Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

For months, Mr. McCain has lamented a Senate legislative process that avoided hearings or formal bill-drafting procedures and excluded Democrats. On Friday, he said those tactics were intolerable.

“We should not be content to pass health care legislation on a party-line basis, as Democrats did when they rammed Obamacare through Congress in 2009,’’ Mr. McCain said. “If we do so, our success could be as short-lived as theirs when the political winds shift, as they regularly do.’’

A bill of this magnitude “requires a bipartisan approach,’’ Mr. McCain added.

Those concerns were compounded by the decision of Republican leaders to press forward with a vote next week before the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office could complete a full analysis of the Graham-Cassidy legislation. The budget office is expected to provide a preliminary fiscal assessment early in the week, but it indicated that it would not be able to complete an analysis of the bill’s effects on health insurance coverage or premiums by Sept. 30.

That date is critical because Republicans, who hold 52 seats in the Senate, have until the end of this month to make use of special budget rules that would allow them to pass a repeal bill in the Senate with only a simple majority, rather than 60 votes. If Republicans could get 50 votes, Vice President Mike Pence would break the tie in their favor.

“Of course, I’m disappointed,” Mr. Cassidy said in an interview, “but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop working for those folks who can’t afford their premiums. We are still working. We are still hoping.”

Mr. Graham, mindful of their longstanding relationship, was gracious. “My friendship with John McCain is not based on how he votes,” Mr. Graham said, “but respect for how he’s lived his life and the person he is.”

President Trump, who has promised to scrap President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, said late Friday he would not abandon his goal.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“Maybe we’re going to do it now — it’s a little tougher without McCain’s vote, I’ll be honest,” he said Friday night at a campaign rally for Senator Luther Strange, Republican of Alabama, who is locked in a tough primary runoff for his seat.

“The most we’ll be is one or two votes short,” Mr. Trump said. “You can’t quit when you have one or two votes short. You can’t do it. And those people are not going to be liked by the communities that they come from.”

A spokeswoman for the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, declined to comment on whether he would press forward with a vote.

Democrats have vowed that if the repeal legislation could be killed, they would press to resume bipartisan negotiations on legislation to stabilize health insurance markets under the Affordable Care Act. Republican leaders squelched those talks, led by Senators Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, and Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, as they pushed for passage of a full repeal bill.

“John McCain shows the same courage in Congress that he showed when he was a naval aviator,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “I have assured Senator McCain that as soon as repeal is off the table, we Democrats are intent on resuming the bipartisan process.”

If the bill dies at the hands of Senators McCain, Paul and Collins, it would be another blow to Mr. Trump, who has tried to pressure Republicans to fall in line.

It would also be another setback for a party that now controls the White House and both houses of Congress, but has not been able to produce any major legislative achievements. Republican lawmakers have promised for seven years to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but they have found that verbally assailing the health law is far easier than actually undoing it, even with a president who shares their goal.

“It’s a loss for Republicans,” said Representative Mark Walker of North Carolina, the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee. “I think we’re all going to be held accountable to some degree. What that means in next year’s elections, I don’t know. But this is going to bite for a while.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The Graham-Cassidy bill would take much of the money provided under the Affordable Care Act and send it to the states, with vast discretion over how to use it for health care or coverage. The bill has been met in the last few days with a torrent of criticism from consumer groups, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, governors and state Medicaid officials.

Under the bill, states would have more authority over how to use federal funds, but most states — including Arizona — would receive less money under the bill than under the Affordable Care Act, according to studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and health policy consulting firms.

The bill would also give states the ability to opt out of insurance regulations under the health law. States could seek federal waivers that would allow insurers to charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing medical conditions or to omit certain benefits that they are now required to provide, such as maternity care or mental health care.

Republican leaders will now likely have to change an opponent’s mind, but if anything, more opponents could emerge, with Ms. Murkowski on the top of the list. Alaska’s governor, Bill Walker, an independent, publicly opposes the bill and has joined nine other governors in signing a letter urging the Senate to reject the proposal. In an interview, Mr. Walker said he did not believe any special accommodation could be reached for his state, because the overall structure was so damaging to Alaska. He said he had communicated his concerns extensively to Ms. Murkowski.

“Alaska would fare very, very poorly,” he said. “Nothing has been brought to my attention that would increase my comfort level.”

A spokeswoman for Ms. Murkowski, Karina Petersen, said the senator is studying the matter. “Senator Murkowski is still focused on how the bill will impact Alaska, specifically,” Ms. Petersen said. “She’s continuing to gather data and is looking at the details of the bill to determine what’s best for her state.”

Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, a Republican, supports the Graham-Cassidy proposal, and Mr. McCain had made a point of emphasizing that he was keenly interested in the views of his state’s governor when contemplating whether to vote for repeal legislation. But Mr. Ducey’s position was not enough to sway Mr. McCain.

“I take no pleasure in announcing my opposition,” Mr. McCain said. “Far from it. The bill’s authors are my dear friends, and I think the world of them. I know they are acting consistently with their beliefs and sense of what is best for the country. So am I.”

Mr. McCain said that if the repeal attempt failed, he hoped the leaders of the Senate health committee would resume their efforts to devise a short-term bipartisan solution to some of the problems plaguing insurance markets under the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Alexander and Ms. Murray have been working on a bill to stabilize markets by providing money for subsidies paid to insurers so they can reduce out-of-pocket costs for low-income people.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Alexander, the chairman of the Senate health committee, and Ms. Murray, the top Democrat on the panel, held four hearings in two weeks and were nearing an agreement on legislation. But their efforts were derailed when the White House and Senate Republican leaders pushed hard for a vote on the Graham-Cassidy bill, in the face of opposition from every Democrat in the Senate.

Continue reading the main story

HubSpot-Animoto partnership follows Animoto’s selection as both Facebook and Instagram Marketing Partner

As an integral part of the integration, Animoto released three new pre-built storyboards — video templates that can easily be customized with a business’s own photos, video clips, and text. These new storyboards address three common social media use cases for HubSpot’s marketing customers — promoting an event, promoting a product, and teasing a blog post.

“Video is undoubtedly becoming a core competency that marketers need to have in their professional arsenal. In today’s digital landscape, the customer lives on social so that is where marketers need to be as well. Video has emerged as the most effective way to engage and convert on social media. We are excited to be partnering with Animoto to empower our customers to market effectively and easily with video on social,” said Brad Coffey, Chief Strategy Officer at HubSpot.

“Our Storyboard video templates provide intuitive guidance to the everyday marketer and incorporate proven marketing best practices, with the underlying flexibility for businesses to make these videos their own,” said Brad Jefferson, co-founder and CEO of Animoto.  “We are thrilled to collaborate with HubSpot to offer their customers a set of pre-built video templates specifically designed for their needs, enabling them to capitalize on the rapidly growing social video opportunity.”

The HubSpot integration follows closely on the heels of several other groundbreaking partnerships that Animoto has forged this year in the social media marketing and small business realm. Animoto recently became the first video marketing representative of the US Small Business Administration’s Tech Coalition and was selected by both Instagram and Facebook’s Marketing Partner Programs. In addition, Animoto continues its work to democratize video creation through education and thought leadership. The company is hosting its 2nd annual Social Video Marketing Summit on October 30th 2017 in New York City.

Facebook and Twitter appear to be key platforms in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election; investigators want to know more.

hide caption

toggle caption

Loic Venance/AFP/Getty Images

Facebook and Twitter appear to be key platforms in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election; investigators want to know more.

Loic Venance/AFP/Getty Images

For more than nine months, Twitter and Facebook have tried to dodge the intense public scrutiny involved with the investigation into Russian interference in last year’s presidential election.

Now they’re in the spotlight.

Congressional investigators are digging in on Russia’s use of Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies to try to influence the 2016 campaign.

And after a series of escalating complaints by the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Facebook said Thursday it was handing over the content of more than 3,000 ads believed to be linked with Moscow’s attack on the election.

« We support Congress in deciding how to best use this information to inform the public, and we expect the government to publish its findings when their investigation is complete, » said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

And there’ll be much more: The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has said he wants to hold a public hearing next month on Moscow’s efforts to manipulate social media as part of its election interference.

Before that, representatives from Twitter are scheduled to meet with Intelligence Committee staff members on next week to talk about the role their company played.

The moves on Capitol Hill follow concerns that the social media giants have been less than forthcoming about how Russia may have used their platforms to try to undermine the American election.

Facebook has acknowledged that it sold ads to some 500 fake Russia-linked accounts between 2015 and 2017. The ads addressed socially divisive issues like gun control, immigration and race relations. It also conceded in a statement that it may discover more.

Facebook has briefed congressional investigators about the ads, and it has provided the ad content to Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller.

Lawmakers have complained, however, that the company had refused to hand over copies of the documents to the congressional committees. The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, said this week that he expects the company to be more cooperative in the future.

Facebook said its decision Thursday represented a step in that direction. Zuckerberg said in a video statement that the company is limited about what it can discuss publicly, but that he directed his team to provide the ads to Congress.

Zuckerberg also said that Facebook would continue its own investigation into what transpired on the platform during the campaign.

« We are looking into foreign actors, including additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states, as well as organizations like the campaigns, to further our understanding of how they used our tools, » he said. « These investigations will take some time, but we will continue our thorough review. »

He also disclosed a nine-step plan to try to prevent governments from using Facebook to interfere in elections.

« I wish I could tell you we’re going to be able to stop all interference, but that wouldn’t be realistic, » he said. « There will always be bad people in the world, and we can’t prevent all governments from all interference. But we can make it harder. We can make it a lot harder. And that’s what we’re going to do. »

Over the next few months, he said, Facebook will make political advertising more transparent by implementing disclosure requirements.

« Not only will you have to disclose which page paid for an ad, but we will also make it so you can visit an advertiser’s page and see the ads they’re currently running to any audience on Facebook, » he said.

Other steps include sharing more cyberthreat information with other technology companies, and expanding its cooperation with election commissions around the world.

Twitter is much smaller than Facebook in terms of users and the scale of business it conducts, but it’s also highly visible in key areas — and the favorite tool for celebrities and other high-profile people, including the president of the United States, to talk directly with their fans and followers.

« Twitter deeply respects the integrity of the election process, a cornerstone of all democracies, and will continue to strengthen our platform against bots and other forms of manipulation that violate our Terms of Service, » the company said.

The U.S. intelligence community’s unclassified assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election says that Moscow’s operation included a messaging strategy that blended covert intelligence efforts with overt ones by « state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ‘trolls.' »

So Congress and the special counsel are now turning to U.S. social media companies for more answers.

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Pyongyang’s foreign minister has said the North is considering a nuclear test around the Pacific, after a personal statement from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to US President Donald Trump. Analyst Ankit Panda decodes this unprecedented statement – and what the Pacific threat could actually mean.

The threat follows another remarkable statement by the North, a first-person address from Mr Kim to Mr Trump.

Kim Jong-un’s statement – the first of its kind – came shortly after the North Korean delegation led by Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho arrived in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly debate.

As such it merits a close reading and serious consideration.

Why did it come now?

The statement was manifestly a response to the US leader’s braggadocio on Tuesday at the General Assembly, when he threatened to « totally destroy » North Korea if the United States was forced to defend itself or its allies.

It also marks what is perhaps the apotheosis of a slowly simmering war of words between the Trump administration and the North Korean regime.

In August, we watched as Kim Jong-un posed with a map threatening an enveloping ballistic missile strike on the US territory of Guam and Mr Trump promised « fire and fury » – possible nuclear first-use, in other words – to North Korea in exchange for continued threats.

While North Korea’s state media serve as a propaganda tool, more often than not the reclusive state’s regime tells us exactly what it wants and exactly what it is planning to do in these statements.

Could it be about Donald Trump, personally?

First, even readers unaccustomed to North Korea’s public messaging will note the wide range of ad hominem insults levied at Mr Trump in the statement.

Mr Kim lambasts the US leader – who’d dubbed him « Rocket Man » – as « mentally deranged, » a « dotard » and a « frightened dog ».

Second, notably, Kim Jong-un makes no reference to the US « hostile policy » in his statement.

The « hostile policy » is North Korea’s paramount grievance about the US’s East Asian alliances, permanently deployed military presence in South Korea and Japan, and provision of nuclear umbrella coverage to Seoul and Tokyo.

That Mr Kim chose to ignore it in a speech bemoaning the US president’s threat to « destroy » his country appears notable in combination with his personalised critique of Mr Trump.

The implication here is that Mr Kim may regard Mr Trump as a sui generis phenomenon – his threats count as an affront to North Korea’s dignity, but do not carry the weight of US policy.

Just as Donald Trump implied Kim Jong-un was irrational on Tuesday by noting that he was on a « suicide mission », so does Mr Kim imply that Mr Trump, instead of making a mundane speech at the General Assembly, chose to deliver « unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors ».

Finally, it’s noteworthy that despite the overall bellicosity of the statement, Kim Jong-un does not opt to threaten the American people or the country itself. If there’s a bottom line here it’s that now it’s personal.

• The North Korea crisis in 300 words
• Does the latest nuclear test mean war?

A pretext for a major provocation?

Doubling down, Mr Kim noted that Mr Trump’s open expression of the « will to ‘totally destroy’ a sovereign state… makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure ».

The implication here is clear – Kim Jong-un does not see Mr Trump as a man in possession of « normal thinking [faculties] ».

What then does Mr Kim propose to do with a leader that he clearly regards as unstable and irrational? Clearly angered by the threat to « destroy » his country, Mr Kim promises to « tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire ».

The hermeneutics involved here aren’t complex – Mr Kim is using this statement to provide a pretext for a spectacular provocation involving his ever more impressive ballistic missiles and his increasingly more powerful nuclear weapons.

These provocations could come in many forms. Kim Jong-un has already got his foot in the door in terms of overflying Japan with ballistic missile systems – he has done so twice in the past month.

He could endeavour to do so with North Korea’s Hwasong-14 intercontinental-range ballistic missile.

Separately, he could test-fire a longer-range submarine-launched ballistic missile or salvo-launch intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the direction of the US territory of Guam.

• What missiles does North Korea have?
• Are Pyongyang’s missiles a risk to planes?
• What are North Korea’s other WMDs?

Finally, North Korea hasn’t carried out deliberate conventional attacks against the US or its allies since 2010, when it shelled a South Korean island and sunk a South Korean naval ship, killing more than 40 sailors. It could attempt to seize the initiative with new provocations of this kind.

The provocations do not stop there, however. Immediately after the release of Mr Kim’s statement, North Korea’s foreign minister told reporters that the « highest-level » action Kim Jong-un is considering is possibly the « strongest hydrogen bomb test in the Pacific ».

What could the Pacific threat really mean?

This raises a terrifying spectre – one that North Korea watchers have mulled for some time, but which did not seem realistic until this year.

Kim Jong-un could conduct an atmospheric nuclear detonation in the Pacific Ocean.

There are two mechanisms for a test like this. One is for Kim Jong-un to mount the nuclear device he showed the world before his 3 September nuclear test and fire it over Japan, into the Pacific Ocean, and demonstrate a credible thermonuclear capability.

• What is an H-bomb?
• The most powerful nuclear blasts in history

Presumably, witnessing this feat would « tame » Trump into accepting the « equilibrium » that North Korea alluded to earlier this week – a state of stable nuclear deterrence.

Given the inadequacy of existing US and Japanese ballistic missile defence systems, it is far from a sure thing that such a test could be intercepted.

Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Middlebury Center of International Studies at Monterey, alluded to China’s fourth nuclear test as a reminder of why this logic may make sense to North Korea.

In the 1960s, US observers doubted Chinese nuclear capabilities until China placed a nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile and carried out an atmospheric detonation. Only then were they « tamed » to accept China as a serious nuclear state.

The last atmospheric nuclear test on Earth took place on 16 October 1980, by China.

What could the consequences be?

Nevertheless, the risks with a test like this are immense. Civil aviators and mariners in the target area may perish, given that North Korea does not offer international warning of its missile launch plans unlike other states that routinely test ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the environmental damage and fallout could be catastrophic. Should the missile fail over Japan – or prematurely detonate – the consequences would effectively guarantee a nuclear war in retaliation.

North Korea could choose not to use a missile for a test like this to mitigate some risk, but still demonstrate an awe-inspiring capability.

A second mechanism could be to sail a ship out to sea with a nuclear device and detonate it. Here, the odds that US intelligence would detect and interdict the North Korean vessel are higher.

What’s critical to recall here is that North Korea gives no assurances of any specific action. Mr Kim simply insults Mr Trump, defends the dignity of his country and promises to consider further action.

Similarly, the foreign minister’s words hint at one possible outcome of many.

An atmospheric nuclear test from North Korea would represent the apotheosis of its provocative testing behaviour. It could even spark a military conflict should Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo determine that no more could be tolerated.

Does the North recognise red lines?

Fortunately, North Korea has proven to be deliberate and incremental in its ballistic missile and nuclear testing and recognises the existence of « red lines » for the international community.

For instance, after its nuclear tests, it noted that no environmental damage occurred, a token gesture of « responsibility » despite its illegal and provocative behaviour.

Ultimately, Kim Jong-un likely saw this statement as an act of proportionality.

Donald Trump’s « unprecedented » threat to his country at the United Nations merited a proportionate response – an unprecedented first-person statement from him.

And so the war of words continues between the leader of the world’s foremost nuclear superpower and its newest nuclear state.

Ankit Panda is a North Korea expert and senior editor at The Diplomat.