‘US designation of N. Korea as terrorism sponsor is backdoor for military action’

By designating Pyongyang as a state sponsor of terrorism, US President Donald Trump has opened a backdoor for a potential military option to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, under the pretext of “not talking to terrorists,” experts have told RT.

Announcing the news Monday, Trump stressed that this designation “will impose further sanctions and penalties on North Korea and related persons and supports our maximum pressure campaign to isolate the murderous regime.”

The expert community, however, disagrees that further punitive measures against Pyongyang will help foster dialogue between the US and North Korea, considering that the North was removed from the terrorist sponsor list in 2008 as part of the George W. Bush administration’s push for progress in denuclearization talks.

“This is going to make the diplomatic pathway that much further away… and I’m afraid it is not going to help the situation,” Sourabh Gupta, an Asia-Pacific strategic and economic policy specialist, told RT. “It is just a little further step more which is paving the way for military action. It just makes the path to diplomacy that much more harder to get to. Even talks about talks regarding talks to get to the negotiating table are stuck at this point in time. These sort of labels will provide no assistance whatsoever.”

“I believe the reason why we’re seeing this it at this point in time is more connected to the fact that the United States is frustrated that it can’t effectuate the change it wants to see in North Korea without the military action. Military action isn’t an option, and so it wants to appear like it is taking further action, but this idea of additional sanctions is probably a bit hollow because there are so many actions now in place that I don’t see it adding that much more to the depth to make a difference,” Eric Sirotkin, a human rights lawyer, told RT.

Experts also dispute Washington’s claim that North Korea sponsors international terrorism. The only case that could arguably back up this claim, Gupta believes, could be the assassination of Kim Jong-nam – the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un – who was killed on February 13.

“I assume he has done so primarily because of the attack Kim Jong-un coordinated on his half-brother, regarding killing him in Malaysia airport using a banned chemical agent,” Gupta said, at the same time stressing that this was “something that has been in the works for quite a long time… There has been the political desire in Washington to move down this route.”

READ MORE: N. Korean state media blames Malaysian govt for Kim Jong Nam’s death

Sirotkin meanwhile believes there’s no evidence which would justify the Trump administration placing Pyongyang on its blacklist.

“The banter about the term terrorism a lot because it gets people afraid. It is the buzz word since the Cold War to justify certain military actions and other actions. But frankly, the designation violates the very law that it said to be based upon, which requires there to be repeated support for state-sponsored international acts of terrorism,” Sirotkin told RT. “By doing that we’re faced with a situation where there is not that kind of evidence against North Korea. We can disagree with their human rights; we can believe in non-proliferation of nuclear weapons but in reality that does not meet the definition.”

While Pyongyang has not yet formally responded to Washington’s designation of it as a state sponsor of terrorism, experts believe that the tensions on the Korean Peninsula will only get worse.

“I feel in the next couple of months the situation is going to get very, very hard, simply because the current Trump administration believes that its leverage gets negated when North Korea has an ICBM with a deliverable nuclear warhead,” Gupta told RT. “So there is the belief, and I would say a wrongful belief, that there is still a military option left.”

READ MORE: US to ‘pay dearly’ if it re-includes N. Korea in terrorism sponsors blacklist – official

“It is a backdoor way to try to prevent dialogue and diplomacy… and to maintain the instability that is going on there,”Sirotkin said. “It is not constructive; it does not lead to dialogue. You don’t do name calling and labeling and then say, ‘hey, do you want to talk?’ It is an effort to demean and isolate, and perhaps just not talking to them, because, ‘We don’t talk to terrorists.’”

Courtesy: RT

Senate panel presses Kushner on ‘Russian backdoor overture’

Jeff Pegues
We’re sorry, this video cannot be played from your current location.

CBS News has learned that a Russian national requested a meeting with Donald Trump during the presidential campaign in May 2016, and the request is at the center of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s demand for more information from Jared Kushner.
On Thursday, the committee asked for additional information from Kushner about a “Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite.” Kushner is Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and a top White House adviser who played a key role in the campaign.

A source familiar with the document request says the “dinner invite” referred to an email requesting a meeting with a man named Alexander Torshin and a woman reported to be Torshin’s assistant, Maria Butina. The source says both claimed in the email to be members of an all-Russian organization called “The Right To Bear Arms.”

According to the source, Torshin and Butina were hoping to meet then-candidate Trump and were eager for Mr. Trump to travel to Russia to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The request was made through an intermediary who was attached to a National Rifle Association event in Kentucky.

A source says the intermediary forwarded the five-page request to Trump campaign officials, including Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Eventually it was forwarded to Kushner. The source, who has seen the email, says Kushner declined the request for a meeting, apparently commenting that people claiming to carry messages to the campaign rarely are.

Watch: Senate Judiciary Commitee has more questions for Jared KushnerHowever, Torshin does have ties to the Kremlin. According to published reports, in 2015 he was appointed deputy governor of the Bank of Russia. Reports also suggest he is suspected of having ties to organized crime.

But Kushner’s lawyer is pushing back. In a statement, Kushner’s attorney would not discuss the email request, but offered to respond to the Senate Judiciary Committee demands.

“Mr. Kushner and we have been responsive to all requests. We provided the Judiciary Committee with all relevant documents that had to do with Mr. Kushner’s calls, contacts or meetings with Russians during the campaign and transition, which was the request,” attorney Abbe Lowell said.

“We also informed the committee we will be open to responding to any additional requests and that we will continue to work with White House Counsel for any responsive documents from after the inauguration. We have been in a dialogue with the committee and will continue to do so as part of Mr. Kushner’s voluntary cooperation with relevant bipartisan inquiries.”

In December 2016, Kushner discussed with then-Russian envoy Sergey Kislyak the idea of setting up a “back channel” for communications with the Trump transition team and Russian officials. He also met with Sergey Gorkov, the CEO of Russia’s state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB), which was already sanctioned by the U.S.

Courtesy: CBS News

Roy Moore fights his inner demons. It’s not pretty

Roy Moore, Republican candidate for Senate from Alabama, during a campaign event on Tuesday. (Photo: Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images)

I don’t normally do this, but when it comes to this Roy Moore situation, let’s start out today by invoking the memorable words of our president.

Because if you’re running for a Senate seat that Republicans absolutely have to have, and if you’re easily the best chance they have to retain that seat, and if, despite all this, the same Republican leaders who have steadfastly stood by Donald Trump for the last year, even as they privately (and sometimes publicly) worried that he might destroy the country and accidentally annihilate the world, are bailing on you so fast and so frantically that they’re actually talking about refusing to seat you if you win, then let’s just put it this way:

You’ve got to be one bad hombre.

I’m not a fan of media stampedes, generally. And I suppose it’s possible that the ever-growing list of women who have accused Moore, in highly detailed accounts, of general creepiness and outright assault on teenage girls have all been put up to it by nefarious Democratic operatives.

But I’m guessing the only ones who really believe that now are longtime, willfully blind supporters and Breitbart editors who profit from their insistence that reality is the opposite of whatever the coastal, elite media say it is.

(Related: Apparently someone operating on Moore’s behalf has been calling people in Alabama posing as a sleazy Washington Post reporter named “Bernie Bernstein” who is trying to dig up more gossip about Moore. I mean, you can’t do better than that? There are plenty of names that sound more realistic. Like “Philip Roth,” or maybe “Hank Greenberg.” Use some creativity.)

Anyway, it seems to me there’s a lesson in this whole fiasco that voters across the spectrum would do well to remember, whether Moore somehow rebounds or is finished for good. Whenever someone runs for office as the arbiter of private morality, it’s worth asking yourself what he or she might be running from.

There are, of course, plenty of loudly moralizing politicians who’ve adopted that persona mainly because they think it will get them where they want to go. Sarah Palin — you remember her — consciously refashioned herself as a culture warrior, even as her own family devolved into a kind of public soap opera, because that’s where the applause and the money were.

But then you have a religious moralizer like Moore, who seems for all the world to be the truest of believers. Although Moore has never been elected to anything outside of Alabama, no one covering national politics over the last few decades could fail to have known who he was or what he stood for.

This is a guy who suffered for the Ten Commandments more than anyone since Moses. He was twice elected chief justice of the state Supreme Court and was forced to step down both times — once for refusing to remove his monument to God’s law from the courthouse grounds, and again for defying the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.

Moore’s fans in Alabama — most of whom are good people, I’m sure — are left to wonder, as people always do in these instances, how to reconcile the Moore they knew with the predator they’re reading about now in the papers. How could a man so devoted to public morality have been hitting on teenage girls by signing their yearbooks?

But it’s really not confounding at all. The truth is that moralizing and scandal are flip sides of the same filthy coin. Rigid intolerance is often the sign of one who can barely tolerate himself.

It turns out that all that time Moore was raising hell about morality and religious values, he was exorcising personal demons at the public’s expense. He was posturing as the moral pillar he badly wished he were, in order to somehow repress the weak, wicked man he knew himself to be.

You see this everywhere you look in public life. We know now that too many men, agonized by their own struggle with pedophilia, flock to the priesthood because they think they can redeem themselves. We’ve seen famous preachers come to tears railing against greed and adultery, because on some level they know they’re preaching to the mirror.

We’ve watched a media personality like Bill O’Reilly lecture us every night on the sanctity of moral values, while paying off the women he demeaned and bullied. We’ve witnessed the disgrace of a conservative politician like Larry Craig, the former senator who frowned on homosexuality until he was busted for lewd conduct in a men’s room and famously claimed he was the victim of his own “wide stance.”

I’ve often heard it whispered in Washington that there is a larger concentration of closeted gay men working to restrict gay rights in the halls of Congress than you would find anywhere in the general population. Denial will make you a hypocrite faster than ambition ever can.

And this isn’t strictly the province of religious conservatives, or of conservatives generally. I’m reminded, too, of John Edwards, who reinvented himself before the 2008 campaign as a moralizing liberal, stridently lecturing Americans about forgotten children in poverty and the need for responsible fathers — even as he lied outright to avoid acknowledging a child of his own.

It’s hard not to think now that Edwards, in his own mind, had somehow conflated the personal and the political — that he believed he could atone in his public life for the sins he could scarcely bring himself to admit privately.

I feel for a lot of these conflicted public servants — in a way I could never sympathize, as a father, with Roy Moore, given the stories we’ve heard. But your anguish shouldn’t be ours. The public square isn’t a substitute for therapy.

I’ve written before about a bit of wisdom I once picked up from a psychologist friend of mine, who said that people always make you feel the way the world makes them feel about themselves. I was talking then about Trump — about how small and unworthy his rhetoric could make us appear.

Roy Moore, it seems to me, spent the better part of 20 years trying to make a lot of people in Alabama feel dirty and flawed and unwanted. If he makes it to Washington and gets himself seated (which I really doubt), you can bet he’ll do more of the same.

Sooner or later, it’s up to us to recognize this moral policing in our politics for what it often is: the accumulation of self-loathing, with nowhere else to go.

Courtesy: Yahoo News

Opinion: Donald Trump, the illusory giant

He spewed fire from afar, but once in Beijing, he was meek. Donald Trump’s first trip to Asia highlighted one thing: the US president has very little desire to compete with China, says DW’s Thomas Latschan.

USA Donald Trump Abflug aus Peking (Reuters/J. Ernst)

It is rather unlikely that Chinese President Xi Jinping has ever read German children’s books. But if he had, he would certainly know Mr. Tur Tur, a figure from Michael Ende’s classic children’s novel “Jim Button.” Mr. Tur Tur is an illusory giant: the farther away he is, the larger and more threatening he appears. Yet the nearer he comes, the more he shrinks, until he is normal-sized and ultimately stands before the observer as an old man who scares no one.

Criticism from afar

Seen from the perspective of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Donald Trump has a lot in common with Mr. Tur Tur. The US president’s recent trip to Asia made that clear to the world. At a safe distance, be it at the APEC summit in Vietnam or the ASEAN summit in the Philippines, Trump ruthlessly attacked Chinese trade policy, railing against its “currency manipulation” and “massive intellectual property theft.” He even threatened the Chinese with economic sanctions and tariffs.

Watch video01:45

Xi Jinping hosts President Trump in Beijing

The contrast to his behavior during his state visit to Beijing could not have been greater. Once there, Donald Trump was suddenly timid, praising the Chinese president effusively and displaying his awe for Xi’s power. Trump went so far as to temporarily change the background image on his Twitter account, proudly showing himself at Xi Jinping’s side while visiting the Forbidden City and lauding the welcome ceremony that his Chinese host afforded him. Trump, the illusory giant, made himself small.

Screenshot of Donald Trump's Twitter accountOn Twitter, Trump praised Chinese President Xi Jinping, and temporarily changed the background picture on his account

So small in fact, that it seemed as if he were meekly peering beyond his own nose when US jobs seemed threatened. Under Trump, the US appears to lack any clear strategy for Asia, his plans for the “Indo-Pacific” remain fuzzy at best. Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” in comparison, was aimed at embracing China’s neighbors politically and economically, thus curbing Beijing’s influence in the region. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was an integral part of that strategy. Obama saw the trade agreement primarily as a foreign policy instrument. Donald Trump, on the other hand, saw it as a threat to US jobs and pulled out of the treaty.

True allies irritated

Japan, one of America’s staunchest Asian allies, was attacked by the US president during the trip for supposedly pursuing unfair trade practices. Leaders in Taipei, for their part, were officially nervous ahead of Trump’s Beijing visit: Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen implored President Trump not to even mention Taiwan during the visit for fear that its status could become a bargaining chip in Beijing and Washington’s efforts to come to a US-Chinese agreement in the North Korea conflict.

Longtime allies in the region reacted to the US president’s performance with growing consternation. China presented itself as a reliable partner, deftly attempting to fill the power vacuum being left by the USA. Geopolitically, it is expanding its network of naval bases in the South China Sea, while economically, it has been investing massively  along the new “Silk Road.” Developmentally, China is expanding the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which provides enormous credit to developing and emerging economies, while culturally, it’s overseeing rapid creation of ever more Confucius Institutes around the world.

Thomas LatschanDW’s Thomas Latschan

Unlike Trump, President Xi Jinping is pursuing a clear global political strategy. Thus, China’s rise to becoming a global power is not only being accomplished on its own, but rather it is being aided by the fact that President Trump is willingly abandoning America’s claims to leadership in Asia and around the world, opting instead for an isolationist approach – despite the fact that the USA will remain the world’s unrivaled military power into the foreseeable future.

Donald Trump entered last year’s US presidential election with the promise to “Make America Great Again.” Globally, however, he is transforming the one-time superpower into the world’s illusory giant.

Courtesy: DW

PESCO: EU paves way to defense union

The majority of EU nations have committed to a joint defense cooperation, focusing on military operations and investments. Europe is looking to cement unity, especially since Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.

Defense and foreign ministers from 23 European Union countries signed up to a plan to establish the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), which will allow countries to cooperate more closely on security operations and building up military capability.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini described the signing of PESCO as a “historic moment in European defense.”

“This is the beginning of a common work – 23 member states engaging both on capabilities and on operational steps, that’s something big,” Mogherini said.

The decision to launch PESCO indicates Europe’s move towards self-sufficiency in defense matters instead of relying solely on NATO. The EU, however, also stressed that PESCO is complimentary to NATO, in which 22 of the EU’s 28 countries are members.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg welcomed the launch, saying that he saw it as an opportunity to “strengthen the European pillar within NATO.” Stoltenberg had previously urged European nations to increase their defense budget.

“I’m a firm believer of stronger European defense, so I welcome PESCO because I believe that it can strengthen European defense, which is good for Europe but also good for NATO,” Stoltenberg said.

Who is involved?

Under the scheme, EU member states will be able to develop greater military capabilities, invest in joint projects and increase the readiness of their troops.

  • Participation in PESCO is voluntary for all of the EU’s 28 member states
  • 23 countries have signed up to the plan
  • Ireland, Portugal and Malta are still undecided whether or not to join
  • Denmark, which has a special opt-out status, is not expected to participate
  • The United Kingdom, which is scheduled to leave the EU in 2019, is not part of PESCO either but can still choose to take part in certain aspects even after Brexit – if that participation is of benefit to the entire EU.
  • Those who didn’t sign initially can still join at a later date and countries not living up to their expected commitments could be kicked out of the group.

With the notification signed, a final decision to launch the defense cooperation framework is expected in December.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini with German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Reuters/I. Kalnins)EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini (pictured left) and German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the launch of PESCO

The reaction from Germany

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said it was important for Europe to stand on its own feet when it comes to security and defense – “especially after the election of the US President,” referring to President Donald Trump’s dismissive attitude towards NATO.

“If there is a crisis in our neighborhood, we have to be able to act,” she said.

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel meanwhile also lauded the agreement as “a great step toward self-sufficiency and strengthening the European Union’s security and defense policy – really a milestone in European development.”

Gabriel said that working together under the framework of PESCO was “more economical than if everyone does the same. I think that European cooperation on defense questions will rather contribute to saving money – we have about 50 percent of the United States’ defense spending in Europe, but only 15 percent of the efficiency.”

Watch video01:07

Pence: ‘Europe’s defense requires Europe’s commitment’

ss/rt (AP, dpa)

Courtesy: DW

Donald Trump meets Philippine President Duterte as ASEAN summit kicks off in Manila

US President Trump has said he has a “great relationship” with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte as the two met at a regional summit in Manila. The meeting got off to a rocky start with a group handshake gone awry.

Philippinen ASEAN Gipfel in Manila (Getty Images/AFP/J. Watson)Trump initially left Philippine President Duterte hanging in the cross-arm handshake

US President Donald Trump praised Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Monday after the two met on the sidelines of an international summit in Manila.

Read moreThriller in Manila: Trouble as Donald Trump meets ‘Trump of the East’

Trump told reporters that he and Duterte have “a great relationship” and that he has “really enjoyed” being in the Philippines for the annual Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit.

Watch video02:00

Final stop on his Asian tour: Trump in the Philippines

The White House and Duterte’s spokesman gave conflicting accounts on whether the two discussed human rights issues in the meeting.

“Human rights briefly came up in the context of the Philippines’ fight against illegal drugs,” said White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders. She added that the two also discussed the fight against the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) and narcotics.

Read moreDonald Trump tweets Kim Jong Un ‘short and fat’ jibe, offers East Asia mediation

However, Duterte’s spokesman said that Trump did not raise any human rights concerns during the 40-minute meeting.

The Philippine leader explained his anti-drug policy at length to Trump who “seemed to be appreciative of his efforts,” spokesman Harry Roque said.

Duterte has been criticized internationally for his war on drugs in which thousands of people have been killed, some of whom in extrajudicial killings. Trump has previously praised Duterte for his handling of the Philippines’ drug problems.

Read moreWill Filipinos rise up against President Rodrigo Duterte?

Handshake mix-up

The opening ceremonies for the ASEAN conference began with elaborate pageantry featuring the leaders of 10-member association, which includes Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Brunei. Leaders from China, Canada, the US, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand were also attending the summits.

Read moreWhy is the United States interested in the ‘Indo-Pacific’?

Trump fumbled when it came to a carefully choreographed group photo with ASEAN leaders. The leaders were supposed to cross their arms to shake the hands of those standing next to them.

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc (Getty Images/AFP/J. Watson)Trump wasn’t the only one who struggled. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev (L) simply extended his arms

The instructions appeared to briefly confuse the US President, who used both of his hands to clasp the outstretched hand of Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc — leaving Duterte with a spare hand.

Trump then laughed when he realized his error, grimacing as he reached to shake hands with both Nguyen and Duterte.

The “ASEAN handshake” photo is supposed to represent unity among the leaders.

Read moreAPEC: Donald Trump stresses ties with Asia-Pacific, but calls for ‘better’ trade deals

Protesters burn Trump-shaped swastika

Police in Manila used water cannon on around 1,000 demonstrators who were marching just a few kilometers away from the venue where Duterte, Trump and other Pacific allies were meeting.

Protesters burn an effigy of US President Donald Trump during a march to ASEAN Summit venue in Manila (Getty Images/AFP/T. Aljibe)Activists burned the Trump effigy a few kilometers away from the ASEAN summit

Hundreds of leftist activists, students and farmers burned a swastika-shaped effigy of Trump, shouting anti-US slogans demanding that US troops leave the Philippines.

The swastika effigy symbolized “fascism, war and plunder,” Renato Reyes Jr., the secretary-general of one of the groups that organized the protests, said on Twitter.

Anti-riot police said 16 people were injured in the demonstration when protesters clashed with around 500 police officers.

Watch video01:49

Correspondent Ana Santos in Manila on Donald Trump’s visit

rs/ng (AP, AFP, dpa, Reuters)

Courtesy: DW

Trump: Putin told me face-to-face ‘I didn’t meddle’ in elections

Russian President Vladimir Putin is steadfastly denying that his country meddled in the 2016 White House race, President Trump told reporters Saturday.

Trump and Putin briefly spoke several times while in Vietnam for a regional economic summit, as part of the U.S. president’s 12-day trip to Asia.

“He said he didn’t meddle,” Trump afterward told reporters, aboard Air Force One. “He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times. I just asked him again. He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they are saying he did.”

Putin’s words contradict U.S. intelligence community claims that Russia indeed tried to influence the election’s outcome — amid evidence that suggests Russian operatives hacked emails from Democratic Party leaders and tried to sway U.S. voters by purchasing ads of social media.

“Every time he sees me he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, ‘I didn’t do that.’ I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country,” also said Trump, who deflected answering a direct question about whether he believed Putin’s denial.

Congress and Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller are each conducting investigations into whether Trump associates colluded with Russian in the 2016 campaign.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, slammed Trump for his comments.

“President Trump today stated that he believed Vladimir Putin is being sincere when he denies Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and reiterated that he hopes to cooperate with Russia in Syria,” McCain said Saturday. “There’s nothing ‘America First’ about taking the word of a KGB colonel over that of the American intelligence community.”

McCain also said, “There’s no ‘principled realism’ in cooperating with Russia to prop up the murderous Assad regime, which remains the greatest obstacle to a political solution that would bring an end to the bloodshed in Syria. Vladimir Putin does not have America’s interests at heart. To believe otherwise is not only naive but also places our national security at risk.”

Trump and Putin were in together in Danang, Vietnam, for the 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. They have no plans to hold a formal meeting during Trump’s five-nation trip the concludes this weekend.

Trump told reporters on the flight from Danang to Hanoi that he and Putin largely discussed Syria in their “two or three very short conversations.”

At about the same time, the Kremlin issued a joint statement for both presidents about the countries’ “successful” and continuing efforts to defeat the Islamic State terror group, or ISIS, in Syria, the caliphate’s last stronghold.

In Syria’s years-long civil war, Putin has backed the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad, while Western allies have supported his ousters.

“I would rather have him get out of Syria,” Trump told reporters. “If we had a relationship with Russia, that would be a good thing. In fact, it would be a great thing, not a bad thing.”

Trump declined to comment on the recent allegations about decades-old sexual misconduct by Roy Moore, the GOP nominee for a U.S Senate seat in Alabama. The president said that he hasn’t been following the news closely enough to offer an opinion.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Courtesy: Fox News

%d bloggers like this: