she had organized about the disappearance of Baloch activists, allegedly at the hand of Pakistan’s military intelligence agencies.

Chances are that after the requisite technical appeals to higher courts and a plea for mercy to the president of Pakistan, Aziz will hang. There are even stronger chances that we’ll never know for sure why he killed Sabeen.

Aziz was sentenced to death by a military court last May. The media weren’t allowed to cover the trial. There is no detailed judgment. We’ll never get to hear what Aziz may have said in his defense or about his motives.

Was he a lone killer, or acting on someone’s behalf? Was Sabeen killed for taking a stand against the Pakistani Taliban and their supporters in the mainstream? For defying the powerful military establishment? Because she insisted on drawing red hearts on walls around the city to mark Valentine’s Day?

In a detailed interview with a journalist before his trial, held while he was in police custody, Aziz confessed to killing Sabeen. “There wasn’t one particular reason for targeting her: She was generally promoting liberal, secular values,” he said. In the same interview, Aziz also said he had taken part in a May 2015 attack on a bus that killed more than 40 Shia Muslims.

According to the Pakistani army, those crimes made Aziz a “jet black terrorist.” So why give him the dignity of a proper trial?

Military courts were given jurisdiction over civilians in some terrorism cases more than two years ago, not long after gunmen barged into a school in Peshawar in December 2014 and killed more than 140 people, including children as young as 11. (The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.) Pakistan’s political parties and military leadership came together then to lift a moratorium on the death penalty that had been in place since 2008 and to allow military courts to hold in camera summary trials for jet-black terrorists.

Since then, military courts have convicted at least 274 people and sentenced 161 of them to death. (Twelve have been executed.) Sometimes the defendants’ families found out about the convictions through tweets by the army’s public relations division. The rest of us never found out much at all about these people on death row.

The military courts’ special jurisdiction expired on Jan. 7, and the government is holding consultations with opposition parties about reviving it. Some parties are wary, but no one really wants to be seen challenging the army.

Pakistan’s insistence on trying and convicting its terrorists in secret is baffling. The war against the Taliban and other religious extremists is supposedly a war of ideas. But how are we to fight an idea when we don’t know what it is?

Should I just be relieved that my friend’s killer will be hanged? Or should I also be asking: How should we kill our killers? I don’t have the stomach for the death penalty, but if Aziz is to be executed, I’d like to make sure he actually did murder Sabeen and I want to know why.

These trials provide not justice so much as revenge, and they uncover very little information. The Taliban were fond of killing our soldiers and making videos while doing it. We let our army take away suspected terrorists to try them and hang them, but we want to be spared the gory details.

And yet the gory details are what we need to know if we want to know our enemy. The reasons Aziz gave in his interview for killing Sabeen — she spoke out against the Taliban, she promoted secular values — echo views and values common among corporate workers, lawyers, journalists and other armchair jihadists. That’s why holding court hearings in the open matters: Because then they might reveal how a theological argument can lead to a massacre, how prejudice can lead to sectarian violence.

Our killers went to the same schools we did. They and their supporters read the same newspapers we do. We all attend the same wedding banquets. But many of us pretend they live in caves and are funded by our enemies. Well, maybe they are funded by our enemies, but some of them also have business degrees and run restaurants in Karachi.

Before these terrorism trials, the Pakistani army already had its own system of justice: It would abduct people it believed were a threat to national security. Only last week there were protests across the country after four activists went missing. They were all critical of the army and their families believe intelligence agencies abducted them. The army has been accused by local and international human rights organizations of killing and dumping the bodies of Baloch nationalists. Some of the people convicted of terrorism by the military courts had been declared missing and were already in the army’s custody.

This kind of military justice confirms the notion that we are at war. But it doesn’t tell us who we are at war with. Do we have a shape-shifting enemy, or are we fighting a war of convenience? The Pakistani army has twisted its narrative about the war too many times.

For a long while we were told that the Taliban in Afghanistan were our assets and the Pakistani Taliban were our misguided brothers. Today we are told that everyone who attacks us is bankrolled by India.
But all these stories are just a way of refusing to admit that for many years now, we have been fighting an enemy who lives among us and who believes in many of the things we believe in.

Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says global warming is good for us

Yes, Donald Trump met with Al Gore. But on Friday, according to the Trump transition team, the president-elect also met with William Happer, a Princeton professor of physics who has been a prominent voice in questioning whether we should be concerned about human-caused climate change.

In 2015 Senate testimony, Happer argued that the “benefits that more [carbon dioxide] brings from increased agricultural yields and modest warming far outweigh any harm.”

While not denying outright that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will warm the planet, he also stated that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only cause between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees Celsius of planetary warming. The most recent assessment of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts the figure much higher, at between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees C.

“All trees, and many other plants, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, etc., are handicapped because, by historical standards, there currently is too little, not too much, CO2 in the atmosphere,” read a slide contained in Happer’s testimony.

“A dispassionate analysis of the science indicates that more CO2 will bring benefits, not harm to the world,” he also said in the testimony.

Happer did not answer questions on his way into the elevator to meet with Trump, according to pool reports. He did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Post.

E&E News, which was apparently first to report on the meeting, noted that it was “unclear” whether Happer might be under consideration for energy or science positions in the administration. There certainly remain many of those to fill.

Happer is not wrong that carbon dioxide appears to bolster plant growth — the greening up of the Arctic has, indeed, been observed. But that comes with many other consequences, including melting of glaciers and thawing of permafrost, which can emit still more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

“While we are perhaps lucky that CO2 has this effect on plant physiology, in addition to being a greenhouse gas, it is not our ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to our ongoing emissions of CO2,” climate scientist Richard Betts of the U.K.’s Hadley Centre wrote on the subject recently.

Happer is an eminent physicist who held prominent positions at the Department of Energy, as well as at his university, and has 200 scientific publications to his name. But in 2009 testimony, he went even further in countering the scientific consensus on climate change, asserting that “the current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.” Most scientists have been plain and very clear that carbon dioxide is indeed the cause of most of the current warming.

In a 2011 essay in the journal First Things, Happer further argued that “the ‘climate crusade’ is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types — even children’s crusades — all based on contested science and dubious claims.”

The essay triggered an in-depth rebuttal from Michael MacCracken, a climate scientist who formerly directed the U.S. Global Change Research Program in the Bill Clinton administration, and who characterized it as “so misleading that, in my view, it merits a paragraph-by-paragraph response.”

The meeting may be most noteworthy as an example of how Trump plans to get scientific advice — through meetings with people whose views are not necessarily part of the mainstream. It’s not a model that most scientists will approve of.
Trump has met individually not only with Happer, but also with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose views on the safety of vaccines have been rejected by scientific authorities. The meeting has caused alarm in the medical community.

The president-elect has not yet named a presidential science adviser.

Justin Trudeau criticised for vacation with Aga Khan

Canada’s prime minister is in hot water for taking a tropical vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas.
Justin Trudeau and his family were guests of the billionaire spiritual leader over New Year’s.

The federal ethics commissioner is reviewing Mr Trudeau’s trip to see if it warrants an official investigation.
Mr Trudeau said he is “more than happy” to answer any questions the commissioner has.

News of his winter getaway was first revealed by the National Post, after days of speculation over where the prime minister and his family were on holiday.

Prince Shah Karim Al Hussaini Aga Khan is a longtime family friend of the Trudeaus.

Mr Trudeau was also accompanied by Liberal MP Seamus O’Reagan and Liberal Party President Anna Gainey, and their respective partners.

The Prime Ministers Office (PMO) told the Toronto Star the information was kept secret to protect the families’ privacy.
Mr Trudeau has since gone on the record about the vacation, and admitted to also using the Aga Khan’s private helicopter.

“As was the case with previous Prime Ministers, when travelling for personal reasons, Mr. Trudeau, his family, and any guests travelling with him reimburse an equivalent economy airfare,” Trudeau spokesperson Cameron Ahmad told the BBC.
At a press conference on Friday morning, Mr Trudeau seemed visibly uncomfortable answering questions related to his trip.

“This was our personal family vacation and the questions you’re asking, I allow you to reflect on them,” he said.
On Monday, Conservative leadership candidate Andrew Scheer wrote a letter to Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson to ask that she look into whether Mr Trudeau’s visit violated conflict of interest rules regarding gifts.

The helicopter ride may also have broken rules introduced by Mr Trudeau’s own government that forbid ministers and parliamentary secretaries from accepting sponsored travel on private aircraft unless they get prior permission from the ethics commissioner first.

Commissioner Dawson has said she has begun a preliminary review of Mr Trudeau’s vacation to see if it warrants an investigation.

The Aga Khan Foundation is a registered lobbyist and has received hundreds of millions from the federal government over the past several decades, from both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

 In 2015, the government gave the foundation a five-year $55m (£34m, $42m US) grant to develop health services in Afghanistan
 In 2005, the government contributed $30m (£19m, $23m US) to help build the foundation’s headquarters in Ottawa.
 In 2009, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave his royal highness honorary citizenship

Who is the Aga Khan?

Prince Karim Aga Khan is the 49th hereditary Imam of the Ismaili Muslims. They trace his lineage directly to the Prophet Muhammad.

He lives in France, has a British passport, graduated from Harvard University and is among the top 15 of the world’s wealthiest royals, according to Forbes magazine. The say he has an estimated wealth of $1bn (£640m) in 2008.
A close family friend of the Trudeaus, he was an honourary pallbearer at the funeral of Mr Trudeau’s father, Pierre.

Musharraf seeks security as he plans return to Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Jan 13: Former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has expressed intent to return to Pakistan after requesting an anti-terrorism court (ATC) on Friday to direct concerned authorities to provide foolproof security for his appearance in court in the judges’ detention case.

Accepting Musharraf’s application, ATC-II judge Sohail Ikram ordered the Inspector General of Police and the interior ministry secretary to make security arrangements for the former president to ensure his presence in court on the next hearing set for February 9.

On December 8, 2016, the ATC had directed police to initiate proclamation proceedings against Musharraf in the judges’ detention case over his continuous non-appearance before the court. Non-bailable arrest warrants have already been issued for Musharraf in the case and failure in making an appearance might lead to him being declared a proclaimed offender.

The details of Musharraf’s possible return surfaced when his counsel, Akhtar Shah, submitted an application seeking security for his appearance before the ATC. The application also sought exemption from personal appearance till security arrangements are made.

In the application, Shah said that without prejudice to other remedies and relief available to the petitioner under the law, he intends to appear before the court if the authorities provide adequate security.

Expressing concerns over the current security situation in the country, Shah stated that serious security threats have increased. Referring to a terrorist attack at the district court of Islamabad in March 2014 and another terrorist attack in August 2016 in Quetta, he stated “security conditions in the courts and otherwise have not yet improved.”

Shah said that under the prevailing circumstances and due to security and medical reasons, “it is neither safe nor advisable for General (retd) Pervez Musharraf to appear in person” in court. He added that Musharraf is under constant watch and he has been “advised to not travel till his health improves.”

In March 2016, Musharraf’s name was removed from Exit Control List after almost three years of being banned from international travel. He is facing a number of cases, including Abdul Rasheed Ghazi murder case, Benazir Bhutto murder case and a high treason case.

On December 8, the court had granted 30-days to the former president to surrender when his counsel had informed the court that his client was ready to appear before court.

The Special Public Prosecutor Aamir Nadeem Tabish had previously informed the court that the Ministry of Interior had submitted in 2013 that security would be provided to Musharraf if he was ready to appear before the court. However, he added that Musharraf submits a new application at almost every hearing and he has not been appearing before the court for one reason or another.

Being a fugitive of law, Tabish had maintained that Musharraf could neither seek any relief nor any lawyer could represent him unless the accused surrenders before the court. Subsequently, the court had ruled that the counsel cannot seek relief for Gen Musharraf unless the latter put up presence before the court.

The judges’ detention case was registered by the Secretariat Police Station on Aug 11, 2009, seeking legal proceedings against the former military ruler for confining 60 judges of the superior courts for over five months at their homes and restraining them from administering justice. The judges, including former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, were detained after proclamation of a state of emergency in the country.

Explosive but Unverified Dossier Sets Off a Crisis

WASHINGTON, Jan 12 — Seven months ago, a respected former British spy named Christopher Steele won a contract to build a file on Donald J. Trump’s ties to Russia. Last week, the explosive details — unsubstantiated accounts of frolics with prostitutes, real estate deals that were intended as bribes and coordination with Russian intelligence of the hacking of Democrats — were summarized for Mr. Trump in an appendix to a top-secret intelligence report.

The consequences have been incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day. Word of the summary, which was also given to President Obama and congressional leaders, leaked to CNN Tuesday, and the rest of the media followed with sensational reports.

Mr. Trump denounced the unproven claims Wednesday as a fabrication, a Nazi-style smear concocted by “sick people.” It has further undermined his relationship with the intelligence agencies and cast a shadow over the new administration.

Late Wednesday night, after speaking with Mr. Trump, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, issued a statement decrying leaks about the matter and saying of Mr. Steele’s dossier that the intelligence agencies have “not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable.” Mr. Clapper suggested that intelligence officials had nonetheless shared it to give policy makers “the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.”

Parts of the story remain out of reach — most critically the basic question of how much, if anything, in the dossier is true. But it is possible to piece together a rough narrative of what led to the current crisis, including lingering questions about the ties binding Mr. Trump and his team to Russia. The episode also offers a glimpse of the hidden side of presidential campaigns, involving private sleuths-for-hire looking for the worst they can find about the next American leader.

The story began in September 2015, when a wealthy Republican donor who strongly opposed Mr. Trump put up the money to hire a Washington research firm run by former journalists, Fusion GPS, to compile a dossier about the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses, according to a person familiar with the effort. The person described the opposition research work on condition of anonymity, citing the volatile nature of the story and the likelihood of future legal disputes. The identity of the donor is unclear.

Fusion GPS, headed by a former Wall Street Journal journalist known for his dogged reporting, Glenn Simpson, most often works for business clients. But in presidential elections, the firm is sometimes hired by candidates, party organizations or donors to do political “oppo” work — shorthand for opposition research — on the side.

It is routine work and ordinarily involves creating a big, searchable database of public information: past news reports, documents from lawsuits and other relevant data. For months, Fusion GPS gathered the documents and put together the files from Mr. Trump’s past in business and entertainment, a rich target.

After Mr. Trump emerged as the presumptive nominee in the spring, the Republican interest in financing the effort ended. But Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton were very interested, and Fusion GPS kept doing the same deep dives, but on behalf of new clients.

In June, the tenor of the effort suddenly changed. The Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee had been hacked, apparently by Russian government agents, and a mysterious figure calling himself “Guccifer 2.0” began to publish the stolen documents online.

Mr. Simpson hired Mr. Steele, a former British intelligence officer with whom he had worked before. Mr. Steele, in his early 50s, had served undercover in Moscow in the early 1990s and later was the top expert on Russia at the London headquarters of Britain’s spy service, MI6. When he stepped down in 2009, he started his own commercial intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence.

The former journalist and the former spy, according to people who know them, had similarly dark views of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, a former K.G.B. officer, and the varied tactics he and his intelligence operatives used to smear, blackmail or bribe their targets.

As a former spy who had carried out espionage inside Russia, Mr. Steele was in no position to travel to Moscow to study Mr. Trump’s connections there. Instead, he hired native Russian speakers to call informants inside Russia and made surreptitious contact with his own connections in the country as well.

Mr. Steele wrote up his findings in a series of memos, each a few pages long, that he began to deliver to Fusion GPS in June and continued at least until December. By then, the election was over, and neither Mr. Steele nor Mr. Simpson was being paid by a client, but they did not stop what they believed to be very important work. (Mr. Simpson declined to comment for this article, and Mr. Steele did not immediately reply to a request for comment.)
The memos described two different Russian operations. The first was a yearslong effort to find a way to influence Mr. Trump, perhaps because he had contacts with Russian oligarchs whom Mr. Putin wanted to keep track of.

According to Mr. Steele’s memos, it used an array of familiar tactics: the gathering of “kompromat,” compromising material such as alleged tapes of Mr. Trump with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel, and proposals for business deals attractive to Mr. Trump.

The goal would probably never have been to make Mr. Trump a knowing agent of Russia, but to make him a source who might provide information to friendly Russian contacts. But if Mr. Putin and his agents wanted to entangle Mr. Trump using business deals, they did not do it very successfully. Mr. Trump has said he has no major properties there, though one of his sons said at a real estate conference in 2008 that “a lot of money” was “pouring in from Russia.”

The second Russian operation described was recent: a series of contacts with Mr. Trump’s representatives during the campaign, in part to discuss the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta. According to Mr. Steele’s sources, it involved, among other things, a late-summer meeting in Prague between Michael Cohen, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, and Oleg Solodukhin, a Russian official who works for Rossotrudnichestvo, an organization that promotes Russia’s interests abroad.

By all accounts, Mr. Steele has an excellent reputation with American and British intelligence colleagues and had done work for the F.B.I. on the investigation of bribery at FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. Colleagues say he was acutely aware of the danger he and his associates were being fed Russian disinformation. Russian intelligence had mounted a complex hacking operation to damage Mrs. Clinton, and a similar operation against Mr. Trump was possible.

But much of what he was told, and passed on to Fusion GPS, was very difficult to check. And some of the claims that can be checked seem problematic. Mr. Cohen, for instance, said on Twitter on Tuesday night that he has never been in Prague; Mr. Solodukhin, his purported Russian contact, denied in a telephone interview that he had ever met Mr. Cohen or anyone associated with Mr. Trump. The president-elect on Wednesday citednews reports that a different Michael Cohen with no Trump ties may have visited Prague and that the two Cohens might have been mixed up in Mr. Steele’s reports.

But word of a dossier had begun to spread through political circles. Rick Wilson, a Republican political operative who was working for a super PAC supporting Marco Rubio, said he heard about it in July, when an investigative reporter for a major news network called him to ask what he knew.

By early fall, some of Mr. Steele’s memos had been given to the F.B.I., which was already investigating Mr. Trump’s Russian ties, and to journalists. An MI6 official, whose job does not permit him to be quoted by name, said that in late summer or early fall, Mr. Steele also passed the reports he had prepared on Mr. Trump and Russia to British intelligence. Mr. Steele was concerned about what he was hearing about Mr. Trump, and he thought that the information should not be solely in the hands of people looking to win a political contest.
After the election, the memos, still being supplemented by his inquiries, became one of Washington’s worst-kept secrets, as reporters — including from The New York Times — scrambled to confirm or disprove them.

Word also reached Capitol Hill. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, heard about the dossier and obtained a copy in December from David J. Kramer, a former top State Department official who works for the McCain Institute at Arizona State University. Mr. McCain passed the information to James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director.
Remarkably for Washington, many reporters for competing news organizations had the salacious and damning memos, but they did not leak, because their contents could not be confirmed. (Mother Jones magazine was an exception, publishing a story on Oct. 31 that described the dossier, its origin and significance, while omitting the titillating details.) That changed only this week, after the heads of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency added a summary of the memos, along with information gathered from other intelligence sources, to their report on the Russian cyberattack on the election.

Now, after the most contentious of elections, Americans are divided and confused about what to believe about the incoming president. And there is no prospect soon for full clarity on the veracity of the claims made against him.
“It is a remarkable moment in history,” said Mr. Wilson, the Florida political operative. “What world did I wake up in?”

Jonathan Martin, Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

Attacks Kill Dozens Around Afghanistan

KABUL, Jan 10 —Attacks in three major Afghan cities highlighted the worsening security situation in the country, as blasts killed more than 45 people on Tuesday and wounded close to 100 others, including members of a delegation led by the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates.

Kandahar’s provincial governor, Humayun Azizihad, had been meeting with the U.A.E. ambassador to Afghanistan, Jumaa al Kaabi, at the time of the explosion, and both survived with injuries, Afghan officials said.

“Both of them are in stable condition,” said Samim Khpalwak, the governor’s spokesman.

The provincial health department in Kandahar said the explosion killed 11 people, including a number of Emirati diplomats and high-ranking Afghan officials at the meeting. At least 14 others were wounded.

“The corpses are difficult to identify,” a provincial health official said, adding that the building had caught fire, burning victims inside.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

The U.A.E. Ministry of Foreign Affairs said its ambassador to Afghanistan and a number of Emirati diplomats had been wounded in the attack. It didn’t say whether any had been killed.

“The U.A.E. ambassador’s visit to Kandahar was on [a] humanitarian mission within the program of the U.A.E. to support the brotherly Afghan people,” the ministry said.

In Kabul, twin blasts killed at least 32 people and wounded at least 70 others near Parliament during afternoon rush hour, at an office building used by members of Parliament, officials said. In the first explosion, a suicide bomber detonated an explosives vest next to a minibus transporting government employees, they said. As rescue crews reached the scene, a car bomb went off.
The Taliban, Afghanistan’s largest insurgency, claimed responsibility for the assault, which interrupted weeks of relative calm in the capital amid frigid winter temperatures.

The explosions shattered the windows of nearby buildings. Casualties were transferred to hospitals by ambulances and private vehicles, said Mohammad Asil, an employee of a private firm who was near the scene.
“It was horrifying,” he said. “I have never seen so many dead bodies in my life. Many innocent people died. It was like a bloodbath.”

The attack is the deadliest in Kabul since Islamic State claimed responsibility for a November bombing that killed 30 Shiite Muslim worshipers at a popular shrine.

The Taliban and the country’s Islamic State affiliate regularly staged attacks in the city throughout the past year, targeting government workers and buildings, foreigners and members of Afghanistan’s Shiite Hazara minority.

The third attack took place earlier Tuesday. The Taliban bombed a meeting of an elite Afghan intelligence agency squad in the capital of Helmand province, killing at least three people and wounding seven others, said Payenda Mohammad, a local police official. The casualties included members of the squad, he said.

Following the bombing in the province’s capital Lashkar Gah, intelligence officers also found a truck in the area that was loaded with explosives, which they defused, Mr. Mohammad said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack in a text message, saying the assailant fled the area after the assault. Local authorities said it was a suicide attack.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s special representative for security in Helmand, Abdul Jabar Qahraman, said the intelligence agency squad had been formed last year to strike Taliban-controlled areas.

“This is guerrilla war and the creation of such force is a necessity,” Mr. Qahraman said. “We have to go after the Taliban inside their strongholds.”

Helmand province in the southwest of the country is a major center of narcotics production and trade, making it an important source of income for the militants.

Last year, the Taliban nearly overran Lashkar Gah but were pushed back by U.S. and Afghan troops. The city remains under siege, with most major roads leading to and from the city controlled by the militants.

The latest spasms of violence in Afghanistan come a little more than a week before Donald Trump is sworn in as U.S. president.

Amid gains by the Taliban and the growth of Islamic State, U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan has deepened since the withdrawal two years ago of most foreign forces in the country.

In the past year, the Obama White House has granted expanded authority to the U.S. military to fight Islamic State in Afghanistan and to allow the U.S. to target the Taliban under certain circumstances.

The number of airstrikes carried out by the U.S. Air Force in the country increased dramatically last year, and on Friday the Pentagon announced that 300 U.S. Marines would be deployed to Helmand this spring, the first marines in the province since 2014.

The U.S. has about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan to train and advise government security forces fighting the Taliban.

—Jessica Donati in Kabul and Asa Fitch in Dubai contributed to this article.