News article:

These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| A Retreat Under Fire

 Chief Slabinski’s team was ordered to establish an observation post on top of the mountain, Takur Ghar, during Operation Anaconda, an effort to encircle and destroy Qaeda forces in the Shah-i-Kot Valley in eastern Afghanistan, about 25 miles from Pakistan. The battle occurred less than three months after bin Laden had escaped at Tora Bora, and American commanders still hoped to capture or kill senior Qaeda leaders.

 Chief Slabinski’s plan was to land by helicopter near the base of the 10,000-foot mountain around midnight and climb up stealthily, but a series of delays involving aircraft left no time to do that before dawn. Under pressure from superiors, he said, he reluctantly flew to the peak at about 3 a.m.

 Unbeknown to the SEALs, Qaeda forces were already there, and they hit the helicopter with heavy fire. One of Chief Slabinski’s men, Petty Officer First Class Neil C. Roberts, fell out about 10 feet above the ground, and the pilot could not retrieve him before the stricken aircraft crash-landed a few miles away.

 Shortly before 5 a.m., the five remaining SEALs and Sergeant Chapman returned to the top — later called “Roberts Ridge” — on another helicopter to try to rescue Petty Officer Roberts. They did not know that enemy fighters had already killed and tried to decapitate him.

 The Americans were again met by a withering barrage. Rushing through thigh-deep snow, Sergeant Chapman charged ahead of Chief Slabinski, and they killed two fighters in a bunker — a hole dug in the ground under a tree — before the airman was wounded.

 Photo

 Under fire, the SEALs retreated about 15 minutes later. Chief Slabinski’s plan, he said, was to take cover and let a circling Air Force gunship hammer the Qaeda fighters before trying again to seize the peak and recover Sergeant Chapman’s body.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 But grenades and mortar fire drove the SEALs farther down the mountain, making it impossible to return. Three Army Rangers, an Army helicopter crewman and another Air Force commando were killed later that morning after arriving as reinforcements.

 Almost as soon as the guns fell silent, the accusations started to fly. Some Ranger, Army Special Operations aviation and Air Force special tactics personnel blamed the SEALs for their losses.

 Soon after, the military opened an investigation to determine what had gone wrong. The chief investigator, Lt. Col. Andrew Milani of the Army, wrote later that an Air Force gunship had failed to detect the militants on the mountaintop and that the SEALs had “violated a basic tenet of reconnaissance” by landing directly on their observation post instead of hiking up to it.

 Colonel Milani also looked into footage captured by a Predator drone about 50 minutes after the SEALs had left the mountaintop. The grainy images showed someone in the bunker defending himself against two attackers and killing one with a rifle shot, prompting the question: Who was that?

 Colonel Milani’s investigation remains classified, but an unclassified paper that he wrote in 2003 offered two possible explanations: The Qaeda fighters had become confused and were firing at one another, or Sergeant Chapman, still alive, had resumed fighting. The colonel did not reach a conclusion, based on the evidence he had. But the suggestion that members of one of the military’s most elite Special Operations units might have, even unintentionally, left someone from another service to fight and die alone added to the tensions.

 Sergeant Chapman, a father of two daughters, in 2003 was posthumously awarded an Air Force Cross, a recognition of valor second only to the Medal of Honor, for his initial charge atop the mountain. The citation noted that Chief Slabinski, who received a Navy Cross for his actions in the firefight, had credited the airman “unequivocally with saving the lives of the entire rescue team.”

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 Sergeant Chapman had enlisted in the Air Force as a computer technician, but soon found that he was not suited to a sedentary lifestyle. A former high school diving and soccer star from Windsor Locks, Conn., he transferred into the elite ranks of the Air Force Special Operations Command as a combat controller, a job that involved calling in airstrikes and handling radio communications for SEAL Team 6 and other secretive units.

 By the time he had joined Chief Slabinski’s team in October 2001, he had spent more than a decade in Special Operations and, at 36, was expressing doubts about his ability to keep up, Chief Slabinski said. The chief told him that he had nothing to worry about.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 New View of a Battle

 Photo

 Sergeant Chapman was considered for the Medal of Honor when the secretary of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James, directed the service’s Special Operations Command to review the seven Air Force Crosses awarded since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for possible upgrades. She recently recommended the award to the defense secretary, whose approval is required before it goes to the White House.

 Pentagon policy forbids military officials to talk about potential Medals of Honor, but several officials, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said that even the sergeant’s initial bravery had stood out.

 Chief Slabinski said he wondered whether the Air Force was motivated as much by hopes of receiving its first Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War as by a desire to fully understand what transpired on the mountain. (Since the Sept. 11 attacks, 12 Army soldiers, three Marines and three SEALs have received the medal for gallantry in Iraq or Afghanistan.)

 A briefing prepared by Air Force special operations officials dismisses as “not viable” Colonel Milani’s suggestion that the gunfight caught on video by the C.I.A. Predator might have involved militants fighting one another, according to people who have received it. That the airman was alive and fighting “is fully supported by the evidence,” the briefing slides state.

 The use of the imagery-enhancement technology to scrutinize the Predator video was central to the findings, particularly when combined with footage, from an AC-130 gunship, that had not been available to Colonel Milani. As the drone circled more than 6,500 feet above the peak, trees and other objects impeded its view, and it had trouble staying locked on to the men in the fight.

 The imagery technology, still being refined in an Air Force lab, enabled the service to assign each person in the blurry videos a “pixel signature” based on his size, his clothing and the weapons he carried, people who have been briefed said. By identifying Sergeant Chapman shortly after he stepped out of the helicopter with the SEALs, the briefing slides say, its imagery analysts could follow him around the mountaintop, picking him up even when trees or other obstacles partly obscured him.

 Outside experts familiar with the technology said having video footage from the gunship as well as from the Predator drone would have provided the analysts with more tracking angles and clarity.

 “That’s two different eyes, and they could fuse that together,” said David J. Kriegman, a computer science professor at the University of California, San Diego, who has done research in this area.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Based on the analysis, the Air Force believes that Sergeant Chapman was unconscious when Chief Slabinski thought he was dead. The sergeant regained consciousness and began engaging enemy fighters in three directions, the slides suggest.

 Photo

 The analysis suggests that Sergeant Chapman crawled into the bunker within 13 minutes of the SEALs’ departure, or at about 5:25 a.m. Then, at 6:00, shortly after a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the bunker, he fatally shot a fighter rushing toward him, according to the briefing.

 A few minutes later, another militant crawled to the bunker’s edge, where, at 6:11, the airman killed him in hand-to-hand combat.

 As a Chinook helicopter carrying Ranger reinforcements approached, the Air Force contends, the sergeant rose up in the bunker for a better angle to provide covering fire. He faced machine-gun fire as he tried to relieve the pressure on the Rangers, whose helicopter was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade.

 It was only then, with rescue tantalizingly close, that two machine-gun bullets struck the right side of his chest, killing him almost instantly. The Air Force says his death was not captured on video.

 Presented with the Air Force analysis, Colonel Milani submitted an addendum to his paper. “With some of the original uncertainty removed, I can state that the probability now lies more in favor of Chapman surviving the original assault,” he wrote.

 The Air Force’s case includes a new analysis of Sergeant Chapman’s autopsy that found that bruising on his forehead could have happened only if he had been alive, making the hypothesis that he had been briefly knocked out more plausible.

 His body, which was recovered later that day, had nine bullet wounds, five below his waist and four above. The sequence of the injuries is not known. But the two fatal rounds entered at what would have been an impossible angle had he been killed where the SEALs said he had fallen, according to people familiar with the Air Force briefing.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Lingering Questions

 A team led by the Air Force’s 24th Special Operations Wing commander, Col. Matthew Davidson, briefed Chief Slabinski on the findings late last year. “I didn’t see anything new,” the chief said. “It was just presented differently.”

 Photo

 Colonel Davidson said the Air Force could see Sergeant Chapman “moving in and around the bunker” where he and Chief Slabinski had killed the two enemy fighters, the chief said.

 But because the bunker was under a tree that largely obscured it, this was not clear to Chief Slabinski watching the video.

 “You’ve got these little flashes,” he said. “Here’s a sliver of the pixel here, and then it kind of goes away, and there’s another sliver of it, and here’s some muzzle flash stuff.”

 Chief Slabinski said Sergeant Chapman’s assault rifle had been equipped with a suppressor to mask its muzzle flash, but the video showed the man in the bunker firing a weapon with an unsuppressed muzzle flash.

 The chief also questioned why the man shooting in the video appeared to fire on full automatic, rather than with the single aimed shots that the sergeant would have been trained to use.

 At times, Chief Slabinski said, he feels as if he had never left Takur Ghar. He still has “visions” in which he sees fighters on the mountain moving in slow motion, and hears the sound of grenades and gunfire. He has trouble sleeping, and says he has received a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress after a dozen years of war.

 What stays with him the most is that morning he led his team into battle to try to save one man, only to be told later that he had left another fighting for his life.

 “Is it within John’s character to go on and do this? Without a question,” the chief said. “If John did this stuff, I want him to get recognized.” |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– An incredible tale of bravery may have surfaced thanks to new "pixel signature" technology applied to 14-year-old videos—but it's a complicated revelation. The New York Times reports those videos, shot by overheard aircraft on March 4, 2002, may show Air Force Technical Sergeant John Chapman fighting al-Qaeda militants and killing two while alone on a mountaintop in Afghanistan. What's so shocking about the footage is not just the bravery. It's that Chapman was supposed to be dead. He was originally there with members of SEAL Team 6, providing support as their radioman. In the midst of a fierce and disastrous operation, Senior Chief Petty Officer Britt Slabinski determined the men needed to get off the mountain. Slabinski couldn't verify the wounded Chapman was dead, but he was nearly certain. So a "dead" Chapman was left behind. The Air Force now suspects Chapman was alive for roughly another hour and tried to provide cover for a helicopter carrying Army Ranger reinforcements (three Rangers were among seven Americans to die that day; some say blame rests at the SEALs' feet). The conclusion comes thanks to technology that assigns those on the ground a pixel signature that can be tracked even when ground cover blocks a man from view. The Air Force secretary wants Chapman given the Medal of Honor; SEAL Team 6 has no issue with that, but hasn't taken a stance on whether Chapman was alive. Slabinski is outwardly skeptical, and suggests the Air Force would welcome a Medal of Honor, which it hasn't seen one of its own get since Vietnam. But a fresh look at Chapman's autopsy may provide further proof he was alive. Read the full story at the Times.


Write an article based on this summary:

– LeBron James put a ring on it: The Miami Heat star married longtime girlfriend Savannah Brinson yesterday, sources say, in a hush-hush wedding at San Diego's Grand Del Mar Hotel. The couple, who have two sons, have been together since high school, reports the AP; James proposed on New Year's Day 2012. James' teammates, including Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh, were on yesterday's guest list amid high security. And who needs a DJ? TMZ reports that none other than Beyonce and Jay Z serenaded the newlyweds with "Crazy in Love."

LeBron James has another ring.

 The Miami Heat star married Savannah Brinson at the posh Grand Del Mar Hotel in San Diego on Saturday, according to two people familiar with the details of the ceremony.

 About 200 guests were present for the ceremony, said one of the people, both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because the wedding was private and the couple had yet to release any details. The ceremony was the highlight of a three-day celebration that will conclude with a brunch on Sunday.

 James and Brinson, 27, have been together since high school and have two sons. James, 28, proposed just after midnight on Jan. 1, 2012 in Miami Beach, flanked then by many of his teammates _ just as he was again Saturday night for his wedding.

 Intense security measures surrounded the wedding, and even some of the invited guests were unclear on some specific details in the days leading up to the long-awaited event that came less than three months after James and the Heat won their second straight NBA title.

 Guests were ushered into the wedding areas under the cover of tents, and television footage taken by news helicopters showed that even umbrellas were used to protect the identity of those arriving. Heat owner Micky Arison, coach Erik Spoelstra and many of James' teammates including Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh were on the guest list.

 And while some with ties to James, such as Wade and his actress girlfriend Gabrielle Union, tweeted that they were in the San Diego area for a wedding, none released any details Saturday night _ since one of the many rules of the wedding was believed to be that no phones would be allowed.

 Brinson spoke briefly with AP about the wedding last spring, saying she was both excited and nervous. James has only discussed the wedding in general terms, once describing his role as only to ensure "that Savannah gets whatever she wants on her day, the wedding day she always dreamed of."

 James, a four-time NBA Most Valuable Player, and the Heat will open training camp next month. In June, they outlasted the San Antonio Spurs in seven games to capture the championship.

 ___

 AP Sports Writers Tim Reynolds and Tim Sullivan contributed to this report. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. |||||


News article:

Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| Researchers: Elephants can tell the difference between human languages

 By Agence France-Presse

 Monday, March 10, 2014 16:25 EDT

 African elephants can differentiate between human languages and move away from those considered a threat, a skill they have honed to survive in the wild, researchers said Monday.

 The study suggests elephants, already known to be intelligent creatures, are even more sophisticated than previously believed when it comes to understanding human dangers.

 African elephants (Loxodonta africana) are the largest land animals on Earth and are considered a vulnerable species due to habitat loss and illegal hunting for their ivory tusks.

 Researchers played recordings of human voices for elephants at Amboseli National Park in Kenya to see how they would respond, according to a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 Some of the voices were from local Maasai men, a group that herds cattle and sometimes comes into conflict with elephants over access to water and grazing space. Occasionally, elephants are killed in clashes with Maasai men, and vice-versa.

 Other recorded voices were from Kamba men, who tend to be farmers or employees of the national park, and who rarely represent a danger to elephants.

 Still other voices tested on the elephants included female Maasai speakers and young boys.

 All were saying the same phrase: “Look, look over there, a group of elephants is coming.”

 The recorded voices were played for hundreds of elephants across 47 family groups during daylight hours.

 When elephants heard the adult male Maasai voices, they tended to gather together, start investigative smelling with their trunks, and move cautiously away.

 But when elephants heard females, boys, or adult male Kamba speakers, they did not show concern.

 - Discriminating between languages -

 “The ability to distinguish between Maasai and Kamba men delivering the same phrase in their own language suggests that elephants can discriminate between different languages,” said co-author Graeme Shannon, a visiting fellow in psychology at the University of Sussex.

 That is not the same as understanding what the words mean, but still shows that elephants can decipher the more sing-songy Maasai language from the Kamba tongue, perhaps based on inflections, use of vowels, and other cues.

 “It is very sophisticated what the elephants are doing,” said Keith Lindsay, a conservation biologist and member of the scientific advisory committee of the Amboseli Elephant Research Project.

 “A lot of animals will take flight at just the general threat posed by people, but a smart animal doesn’t do that,” he told AFP.

 “Their response to hearing Maasai men talking was to be alert, to move away, but not to run away in total fear,” added Lindsay, who was not involved in the study.

 “It is suggesting that elephants are capable of thinking, (of) recognizing that if Maasai men are talking, they are not likely to be hunting because if they were hunting, they would be quiet.”

 - Wiser with age -

 Elephant groups with older matriarchs in their midst did best at assessing the threat from different speakers, further bolstering the presumed role of learning in the animals’ behavior.

 The elephants also did not act the same way as they did when recordings of lions were played, as was shown in a previous study.

 In those scenarios, they bunched together so that juveniles — those most at risk from a lion attack — were in the center, and moved toward the sounds as if to scare the lion away.

 When it comes to recognizing people, elephants may not be alone in this ability. Other research has suggested that wild bottlenose dolphins in Brazil have become so familiar with humans that they engage in cooperative hunting with artisanal fisherman.

 Great apes, crows and even prairie dogs have also been shown to differentiate between humans on some level.

 A separate study published last month in the journal PLoS ONE showed elephants even have specific alarm calls for when humans are near, suggesting the relationship between people and elephants has reached a troubling point and that conservation efforts are more important than ever.

 “We have become a formal enemy of the elephants,” said Lori Marino, an expert on animal intelligence at Emory University.

 “They can not only make some distinctions between us, but we are now on their list of species to watch out for.”

 [Image via Agence France-Presse] ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — Dr. Seuss had it right: Horton really does hear a Who. Wild elephants can distinguish between human languages, and they can tell whether a voice comes from a man, woman or boy, a new study says.

 This handout photo provided by the University of Sussex, taken in April 2011, shows a wild elephant in Amboseli National Park in Kenya reacting to sound played by scientists in experiments that show they... (Associated Press)

 That's what researchers found when they played recordings of people for elephants in Kenya. Scientists say this is an advanced thinking skill that other animals haven't shown. It lets elephants figure out who is a threat and who isn't.

 The result shows that while humans are studying elephants, the clever animals are also studying people and drawing on their famed powers of memory, said study author Karen McComb.

 "Basically they have developed this very rich knowledge of the humans that they share their habitat with," said McComb , a professor of animal behavior and cognition at the University of Sussex in England.

 "Memory is key. They must build up that knowledge somehow."

 The study was released Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 It's close but not quite like the Dr. Seuss book, where the empathetic elephant Horton hears something that others can't hear.

 McComb and colleagues went to Amboseli National Park in Kenya, where hundreds of wild elephants live among humans, sometimes coming in conflict over scarce water. The scientists used voice recordings of Maasai men, who on occasion kill elephants in confrontations over grazing for cattle, and Kamba men, who are less of a threat to the elephants. The recordings contained the same phrase in two different languages: "Look over there. A group of elephants is coming."

 By about a two-to-one margin, the elephants reacted defensively — retreating and gathering in a bunch — more to the Maasai language recording because it was associated with the more threatening human tribe, said study co-author Graeme Shannon of Colorado State University.

 "They are making such a fine-level discrimination using human language skills," Shannon said. "They're able to acquire quite detailed knowledge. The only way of doing this is with an exceptionally large brain."

 They repeated the experiment with recordings of Maasai men and women. Since women almost never spear elephants, the animals reacted less to the women's voices. The same thing happened when they substituted young boys' voices.

 "Making this kind of fine distinctions in human voice patterns is quite remarkable," said Emory University animal cognition expert Frans de Waal, who was not part of the study.

 While it shows quite a bit about elephant intelligence and adaptability, it also indicates a problem, said biologist Josh Plotnik, founder of Think Elephants International, a research and advocacy group.

 "This is both fascinating in that it supports evidence we already have that these animals are behaviorally quite flexible, but also sad because it suggests that the conflict between humans and elephants is growing," Plotnik, who was not part of the study, wrote in an email.

 In yet another experiment McComb and Shannon altered female and male voices, making female voices sound male by lowering their tone and resonance, and males sound female by raising their pitches. Those kinds of changes fool most humans, but the clever elephants weren't tricked, McComb said. They still moved away from the altered male voices and not the altered female voices.

 ___

 Online:

 Journal: http://www.pnas.org

 ___

 Seth Borenstein can be followed at http://twitter.com/borenbears. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Speak the wrong language in front of an African elephant, and she may not like you much. In a study at a Kenyan national park, researchers played recordings of different languages and voices for 47 elephant family groups, comprising hundreds of animals. The recordings included the voices of Maasai men, whose cattle-herding can cause run-ins with elephants. Kamba men, on the other hand, are often farmers or national park workers and present little danger to elephants, AFP reports via Raw Story. While the languages recorded were different, the spoken phrase was the same: "Look, look over there—a group of elephants is coming." When the elephants heard Maasai men, they prepared to protect themselves, sniffing around and moving together. But the voices of Kamba men didn't prompt much worry. "They are making such a fine-level discrimination using human language skills," a study author tells the AP. "They're able to acquire quite detailed knowledge." The elephants also appeared to be able to distinguish between men and women: Maasai women's voices didn't set off major alarm bells, nor did Maasai boys'. The findings come as humans and elephants overlap more often in the park, leading to occasional clashes, Discover notes. Indeed, the study is "sad because it suggests that the conflict between humans and elephants is growing," says an expert.


Article:
A defense attorney says Iran has set bail of $500,000 each for two American men arrested more than two years ago and convicted on spy-related charges.

 Lawyer Masoud Shafiei says the court would free Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal after payment of the bail.

 Shafiei says he informed the Swiss Embassy on Tuesday of the decision. The Swiss represent U.S. interests in Iran.

 The bail amount is the same set last year for the release of a third American, Sarah Shourd, who was arrested with Bauer and Fattal along the Iran-Iraq border in July 2009. ||||| Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that he intends to release two Americans who have been jailed on charges of espionage for two years and grant them a “unilateral pardon.”

 “I am helping to arrange for their release in a couple of days so they will be able to return home,” Ahmadinejad told The Washington Post in an hour-long interview at his office here.

 The Americans, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, both 29, were arrested along with another American, Sarah Shourd, as they hiked along the Iran-Iraq border in July 2009. Last month, Bauer and Fattal were sentenced to eight years in prison.

 Shourd was released in September 2010 on medical and humanitarian grounds after posting $500,000 bail.

 In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she was “encouraged” by Ahmadinejad’s comments. There was no immediate reaction from the families of Bauer or Fattal.

 The promise to free the hikers could eliminate a key flash point in relations between Iran and the United States, although many more remain. It comes just weeks before Ahmadinejad is due to visit New York for the annual U.N. General Assembly meeting, and it coincides with other conciliatory actions by Iran, including a letter to European Union officials offering new talks on Iran’s nuclear program.

 It was not clear, however, whether Iran’s diplomatic outreach included the kinds of concessions that Western officials say would be necessary to resume talks that broke down in January.

 In the interview Tuesday, Ahmadinejad suggested he was open to a resolution of the standoff over the country’s uranium-enrichment program, although apparent deals have fallen apart in the past.

 $500,000 bail demanded

 Masoud Shafiei, a lawyer representing the hikers, said he had been told by court officials that each of them would have to pay $500,000 in bail, as Shourd had to do. He said the bond was being demanded because, even though Bauer and Fattal have been convicted, their case is open to appeal and a final verdict has not been rendered.

 “Basically if they don’t pay their bail, they won’t be freed,” Shafiei said. “I don’t know who arranged this, the court or the president. The judiciary has said that everything is being done according to their procedures.”

 Ahmadinejad said Bauer and Fattal will be “free to choose” how they return to the United States. Ahmadinejad’s decision to pardon the men is subject to review by Iran’s clerical authorities.

 Bauer, Fattal and Shourd were hiking in the mountains of Iraq’s northern Kurdish region on July 31, 2009, when, according to their families, they strayed across the border by accident. Authorities in Tehran confirmed three days later that the three had been arrested, and an Iranian Arabic-language television network quoted police sources as saying the hikers were “CIA agents.”

 Bauer and Shourd were free-lance journalists who were living together in Damascus, Syria, where Shourd also taught English and was studying Arabic, friends and relatives said. Fattal is a friend of Bauer’s who was visiting the Middle East to explore his father’s roots in Iraq. All three graduated from the University of California at Berkeley.

 Bauer, an Arabic speaker from Minnesota who graduated from Berkeley in 2007 with a degree in Arabic and peace and conflict studies, was a Middle East correspondent for New America Media and has written for publications including the Nation magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and Slate.com. Shourd has written for Brave New Traveler, an online travel magazine. At the time of her arrest, she had identified herself on the magazine’s Web site as a “teacher-activist-writer from California currently based in the Middle East.”

 In May 2010, the three Americans’ mothers were allowed to meet with their children in Tehran for the first time since their arrest. The hikers had complained to diplomats about isolation and depression while being held in Evin prison.

 But Iran’s intelligence minister, Heidar Moslehi, reiterated his accusations during the visit that the three hikers were on an espionage mission. And he repeated demands for the release of Iranians allegedly abducted by the United States.

 Call for elections in Syria

 Ahmadinejad parried questions Tuesday about Iran’s ties with the embattled government in Syria, a key ally.

 Ahmadinejad called for free elections in Syria and suggested that President Bashar al-Assad implement a reform program, although he was vague about the type of reforms he recommended.

 He said Iran’s economy was flourishing, in contrast to the economies of the United States and Western powers that have led efforts to penalize Iran for its uranium-enrichment program. “Those who imposed sanctions on us are now facing economic recession,” he said. “They have created problems for themselves because we have a large economy.”

 Ahmadinejad brushed off reports of a serious rift between him and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme religious and political authority in the Islamic republic. “Can you find two people in the world who are the same?” he said in response to a question about the split, which surfaced this year when Ahmadinejad attempted to dismiss his intelligence minister, only to be overruled by Khamenei.

 The president also shrugged off attacks on a key aide and confidant, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who has been heavily criticized by hard-line conservatives and clerics loyal to Khamenei.

 “I do not expect all to like my colleagues,” Ahmadinejad said.

 Correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran and staff writers William Branigin and Joby Warrick in Washington contributed to this report. |||||Summary:

– More than two years after they were jailed on charges of spying, American hikers Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal may finally be headed home. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tells the Washington Post he will grant a “unilateral pardon” to the two men, and that he is working to arrange for their release and return home “in a couple of days.” Asked if it will definitely happen this week, the president replied, “I hope so.” Meanwhile, a defense attorney tells the AP that Iran set bail at $500,000 for each of the two men, and will free them once bail is paid. Bail was set at that amount for the third jailed hiker, Sarah Shourd, before her release last year. Last month, Bauer and Fattal were sentenced to eight years, a ruling their lawyer vowed to appeal.


Article:

 Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

 Greece is heading toward a major vote Sunday that will both shape the future of its economy and Europe's monetary union. It is a complicated story, and here at Wonkblog, we've tried to give you a clear sense of what's going on and what's next.

 But Anil Kashyap of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business has released an excellent primer of his own that's worth a read. Kashyap wrote the piece last weekend, before Greece officially defaulted June 29 on a key payment to the International Monetary Fund, and the situation continues to evolve into the weekend. In an e-mail, Kashyap notes a few other important developments since his primer came out, including that some Greek officials have pledged to resign if Greeks vote Yes on the referendum; that creditors won't negotiate anymore until after the vote; and that a new IMF debt analysis sheds additional light on the grave situation facing Greece.

 Read over the primer's 18 questions and answers--reprinted here--and come away far more knowledgeable about Greece's crisis. (We have lightly edited a few points, marked with *, to reflect updates since the original version was published.)

 1) How did Greece get into such trouble?

 Greece from the mid-1990s until last year was constantly spending more than it was collecting in tax revenues. For most of this time, the country’s initially reported numbers showed small differences that were subsequently found to have been much larger. The revisions tended to be most substantial right after elections when a new government would find that its predecessor was much more profligate than had been reported. Because of these deficits, the country borrowed to cover the shortfalls and its debt burden was steadily rising.

 In the fall of 2009, a then newly elected government reported that the deficit for that year was going to be 13.6 percent of economic output and that the deficits in 2007 and 2006 were also larger than had been reported. From that point onward, the world began to wonder if Greece really could pay the debt that it had issued or needed to default. Its borrowing costs rose sharply and the country began looking for ways to reduce its required debt payments and end its borrowing addiction.

 2) Wasn’t Greece already bailed out in 2010?

 By the spring of 2010 the excessive debt problem became unbearable and there was open speculation that Greece would default. The country had done this on four occasions previously since 1800. Much of the government debt was owed to banks outside of Greece, with the largest amounts in France and Germany. So if Greece had stopped paying, the French and German banks would have suffered substantial losses.

 Greece was lent new money in 2010, but as Karl Otto Pohl, former head of the German central bank observed, at the time much of that money was used to repay the obligations owned by the French and German banks. The new lending was advertised by the politicians across Europe as a rescue for Greece. But it was at least as much a deal to buy time for the banks and other owners of Greek debt to avoid a default. Greece did avoid default, but the support came with requirements designed to make sure that the country end its chronic deficit spending.

 3) Why did that rescue fail?

 To justify the new lending, the lenders had to be assured that the deficits would end and that the country would grow enough to be able to service its debt. In May of 2010, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), led at the time by Dominique Strauss Kahn, who had ambitions of running for the presidency of France, conducted an analysis to see if such a scenario was realistic. The report at the time concluded that if Greece undertook drastic reforms it could close its deficits and begin growing so that over time the debt (including the new lending that was being provided) would be manageable.

 This analysis was later shown to be deeply flawed by the IMF itself. The Greeks did actually cut their deficits substantially, but many of the reforms that were supposed to support growth did not occur and the economy contracted substantially. So the debt, relative to the size of the economy, did not improve. Importantly, no debt was written off in 2010, even though many analysts, including some on the executive Board of the IMF, at the time believed that it was necessary and that the banks and other private sector owners of the debt should have taken some losses.

 4) What is the troika (or the institutions) and what do they have to do with this?

 The new lending in 2010 came from two sources, a fund that was raised from European governments and the IMF. The bailout fund was overseen by the finance ministers of these governments. The European Central Bank also provided support to Greece in two ways. First, it allowed banks in Greece (and everywhere else) to borrow from it by posting bonds guaranteed by Greece as the collateral. Second, it bought some Greek government bonds in the open market. So all three of these organizations were now exposed to losses in the event that Greece ever defaulted. As such, they had representatives that met regularly with the Greek government to make sure that the reforms were on track. Initially the three were called the troika. Subsequently, they have also been referred to as “the institutions."

 5) Wasn’t Greece also bailed out in 2012?

 By late 2010 it was already clear that the debt burden might prove to be unsustainable. So discussions began over reducing the debt. The Greek government was supposed to sell some assets to retire some of the debt. That never happened and as the recession continued it was clear that the 2010 plan was not going to be adequate. So in March 2012 a second bailout program with revised terms was undertaken.

 The IMF lent additional money, but the main conditions that accompanied the funding were largely the same. Once again, the cornerstones of the plan continued to be steps to make tax collection more efficient, to reduce spending promises, and to undertake reforms to encourage hiring and business expansion that would support growth. It was not clear why this plan would be more successful than the first one.

 The European Central Bank meanwhile became more deeply committed to stabilizing financial markets. ECB President Mario Draghi famously said in July 2012 that “within our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough.” Draghi’s statement immediately led to a drop in borrowing costs for governments across Europe and the pressure on Greece temporarily subsided.

 By continuing to allow banks everywhere to use Greek debt as collateral, the ECB also created conditions that supported the trading of Greek debt. By this time the French and German banks had shed their exposure to Greece so that they would no longer be directly harmed if there was a default. So the stealth rescue of the non-Greek banks was completed with little public attention and the narrative that all the problems were self-inflicted by the Greeks became more pronounced.

 6) Why is Greece in trouble again now?

 In the time since Draghi’s statement three important things happened in Greece. First, Greece made further substantial progress on closing its deficits. By late 2014, Greece was finally spending less than it was collecting, although the interest payments on debt meant there was still an overall deficit. So for the first time since Greece adopted the euro it had budget position that was solid.

 Second, the economy contracted for two more years as the reforms failed to deliver higher growth. Certainly the higher tax collections and reduced government spending contributed to the weak performance, but the degree to which the planned reforms, if fully implemented, could

 have offset that remains controversial. It is important to also recognize the massive collapse was

 preceded by a very large debt-fueled boom.

 Austerity notwithstanding, the economy seemed to have reached bottom and was finally beginning to recover in late 2014. A very interesting counterfactual scenario is to contemplate what would have happened if the political situation had allowed this progress to continue.

 The third major development, however, was that the public lost confidence in the incumbent government and its lenders. Unemployment in Greece has remained above 25 percent for years and

 was much higher for young people. So the citizens were fed up. Hence, in 2015 the public voted

 for a new government that insisted on deviating from the past playbook.

 The major party in the new coalition, Syriza, is often referred to a coalition of the radical left. In January 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras sought to reopen negotiations with Greece’s creditors.

 7) What is the Greek government asking for?

 The Tsipras government wanted three types of changes. First, it wanted to restore some of the spending cuts that had been enacted. Second, it wanted to reverse some of the revenue hikes that the past governments had instituted. These first two requests would have widened the deficit and also reorganized priorities within the budget. (In fact, once it became clear that Syriza was going to win the election, tax revenues began shrinking as the public stopped paying some unpopular taxes).

 Finally, it wanted outright forgiveness of some of the debt that had accumulated.

 Since taking office, Tsipras has been negotiating with the creditors over for a new set of agreements. The creditors have made some modest concessions but are largely insisting on a continuation of similar plans.

 When he failed to secure these changes, Tsipras announced that he would have the Greek people vote on a referendum on July 6 over whether Greece would vote yes to accept the creditors latest offer or vote no to reject it.

 8) Why do the institutions disagree with the government?*

 There are two sources of objections that the creditors have with Tsipras’ requests.

 First, and probably most importantly, countries such as Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland, had all had to undertake similar types of adjustment as in Greece. None of them saw their economies collapse to the extent of Greece, but unemployment especially among the young is also high in all these countries. Hence, if there are substantial concessions to Greece, then these countries will insist upon getting similar treatment. The existing governments in these countries all realize that if electing a radical government in Greece is seen as being rewarded, then voters elsewhere will do the same.

 The money needed to save Greece could easily be found. Greece is a small economy, so even though their debt is large when judged relative to Greece’s economy, it is small relative to the overall capacity in Europe. In contrast, the money needed to forgive debt in the other countries, especially Italy and Spain, is not affordable for Germany (and all the other Northern European countries that would have to foot the bill).

 Second, even if there was some way that Greece could be helped without setting a precedent, the officials do not trust the Greeks to carry through with any plans. The fact that Prime Minister Tsipras is asking for a public referendum to accept a continuation of prior policies was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Tsipras is arguing that the public should reject the plans. The institutions doubt that he could reverse his position and suddenly begin taking steps which he has campaigned against for years. They also are infuriated that he believes his mandate to get better terms supersedes the ones that other elected governments had from their citizens that wanted no more bailouts.

 Another consideration is that IMF, the ECB and the other European leaders believe that unlike before, if Greece defaults the spillovers can be managed.

 9) Why was the IMF loan that came due June 29 so important?*

 The IMF made loans in 2010 to Greece that no private lender would have been willing to make. It did so with the presumption that it would be first in line to be repaid subsequently.

 For failing businesses in many countries, there is analogous arrangement where in a bankruptcy situation a judge can decide that a business is worth more if it can continue to operate with some new funding, than if it was closed and sold off immediately. In that case, the new funding gets highest priority for repayment (otherwise no one will lend) and a judge will make sure that is the case. For countries, enforcing this priority is a problem since there is no court or other authority that can compel a country to pay.

 Greece did not pay the IMF the €1.55 billion that it was owed on Tuesday. Now that it has defaulted, Greece has become an international pariah. To preserve its own ability to operate in future crises, the IMF must insist on being repaid. If it ever accepts the idea that a country can default if things go south, then it will never get repaid in the future. So the IMF will continue to seek repayment, no matter how flawed the analysis that led to the lending in the first place.

 Interestingly, Greece did make a small payment to the European bailout fund, so it will not be in default to that lender even if it does fall behind with the IMF.

 10) What did the ECB decide last weekend and why did Greece close its banks?*

 The ECB decided it could no longer keep accepting additional collateral from the Greek banks that was guaranteed by the Greek government. This means no more extraordinary lending will be extended. The ECB was worried that Greece might not honor the obligations and hence it could be left with collateral that would be insufficient to cover the loans it extended already. This is in keeping with Draghi’s promise of staying within the ECB mandate; lending when losses are expected would be clearly illegal.

 However, the ECB has not completely cut off its support to Greece. The ECB could have recalled all of its loans, or demanded even more collateral for the existing loans. But for the Greek banks this removed the only viable option for obtaining more cash. They do not have assets that they can sell to come up with more cash. So without the ECB’s full support, they are in serious trouble.

 Greece has closed the banks so that depositors cannot take out all of their money. There are now limits on how much depositors can get from ATMs and limits on wire transfers. So depositors are nervous and scared about what is going to happen.

 11) What can Greece do to save its economy now?

 Greece must either find a new lender, which seems very unlikely, or survive with very little credit for a while; Russia will not step in to offer support, since doing so would likely wind up with some of the resources transferred to other creditors and Russia has its own big fiscal problems.

 If there is a no vote, Greece will likely stop payments on all debt. Being cut off from credit markets, it will now be forced to match its spending to the revenue it is receiving. To ease the burden, the government will likely distribute IOUs of some form to government employees, vendors and pensioners. It may even have to use IOUs to fund the referendum.

 These IOUs will likely circulate as a form of money alongside the euro. People will strongly prefer euros to the IOUs, so the IOUs will trade at a discount.

 Some people and businesses may resort to bartering.

 12) Why not just bring back the drachma?

 The public will have little confidence in the IOUs that the government issues. Probably even

 less confidence if Greece opts to officially introduce a new currency. Reintroducing the drachma would be totally illegal under European law and form the basis for a law suit to force Greece out of the European Union (EU). As part of the EU, Greek citizens can travel freely and work anywhere within Europe. Greek goods are also allowed to be sold without being subject to tariffs. Expulsion from the EU would be devastating.

 Issuing IOUs which are not officially touted as a currency is a better option for Greece for now.

 13) Will the Greek crisis spread?

 It depends largely on what citizens make of the impending chaos in Greece. If people believe that their governments also might default on debt, they could also try to get money out of the banks. Likewise, investors could refuse to buy newly issued debt.

 The ECB is likely to be able to head off both these problems. It is already buying debt and can do more of that. It also can lend against the collateral guaranteed by these governments. The ECB can probably contain the immediate fallout.

 The political contagion is much harder to assess. Perhaps if Greece emerges in better shape in the medium term, then other countries will follow. Tsipras was betting that this concern would be so powerful that Europe would never take this risk.

 14) What is likely to happen next in Greece?

 The outcome of the referendum now becomes critical. If the public votes “yes," then perhaps the existing government (likely reorganized) will be able to reopen the banks and conclude a deal.

 But, if the public sides with Tsipras government, then there will be a very sharp recession over the next few months. Tax collection is likely to collapse. The Tsipras government is unlikely to survive the economic collapse.

 If the post-Tsipras government opts to proceed with the default, then the next big unknown is how long before the economy stabilizes. At some point Greece will be a very attractive tourist destination, and its goods that are no longer priced in euros will be more competitive, so at some point the economy will begin to turn around. Whether this takes months or quarters will depend on many decisions that are difficult to forecast now.

 15) What happens to the IMF if its loan is not repaid?

 It will continue to pursue its claim against Greece. Greece will not be able to borrow internationally until it makes peace with the IMF. So the IMF will eventually be repaid. This could take years.

 The IMF is likely to be criticized further for the recommendations it made, particularly in 2010. Perhaps it will be reformed to limit its discretion in lending.

 Traditionally the head of the IMF has been a European. That is very likely to change since many countries believe that Greece was treated preferentially because it was a European country.

 16) What happens to the ECB if Greece defaults?

 The loans made to Greece are extended by the Greek central bank, which in turn borrows from

 the ECB. So the ECB will have a large claim against the Greek central bank that is likely to turn into a significant loss.

 17) Can the ECB survive if Greece defaults?

 The ECB can definitely continue even if Greece defaults. The ECB has provisions set aside to cover some losses. It also is making lots of profits on the bonds it owns (that it pays for with money that pays no interest). So the Greek losses per se are not a problem.

 A default by a larger country such as Italy or Spain would be very different.

 18) What should have been done to avert this crisis?*

 Greece should have defaulted in 2010. Its debt burden then was unsustainable and nothing since then has changed this. It is true that financial markets were much more jittery at that time, but the money that was raised to pay off the creditors in that bailout could have been diverted to support Greece and other weak countries. Once the bad rescue of 2010 was undertaken, it was inevitable that some form of debt relief was going to be necessary.

 Imagine how different the political dynamics in Europe would have been if the German and

 French banks had been explicitly bailed out.

 (Editor's note: Not everyone agrees with this perspective, and many policymakers would argue Europe could not allow a default during such a fragile time in the markets. But it's a worthwhile perspective to consider, given where we are now.) ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption "Nobody has the right to threaten to cut down Greece from its natural geographic body" - Alexis Tsipras

 Greek PM Alexis Tsipras has called on voters to reject "blackmail" when they vote in a bailout referendum on Sunday.

 In a TV address, he insisted Greece's EU membership was not at stake. He later told cheering supporters to vote "No" to "live with dignity in Europe".

 There were scuffles with police as both sides held rallies in Athens.

 A Greek court has rejected a challenge to the legality of the referendum, in which people will vote on the terms of further international loans.

 It comes after tough talks with creditors, and EU leaders have warned that a "No" vote could see Greece leave the eurozone.

 Greece's economy is already being squeezed after its bailout programme ran out on Tuesday.

 Banks have been shut and limits imposed on cash withdrawals.

 The head of Greece's banking association has warned that although the banks have enough funds until Monday, they will be dependent on the European Central Bank thereafter.

 Desperate times

 Image copyright AFP/Getty Images

 It is a scene that speaks of suffering and exhaustion, and one that may well become the lasting image of the Greek debt crisis.

 An elderly man, sitting on the ground outside a bank, was photographed crying on Friday morning.

 The image, taken in Thessaloniki by AFP's Sakis Mitrolidis, was widely shared on social media as soon as it was published.

 The man, whose name was not disclosed, was helped away soon after it was taken.

 His story is not known, but those of plenty of other pensioners are.

 Monthly pensions have gone down to an average of €833 ($924; £594) from an average of €1,350 in 2009, according to INE-GSEE, the institute behind Greece's biggest union.

 Read more: Cost of crisis to pensioners

 Claims by Greek politicians that a "No" vote will strengthen their hand in bailout negotiations have been rebuffed by European leaders.

 Both EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Jeroen Dijsselbloem - head of the Eurogroup of finance ministers - have insisted a "No" vote will weaken the Greeks' position and that even a "Yes" vote will not mean a deal is easy to agree.

 Several European officials have complained in strong terms about Greece's abrupt decision to hold a referendum on the terms of a bailout offer that they say is no longer on the table.

 But in a ruling on Friday, Greece's top administrative court rejected an appeal lodged by two individuals who had argued that it was illegal to hold popular votes on fiscal matters.

 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Stefanaki Ioanna: "A yes vote will give Greece a chance"

 Debt 'unsustainable'

 Thousands of "Yes" and "No" supporters gathered in separate squares of central Athens on Friday, and police threw stun grenades in brief scuffles with "No" protesters.

 Mr Tsipras urged Greeks, at a "No" rally later on Friday evening, to say a "proud 'No' to the ultimatums".

 In his TV address, Mr Tsipras referred to an IMF report published on Thursday which said Greece would need an extra €50bn euros ($55bn; £36bn) over the next three years to stabilise its finances and repeated suggestions that Greece needed debt relief.

 The recent negotiations were over the release of a final tranche of bailout funds of €7.2bn.

 Greece's mountain of €323bn debt was "not sustainable", Mr Tsipras said. He said he had called for a 30% "haircut" off the debt and a 20-year grace period for the rest.

 Mr Tsipras urged voters to reject the "sirens of scaremongering", but added that: "Whatever we choose... Come Monday we are all together."

 Mr Tsipras faces vocal opposition at home - with opposition leader Antonis Samaras calling on "every Greek man and every Greek woman above and beyond parties" to vote "Yes", along with several deputies from Syriza's own coalition partner, the Independent Greeks.

 Lenders' proposals: Key sticking points

 VAT (sales tax): Alexis Tsipras accepts a new three-tier system, but wants to keep 30% discount on the Greek islands' VAT rates. Lenders want the islands' discounts scrapped

 Pensions: Ekas top-up grant for some 200,000 poorer pensioners will be phased out by 2020 - as demanded by lenders. But Mr Tsipras says no to immediate Ekas cut for the wealthiest 20% of Ekas recipients

 Defence: Mr Tsipras says reduce ceiling for military spending by €200m in 2016 and €400m in 2017. Lenders call for €400m reduction - no mention of €200m

 Source: European Commission document, 26 Jun 15 (pdf)

 Greek debt jargon explained

 Tsipras and his Greek gamble

 A poll published in Ethnos newspaper on Friday showed the two sides evenly split, with the "Yes" vote at 44.8% and the "No" vote at 43.4%.

 But the same poll showed 74% in favour of staying in the euro, with just 15% choosing a return to a national currency.

 The European Commission, the European Union's executive arm - one of the "troika" of creditors along with the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank - wants Athens to raise taxes and slash welfare spending to meet its debt obligations.

 On Tuesday, the previous eurozone bailout expired, depriving Greece of access to billions of euros in funds, and Athens missed a €1.5bn repayment to the IMF. ||||| ATHENS, Greece (AP) — On a night filled with emotion and packed city squares, naysaying Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his "yes" vote rivals made their final pitches at bailout referendum rallies, as polls showed the two sides in a dead heat.

 A woman holds a banner reading, "No to the Troika, I support Greece" during a a pro Greece demonstration at the European Union office in Barcelona, Spain, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows... (Associated Press)

 A Greek Orthodox priest gives money to a man who begs for alms under a banner reading "No" referring to the upcoming referendum in the northern Greek port city of Thessaloniki, Friday, July 3, 2015. Greeks... (Associated Press)

 Greece's Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras delivers a speech during a rally organized by supporters of the No vote at Syntagma square in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat... (Associated Press)

 Demonstrators gather during a rally organized by supporters of the Yes vote in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat in Greece's referendum campaign with just two days to... (Associated Press)

 Greece's Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras waves to the crowd after his speech at a rally organized by supporters of the No vote in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat in Greece's... (Associated Press)

 People attend a rally organized by supporters of the No vote in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat in Greece's referendum campaign with just two days to go before Sunday's... (Associated Press)

 Greece's Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras waves to the crowd after his a speech at a rally organized by supporters of the No vote in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat in... (Associated Press)

 A demonstrator holds a Greek flag and another one reading ''Yes'' during a rally organized by supporters of the Yes vote in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat in Greece's... (Associated Press)

 Elderly men chat in the northern Greek port city of Thessaloniki, Friday, July 3, 2015. Greeks will vote Sunday on whether to accept a proposal that creditors had made of specific reforms in exchange... (Associated Press)

 A member of the Communist-affiliated PAME labor union shouts slogans at the police during an anti-austerity protest calling to "Vote NO" outside of the in central Athens, on Friday, July 3, 2015. Greece... (Associated Press)

 A man on a wheel chair sells items in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. Rival campaigns in Greece’s bailout referendum end Friday, with rallies planned in Athens for “Yes” and “No” supporters - at... (Associated Press)

 People line up to withdraw money from a bank machine in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. As Greek banks and markets remain closed Friday for a fifth day, rival campaigns scrambled to roll out their... (Associated Press)

 People wait to be allowed into the national bank of Greece to withdraw a maximum of 120 euros ($134) for the week, in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. As Greek banks and markets remain closed Friday... (Associated Press)

 People wait to be allowed into a bank to withdraw a maximum of 120 euros ($134) for the week, in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. As Greek banks and markets remain closed Friday for a fifth day,... (Associated Press)

 People wait to be allowed into the national bank of Greece to withdraw a maximum of 120 euros ($134) for the week, in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. As Greek banks and markets remain closed Friday... (Associated Press)

 Men, one of them using a magnifying glass, look at newspapers displayed at a news stand in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. Rival campaigns in Greece’s bailout referendum end Friday, with rallies... (Associated Press)

 Demonstrators use umbrellas to protect from the rain during a rally organized by supporters of the No vote in the northern Greek port city of Thessaloniki, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows... (Associated Press)

 A man looks at newspapers displayed at a newsstand in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. Rival campaigns in Greece’s bailout referendum end Friday, with rallies planned in Athens for “Yes” and “No”... (Associated Press)

 A man begs as people wait to be allowed into a bank to withdraw a maximum of 120 euro ($134) for the week, in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. As Greek banks and markets remain closed Friday for... (Associated Press)

 An Associated Press TV producer edits the video of Greece's Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras televised address to the nation in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. Tsipras has called on voters to reject creditors'... (Associated Press)

 People attend a rally organized by supporters of the No vote in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat in Greece's referendum campaign with just two days to go before Sunday's... (Associated Press)

 A salesman serves fish to a client at a fish market in central Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. Rival campaigns in Greece’s bailout referendum end Friday, with rallies planned in Athens for “Yes” and “No”... (Associated Press)

 More than 40,000 people gathered at the two rallies, half a mile (800 meters) apart, before Sunday's vote on whether to accept creditors' proposals for more austerity in exchange for rescue loans, or reject the deal as a show of defiance against years of harsh economic austerity.

 "This is not a protest. It is a celebration to overcome fear and blackmail," Tsipras told a crowd of 25,000 in front of parliament, who were chanting oxi, oxi— "no, no."

 Meanwhile, police said about 17,000 people gathered outside the nearby Panathenian stadium for the "yes" rally, waving Greek and European Union flags and chanting "Greece, Europe, Democracy."

 Rallies for both campaigns were also held in 10 other Greek cities Friday.

 Tsipras is gambling the future of his five-month-old left wing government on Sunday's snap poll — insisting a "no" vote will strengthen his hand to negotiate a third bailout with better terms.

 But the high-stakes standoff with lenders this week saw Greece default on debts, close banks to avoid their collapse, and lose access to billions of euros as an existing bailout deal expired.

 At the "no" rally, Athens resident Maria Antiniou held a handmade sign, reading "oxi."

 "We have to strengthen Tsipras. It's not his fault we are bankrupt," she said.

 "He doesn't have the mandate to take tougher measures and now we are giving that to him. It's not true this is a vote on the euro. It's a vote to change course and stay in the euro, and Tsipras is our best hope," she said.

 That is a message the "yes" voters refuse believe.

 Evgenia Bouzala, a Greek born in Germany, said she was considering shutting down her olive oil export business because of the financial turmoil.

 "I don't think we can keep going. Look at what happened in the last three days. Imagine if that lasts another six months," she said.

 "A 'yes' vote would bring a caretaker government and that would probably be better ... We have to start over."

 The drama remained high in the final hours of campaigning.

 The country's top court stayed in session till the late afternoon before rejecting a petition to declare the referendum illegal, while party leaders, personalities, and church elders weighed in with impassioned pleas to vote "no" or "yes" on the airwaves and social media.

 In a rare public declaration, 16 former armed forces leaders wrote an appeal to citizens to show "calm and national unity."

 A series of polls published Friday at the end of a frantic weeklong campaign showed the two sides in a dead heat, with an incremental lead of the "yes" vote well within the margin of error.

 But they showed an overwhelming majority of people — about 75 percent — want Greece to remain in the euro currency.

 Much of the ambiguity arises from the complicated question on the ballot paper:

 "Must the agreement plan submitted by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the Eurogroup of 25 June, 2015, and comprised of two parts which make up their joint proposal, be accepted? The first document is titled 'reforms for the completion of the current program and beyond' and the second 'Preliminary debt sustainability analysis.'"

 Voters are asked to check one of two boxes: "not approved/no" and — below it — "approved/yes."

 "People don't even understand the question," Athens Mayor George Kaminis told supporters at the "yes" rally.

 "We have been dragged into a pointless referendum that is dividing the people and hurting the country."

 Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis told Ireland's RTE radio Friday that an agreement with creditors "is more or less done" and that the only issue left is debt relief.

 But the head of the eurozone finance ministers' group, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, rejected the idea, pointing out that negotiations had been broken off.

 "There are no new proposals from our side and, whatever happens, the future for Greece will be extremely tough," Dijsselbloem said.

 "To get Greece back on track and the economy out of the slump, tough decisions will have to be taken and every politician that says that won't be the case following a 'no' vote is deceiving his population."

 Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble told his country's Bild daily that any negotiations after the Greek vote "will take a while."

 No campaigning is allowed the day before an election in Greece, so Friday's rallies would be the closing salvoes in the battle to persuade voters ahead of Sunday.

 ___

 Online: Official referendum website http://www.referendum2015gov.gr/en/

 ___

 Elena Becatoros and Costas Kantouris in Athens, Geir Moulson in Berlin and Michael Corder in The Hague, Netherlands, contributed to this report |||||
What is a summary?

– Greece's top court has declared that Sunday's referendum on a bailout is constitutional, meaning the vote with huge implications for all of Europe will proceed. The latest polls show a dead heat, reports AP, as leaders on both sides try to rally support—especially Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, whose political life may be at stake. “I ask you to say no to ultimatums, blackmail, and fear-mongering,” he said in a TV address. “No to divisions, no to those who want to spread panic.” He sought to downplay the notion that a "no" vote could lead to Greece leaving the euro zone. Instead, he said, the referendum is about giving him more leverage to get a better deal from creditors. It's the only way Greece can "live with dignity in Europe," he said, per the BBC. The Washington Post has a primer on the financial reasons behind the vote, but a story in the New York Times casts it in more personal terms. It's largely become a referendum on Tsipras himself, and the story suggests that's why European leaders itching to get rid of him limited emergency funds to Greek banks this week. The move set off a panic among people scrambling for cash, and his popularity tumbled. “I don’t see how anybody can believe that the timing of this was coincidence,” says a US economist. “When you restrict the flow of cash enough to close the banks during the week of a referendum, this is a very deliberate move to scare people.” Tsipras initially said he would step down if the "yes" vote prevails, but he has since backed down from that position.


Write a summary based on this article:

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) — A Chilean mother says a hospital is restricting her right to see her newborn daughter because she acknowledged smoking marijuana days before she gave birth.

 Sindy Melany Ortiz says she smoked pot to alleviate pain in one of her arms. She says she's only allowed to see her daughter two hours a day and isn't allowed to breast-feed her.

 Hospital officials in the southern city of Talcahuano say they were just following protocol when they alerted a local court that tests found traces of substances that could put the baby at risk.

 The court ordered the baby to remain at the Las Higueras hospital until it takes a decision during a hearing on Thursday. ||||| Image copyright AP Image caption Currently, Chileans are allowed to consume marijuana in private, but it is illegal to sell or grow the drug.

 A Chilean mother says a hospital is restricting her access to her newborn baby because she said she smoked marijuana.

 Sindy Melany Ortiz said she smoked pot for medicinal reasons to alleviate pain in one of her arms.

 She says she is not being allowed to breast-feed her daughter and can only see her for two hours a day.

 Hospital officials in the southern city of Talcahuano said they were following protocol and the baby was at risk.

 "They have violated my rights as a mother," said Ms Ortiz, "I use this drug only for the pain in my arms, it was recommended by a medical professional to me and I am absolutely not a drug consumer."

 "They started to ask me if I smoked or took anything and I told them. When my daughter was born they said she would stay a little with me but I couldn't breastfeed her because I had consumed marijuana which is bad for the baby."

 The hospital said it had alerted a local court that tests had found substances that could harm the child.

 The court has ordered that the baby remain in the Las Higueras hospital until it takes a decision on Thursday.

 In July Chile's Congress approved by a wide margin a bill that seeks to decriminalise personal use and cultivation of marijuana.

 The law, if passed, currently allows the possession of up to 10g of cannabis and the growing of up to six plants.

 It is being seen as a way to stop the persecution of medicinal users and to allow them to access a medicine they can grow in their gardens.

 Santiago, Chile's capital, was the site of Latin America's first medical marijuana farm earlier this year.

 Chile's marijuana bill will move to the full Chamber of Deputies before passing to the Senate, a legislative process that could take years. |||||

– A mother in Chile claims a local hospital is keeping her away from her newborn daughter simply because she smoked marijuana a few days before giving birth, the AP reports. "They have violated my rights as a mother," the BBC quotes Sindy Ortiz. "I use this drug only for the pain in my arms, it was recommended by a medical professional to me, and I am absolutely not a drug consumer." According to the AP, Ortiz says the hospital is only letting her see her infant for two hours per day and won't allow her to breastfeed her. This is all standard protocol, according to the hospital. The hospital states it was required to alert a local court when Ortiz tested positive for substances that could be harmful to her baby, the AP reports. The hospital is maintaining custody of Ortiz's daughter, at least until a hearing scheduled for Thursday. According to the BBC, Chile's congress easily approved a bill to decriminalize the personal use of marijuana earlier this year. But it could still be years until the law is put into place.


Summarize this article:

Archbishop Charles Chaput also stated that gay Catholics should also ‘live chastely’ in new rules issued after Pope Francis urged more acceptance of others

 Catholics in Philadelphia who are divorced and civilly remarried will be welcome to accept Holy Communion – as long as they abstain from sex and live out their relationships like “brother and sister”.

 New guidelines published by the conservative archbishop of Philadelphia this month also called on priests within the archdiocese to help Catholics who are attracted to people of the same sex and “find chastity very difficult”, saying such individuals should be advised to frequently seek penance. Because same-sex attraction takes “diverse forms”, the archdiocese also said that some people can still live out a vocation of heterosexual marriage with children, notwithstanding “some degree of same-sex attraction”.

 Pope Francis urges compassion for all in landmark statement on family values Read more

 The guidelines, which took effect on 1 July, come three months after Pope Francis urged bishops to be more accepting of Catholics who lived outside of the church’s social teaching and doctrine, including people who have divorced and remarried, and people in same-sex relationships. The pope’s views were published in April in a document titled Amoris Laetitia (Joy of Love), which was hailed as potentially groundbreaking. Because the document called on bishops to show greater mercy and flexibility to bring Catholics back to the church, while also calling on bishops not to veer from church doctrine, it was seen as giving both traditional and more progressively minded bishops the chance to interpret the document as they saw fit.

 The Philadelphia archbishop, Charles Chaput, is known as one of the staunchest conservative leaders in the US Catholic church, a view that is reflected in the rules the archdiocese published.

 John Allen, a veteran Vatican journalist, said he believed Philadelphia was among the first archdiocese to publish such rules based on its interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.

 “My suspicion is that those who are inclined to a more progressive reading [of Amoris Laetitia] are not going to put out documents to say so. It will quietly be made clear to priests that it is OK under certain circumstances, for example, to allow some people to quietly come back to communion,” Allen said. “My suspicion is that the more traditional line [adopted by some bishops] will be more public.”

 Allen said that he did not think Pope Francis would be surprised by Chaput’s reading of the papal document, since he is likely aware of traditional interpretations of his document.

 In its examination of homosexuality, the Philadelphia guidelines state that two people in an “active, public same-sex relationship, no matter how sincere, offer a serious counter-witness to Catholic belief, which can only produce moral confusion in the community.

 “Those with predominant same-sex attractions are therefore called to struggle to live chastely for the kingdom of God. In this endeavor they have need of support, friendship and understanding if they fail,” the rules state.

 But the greatest attention in the guidelines is focused on couples who are divorced and civilly remarried who have not obtained an annulment of their first marriage.

 While divorced and remarried couples should be welcomed by the Catholic community, and not be seen as outside the church, the archdiocese said they are required by church teaching to refrain from all sexual intimacy.

 “This applies even if they must (for the care of their children) continue to live under one roof. Undertaking to live as brother and sister is necessary for the divorced and civilly remarried to receive reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance, which could then open the way to the Eucharist,” the archdiocese said.

 Priests are also directed to consider Catholic couples who are living together but are not married, including whether the couple have had children born in these “irregular unions”. If a priest senses that one person in the couple is reluctant to take the plunge, the archdiocese recommended trying to break up the pair.

 “Often cohabiting couples refrain from making final commitments because one or both persons is seriously lacking in maturity or has other significant obstacles to entering a valid union. Here, prudence plays a vital role. Where one or another person is not capable of, or is not willing to commit to, a marriage, the pastor should urge them to separate,” the guidelines state.

 If the cohabitating couple seems ready to tie the knot but is just a bit slow, the priest should encourage them to practice chastity.

 “They will find this challenging, but again, with the help of grace, mastering the self is possible – and this fasting from physical intimacy is a strong element of spiritual preparation for an enduring life together,” it said. ||||| Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, as well as cohabitating unmarried couples, must "refrain from sexual intimacy" to receive Holy Communion in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput has asserted in a new set of pastoral guidelines.

 Released Friday, the guidelines instruct clergy and other archdiocesan leaders on implementing Amoris Laetitia, a major document on family that Pope Francis issued in April.

 His six-page instruction, which appears on the archdiocesan website, may be the first of its kind issued by the bishop of any American diocese in response to Amoris Laetitia, Latin for "the joy of love."

 Acknowledging that it is a "hard teaching," Chaput goes on to say that Catholics in same-sex partnerships, those remarried without a church annulment, and cohabitating persons may not serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful, serve as lectors, or dispense Communion.

 Allowing persons in such "irregular" relationships, "no matter how sincere," to hold positions of responsibility would "offer a serious counter-witness to Catholic belief, which can only produce moral confusion in the community," according to Chaput.

 Known as an apostolic exhortation, it does not carry the weight of an encyclical but is viewed as a major teaching of the church.

 Chaput served on the synod, or gathering of bishops, that advised Francis in 2015 on the creation of Amoris, and was elected by those bishops to advise Francis after the synod. In June, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops named him chairman of a five-bishop committee to help promote the teachings of Amoris Laetitia in this country.

 The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University estimates that there are 4.5 million Catholics in this country who are divorced and remarried without an annulment.

 In his pastoral guidelines, Chaput praises Amoris for its "sections of exceptional beauty," and notes that it will serve as "key resources in revising and upgrading our [archdiocesan] marriage preparation program."

 Chaput was not available to discuss the guidelines, but the Rev. Dennis Gill, director of the archdiocesan Office for Liturgy, described them Tuesday as "much larger than Communion and irregular relationships."

 It was issued, Gill said, "as a way of applying all of Amoris Laetitia," which he said urges pastors to "accompany married couples in every type of situation" and also to be "companions" to those who fall short of the church's teachings and to guide them toward holiness.

 Just what message Pope Francis intended to send to his pastors in Amoris has been a topic of some dispute, however.

 In an oft-cited line, Francis wrote that the church and clergy have wasted "pastoral energy on denouncing a decadent world without proactively proposing ways to finding true happiness."

 He also wrote that "it can no longer simply be said that all those in any 'irregular' situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace."

 But Gill was emphatic that the latter sentence does not permit Catholic clergy to decide on their own that an unmarried couple may receive Communion.

 "There are people challenging the wisdom of that statement," said Gill, a professor at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary. "A lot of teachers and theologians feel it may not have been as well expressed as it should have been."

 Chaput also noted that in spite of Francis' exhortation that clergy be sympathetic to those whose sexual relationships seem to marginalize them, the pope "states clearly that neither Church teaching nor the canonical discipline concerning marriage has changed."

 The Rev. Thomas Reese, former editor of the Jesuit magazine America and a columnist for the weekly National Catholic Reporter, said that in Amoris Laetitia, "Francis is clearly open to the possibility of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion.

 "But I think he'd also leave this to the discretion of the local bishop," Reese said, "which means that Chaput can do what he wants in his diocese, but a neighboring bishop may take a much more open position."

 What Francis did in Amoris, Reese said, "was articulate certain principles and allow local churches to interpret and implement them in the way they see best."

 The Diocese of Camden did not return a request for comment.

 Michael Rocks, president of the Philadelphia chapter of Dignity, a group for homosexual Catholics who believe it is permissible to be sexually active, said Tuesday he was not aware of Chaput's guidelines but that "they will not affect us, because we have a non-relationship with the archdiocese."

 Pope John Paul II barred Dignity from meeting on any church property.

 "But I wonder how they tell if straight people are following the sexual rules of the church," Rocks said. "How do they tell if the president of the parish council isn't into child pornography or having a sexual relationship?"

 He said he was "not surprised" that Chaput would bar persons in unsanctioned relationships from holding positions of responsibility. "I can't imagine him saying anything else," Rocks said.

 The Rev. Philip Bochanski, associate director for Courage International, a chaplaincy for homosexual Catholics striving to abide by church teachings on chastity, found "nothing new in the teachings that the archbishop formulated in those guidelines. The notion that a person needs to be in a state of grace to receive [Communion] goes back to Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

 "The gospel demands chastity," Bochanski said, "for everybody in their state in life."

 doreilly@phillynews.com

 856-779-3841 |||||

– It just got a whole lot less fun to be a Catholic in Philadelphia. New guidelines released by Archbishop Charles Chaput last Friday say divorced couples who have remarried must permanently abstain from sex, instead living like "brother and sister," the Guardian reports. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there are about 4.5 million US Catholics who have been remarried without getting their first marriage annulled by the church. But divorcees aren't the only ones Chaput wants to see living without sex. People in same-sex relationships and straight couples who aren't married must also go sexless. Fortunately, the new guidelines explain that anyone can be in a successful heterosexual marriage with kids even with "some degree of same-sex attraction." The guidelines, which come from one of the most conservative Catholic leaders in the US, also recommend priests try to break up couples who aren't interested in getting married, which shows they're "lacking in maturity," and claims same-sex relationships will "produce moral confusion in the community." Anyone going against the guidelines should not receive Holy Communion and should be barred from positions of responsibility within the church. The six pages of guidelines are a direct response to Pope Francis' Joy of Love document, which many saw as instructing bishops to be more accepting of "irregular" relationships. But one official with the Philadelphia archdiocese says that document "may not have been as well expressed as it should have been." Chaput's guidelines are meant to clarify it.


Here is a news article: LISTEN TO ARTICLE 5:30 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email

 A former associate of Paul Manafort pleaded guilty to a lobbying crime and agreed to cooperate with the U.S., giving prosecutors access to insights from a longtime international political operative whose Russian business partner has already been indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

 The lobbyist, Sam Patten, 47, admitted that he failed to register in the U.S. as a foreign agent for his work lobbying on behalf of a Ukrainian political party. The nature of his cooperation isn’t clear. Patten worked with Manafort and on Ukrainian campaigns, and reportedly worked on microtargeting operations with Cambridge Analytica.

 Mueller’s office referred the prosecution to U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu in the District of Columbia, according William Miller, a spokesman for Liu, who declined to comment about the nature of the cooperation or other matters relating to an ongoing investigation.

 Patten appeared in federal court in Washington on Friday.

 Patten’s plea agreement also included the suggestion that the Trump Inaugural Committee improperly accepted funds from a foreigner. Patten admitted that he illegally helped a Ukrainian oligarch buy a ticket to Trump’s swearing-in through a straw-man donor, though as part of his cooperation agreement he wasn’t charged.

 A onetime State Department official under President George W. Bush, Patten headed the Moscow office of the International Republican Institute in the early 2000s. A Russian employee of IRI at the time, Konstantin Kilimnik, went on to work as a fixer for Manafort in Ukraine and is a business partner with Patten.

 Kilimnik has been indicted in absentia alongside Manafort on obstruction of justice charges. Manafort, who was one of President Donald Trump’s campaign chairmen, was found guilty this month in Alexandria, Virginia, of tax and bank fraud charges and is being held in jail. He’s due to stand trial in Washington next month on the obstruction charges as well as charges of money laundering and failure to register for his own lobbying work in Ukraine.

 Manafort’s Second Trial Looms, and There May Still Be Third

 Patten entered his plea before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the same judge who’s overseeing Manafort’s money-laundering and obstruction of justice trial in Washington, scheduled to start next month.

 Watching from the gallery was Andrew Weissmann, an expert on money laundering and complex fraud cases who will be the lead prosecutor in Manafort’s trial in Washington. Also in attendance was Scott Claffee, a trial lawyer in the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

 From 2014, Patten provided a “prominent” Ukrainian oligarch who isn’t named in court papers and his Opposition Bloc political party with lobbying and consulting services, according to the criminal information. A company Patten co-owned with a Russian national received more than $1 million for the work, the U.S. said.

 Details about the Ukrainian oligarch match those of Sergei Lyovochkin, an Opposition Bloc leader whom prosecutors have previously identified as funding Manafort’s work in Ukraine. He couldn’t immediately been reached for comment.

 As part of his lobbying work, Patten violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act by not disclosing the work to the U.S., prosecutors said. No date has been set for his sentencing.

 Cambridge Analytica

 Patten worked for multiple political parties and office-holders in Ukraine, according to his website. His work for Cambridge Analytica came during the 2014 election cycle, the Daily Beast reported in April. It was later adopted by “at least one major U.S. presidential candidate,” the Daily Beast said. Patten told the publication that his work for Cambridge Analytica was separate from the work of his consulting firm.

 Cambridge Analytica Files U.S. Bankruptcy After Data Scandal

 Patten formed a consulting firm in 2015 with Kilimnik, whom Mueller indicted in June. Kilimnik has been identified in filings as having worked for the Russian military’s intelligence service known as the GRU. One filing cited an FBI assessment that his relations to the GRU continued through the 2016 election, which Kilimnik has denied.

 The firm that the two set up, Begemot Ventures International Ltd., listed Patten and Kilimnik as the sole officers, according to its Washington, D.C., incorporation records. The company’s website describes it as “a strategic and political advisory firm that helps its clients win elections, strengthen political parities, build the right arguments before domestic and international audiences and achieve better results.”

 Begemot, which is Russian for behemoth, matches details of the unidentified firm that prosecutors say received cash for Patten’s Ukraine work.

 Patten registered with Congress in 2016 to lobby for a group called the Committee to Destroy Isis, which was financed in part by a Jordanian construction company, according to disclosures filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. He disclosed payments of $50,000 and stopped lobbying for the group in July.

 It’s unclear why Mueller referred the case. Previously, he referred information about Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen to the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. In July, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said the Justice Department’s national security division would take over responsibility of a case filed against a dozen Russian military intelligence officers accused of hacking into the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

 “It may have to do with the size of the case, the nature of the case, the resources needed for the case,” said Mike Koenig, a former Justice Department prosecutor.

 The Senate Intelligence Committee made a separate criminal referral to the Justice Department based on statements and documents provided by Patten, the committee’s chairman, Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, said in a written statement.

 — With assistance by Greg Farrell, Stephanie Baker, Erik Larson, Nick Wadhams, and Bill Allison ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — A business associate of a key figure in the investigation into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort pleaded guilty Friday to failing to register as a foreign agent.

 W. Samuel Patten entered his plea in federal court in Washington, shortly after prosecutors released a four-page charging document that accused him of performing lobbying and consulting work in the United States and Ukraine but failing to register as a foreign agent as required by the Justice Department.

 Patten was a business associate of Konstantin Kilimnik, a man U.S. authorities have said has ties to Russian intelligence.

 Kilimnik worked closely with Manafort, who was found guilty this month of eight financial counts. Kilimnik also is a co-defendant in a pending case against Manafort in Washington, brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's team, that accuses them both of witness tampering.

 The Patten case was referred by Mueller's team to the United States attorney's office in Washington, which is handling it. Andrew Weissmann, one of the lead Mueller team attorneys in the Manafort prosecution, was seen at court Friday ahead of Patten's appearance

 Court papers don't refer to Kilimnik by name, but say Patten worked with a Russian national on lobbying and political consulting services.

 Prosecutors say Patten, who formed a consulting company with a person identified only as "Foreigner A," worked to set up meetings with members of Congress and also drafted talking points for Capitol Hill meetings.

 The goal, prosecutors say, was to influence U.S. policy, but they say Patten never filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The law is aimed at promoting transparency about lobbying efforts in the United States. |||||
A summary of this is?

– A business associate of a key figure in the investigation into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort pleaded guilty Friday to failing to register as a foreign agent, per the AP. W. Samuel Patten entered his plea in federal court in DC, after prosecutors released a charging document that accused him of performing lobbying and consulting work in the US and Ukraine but failing to register as a foreign agent. Patten has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, reports Bloomberg. Patten was a business associate of Konstantin Kilimnik, a man US authorities have said has ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik worked closely with Manafort, who was found guilty this month of eight financial counts. Kilimnik also is a co-defendant in a pending case against Manafort, brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's team, that accuses them both of witness tampering. The Patten case was referred by Mueller's team to the United States attorney's office in Washington, which is handling it. Andrew Weissmann, one of the lead Mueller team attorneys in the Manafort prosecution, was seen at court Friday. Court papers don't refer to Kilimnik by name, but say Patten worked with a Russian national on lobbying and political consulting services. Prosecutors say Patten, who formed a consulting company with a person identified only as "Foreigner A," worked to set up meetings with members of Congress and also drafted talking points for Capitol Hill meetings. The goal, prosecutors say, was to influence US policy, but they say Patten never filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The law is aimed at promoting transparency about lobbying efforts in the United States.