Novartis’s Top Lawyer is Out After Michael Cohen Payments

Novartis’s top lawyer is to retire from the company over payments made by the pharmaceutical giant to President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael D. Cohen, the Swiss drug maker said on Wednesday.

In a statement, Novartis said that Felix R. Ehrat, the group general counsel, would be replaced by Shannon Thyme Klinger, who is currently the company’s top ethics officer, at the beginning of June. Mr. Ehrat was stepping down “in the context of discussions surrounding Novartis’s former agreement with Essential Consultants, owned by Michael Cohen,” the pharmaceutical company said.

“Although the contract was legally in order, it was an error,” Mr. Ehrat said. “As a cosignatory with our former C.E.O., I take personal responsibility to bring the public debate on this matter to an end.”

Mr. Ehrat, a practicing lawyer in Switzerland, has been the group general counsel at Novartis since 2011.

Novartis has said that its former chief executive, Joe Jimenez, entered into the agreement with Mr. Cohen as part of an effort to gain insight into the approach the new administration would take on topics of interest to Novartis, particularly health care. The company said that, after an initial meeting with Mr. Cohen last March, it concluded that he did not have the expertise they had hoped for and decided not to go forward with the arrangement. But it said it learned the contract could only be canceled for cause and allowed it to expire in February.

Since revelations about the relationship last Tuesday, Novartis has sought to distance its new chief executive, Vas Narasimhan, from the controversy, saying that the decision to hire Mr. Cohen had been made by Mr. Jimenez and that Mr. Narasimhan had played no role. Mr. Jimenez retired from the company in January.

Felix R. Ehrat, the group general counsel for the Swiss drug maker Novartis. He said that while the company’s contract with President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael D. Cohen was legal, the arrangement “was an error.”CreditAnthony Anex/Epa-Efe, via Rex, via Shutterstock

In a letter to employees last week, Mr. Narasimhan called the deal a “mistake” that led the company to be criticized “by a world that expects more from us.”

Mr. Jimenez has not responded to requests for comment.

Novartis has said that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, contacted them last November to inquire about the connection to Mr. Cohen, and that the company cooperated with the investigation and considers its role closed. Since last week, several Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Patty Murray of Washington, sent Novartis letters demanding more information about the deal.

The telecommunications giant AT&T has also acknowledged paying Mr. Cohen $600,000 for a similar arrangement. AT&T has called the deal a “big mistake” and last week said its top Washington lobbyist would be leaving.

Live Briefing: Gina Haspel Vows at Confirmation Hearing That She Would Not Allow Torture by C.I.A.

“From my first days in training, I had a knack for the nuts and bolts of my profession,” she said. “I excelled in finding and acquiring secret information that I obtained in brush passes, dead drops, or in meetings in dusty alleys of third world capitals.”

She also confronted her record on torture, the issue that has dominated her nomination.

“I understand that what many people around the country want to know about are my views on C.I.A.’s former detention and interrogation program,” Ms. Haspel said. “Having served in that tumultuous time, I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership, C.I.A. will not restart such a detention and interrogation program.”

It was not clear whether her remarks would satisfy Democrats on the committee who signaled that they wanted a clear repudiation of her role and of torture carried out by others at the agency.

She also highlighted the fact that she would be the first woman to lead the C.I.A. in the male-dominated world of spying.

Few women were in senior roles when she joined the C.I.A., and “we are stronger now because that picture is changing. I did my part — quietly and through hard work — to break down some of those barriers.”

Haspel Says She Is Not Seen on Torture Tapes

Senators immediately launched into questioning about one of the most controversial episodes of Ms. Haspel’s career — her role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of Qaeda detainees. This is the first time she has given her account of the destruction, which occurred in 2005.

She said there were concerns about the “security risk” the tapes posed — that the lives of undercover agency officers might be put in danger if the tapes were to become public.

There have long been rumors — never confirmed — that Ms. Haspel appeared in the tapes, some of which were made when she was running a C.I.A. detention facility in Thailand in 2002. Her answer was definitive: “I did not appear on the tapes,” she said.

But Senator Warner questioned the timing of the agency’s order to destroy the tapes, which came just days after the announcement of a Senate investigation into government detention programs. She said she wasn’t aware of the order.

“I knew there was disagreement about the issue of the tapes outside the agency,” she said.


Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, pressed Ms. Haspel on the selective declassification of information about her.

Tom Brenner/The New York Times

Leaning Into a Long-Awaited Confrontation

It was a confrontation a long time coming, and Ms. Haspel did not flinch. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a senior California Democrat who led the committee’s torture investigation, pressed Ms. Haspel on the selective declassification of information about her record and pressed for an explanation of her role in the interrogation program.

“Given the C.I.A.’s refusal to make your record public, I am very limited in what I can say,” Ms. Feinstein began, before lamenting that despite personal affection, the hearing was “probably the most difficult hearing in my more than two decades.”

Ms. Haspel rejected that jab, insisting she thought it unwise to bend department guidelines on classification just to help her own case.

“It has been suggested to me by my team that if we tried to declassify some of my operational history, it would help my nomination,” she said. “I said that we could not do that. It is very important that the director of the Central Intelligence Agency adhere to the same classification guidelines that all employees must adhere to because there are very good reason for those classification guidelines.”

Ms. Haspel also swatted back an assertion by Ms. Feinstein that Ms. Haspel was an unidentified woman referenced as the head of the agency’s interrogation program in a memoir by John A. Rizzo, the C.I.A.’s former general counsel.

Mr. Rizzo, Ms. Haspel said, was simply wrong and Ms. Feinstein must have missed a correction he later issued.

“Senator, I did not run the interrogation department,” Ms. Haspel said. “In fact, I was not even read into the interrogation program until it had been up and running for a year.”

That assertion, however, raised its own questions. Ms. Haspel arrived in Thailand in late 2002, the year the interrogation program began, to oversee a secret prison. A Qaeda suspect was waterboarded three times while she was there.

Democrats Need Assurances to Get On Board

Democrats have indicated that they are willing to get behind Ms. Haspel’s nomination, but not without extracting serious and unequivocal commitments from her. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, laid out a narrow path to ‘yes’ in his opening remarks.

He said that Democrats would expect Ms. Haspel to cooperate with the committee as it tries to exercise oversight. He asked her to pledge to cooperate with the ongoing investigations into Russian election interference by both the committee and the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. And he said he would want to know how Ms. Haspel would deal with a president “who does not always seem interested in hearing, mush less speaking, the truth.”

But, as expected, Mr. Warner said he was most concerned with Ms. Haspel’s views of the brutal interrogation program she helped run in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Ms Haspel, what the committee must hear, is your own view” of the program, Mr. Warner said. “Should the United States ever permit detainees to be treated the way the C.I.A. treated detainees under the program — even if you believe it was technically ‘legal’? Most importantly, in your view — was the program consistent with American values?”

He continued: “We must hear how you would react if the president asked you to carry out some morally questionable behavior that may seem to violate a law or treaty.”

But despite their repeated efforts to pin down her views on the morality of the enhanced interrogation program and the use of torture general, many of the committee’s more liberal members made clear they were less than satisfied with her answers.

“The president has asserted that torture works,” Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California, said. “Do you agree with that statement?”

“Senator, I — I don’t believe that torture works,” Ms. Haspel said. But, she added, that “valuable information” was obtained from Qaeda operatives who underwent advanced interrogation by the agency.

“Is that a yes?” Ms. Harris asked.

“No, it’s not a yes,” Ms. Haspel said. “We got valuable information from debriefing of Al Qaeda detainees, and I don’t think it’s knowable whether interrogation techniques played a role in that.”

A Veteran Spy, and a Résumé That Includes Torture

Few dispute that Ms. Haspel, a 33-year C.I.A. veteran, has the experience to run the agency. At issue is her involvement in the rendition, detention and interrogation program that the agency developed in the frantic hunt for the conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The C.I.A. long ago repudiated the program, which included waterboarding and other methods banned by law, and many senators say they are looking to Ms. Haspel to do the same.

“Having served in that tumultuous time, I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership, C.I.A. will not restart such a detention and interrogation program,” she planned to say, according to excerpts from prepared remarks released by the C.I.A. on Tuesday night. She did not directly address her role in the interrogations or the torture of suspected militants by others at the agency.

In late 2002, Ms. Haspel was dispatched to oversee a secret C.I.A. prison in Thailand code-named Cat’s Eye. While she was there, C.I.A. contractors waterboarded Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Qaeda suspect accused of orchestrating the bombing of the American destroyer Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000.

Critics, including some senators on the committee, say her willingness to employ brutal methods to extract information — including waterboarding, sleep deprivation and confining prisoners in boxes — should disqualify her.

The sessions carried out at the prison in Thailand — including many conducted when Ms. Haspel was not there — were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station there until 2005, when they were ordered destroyed. By then, Ms. Haspel was serving at C.I.A. headquarters, and it was her name that was on the cable carrying the destruction orders. The agency maintains that the decision to destroy the recordings was made by Ms. Haspel’s boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, who was the head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service.

Last week, Ms. Haspel briefly considered withdrawing her nomination over fears that the White House would not fully support her because of her role in the interrogation program. She changed her mind only after Mr. Trump and top aides reassured her.

Ms. Haspel’s role in overseeing the interrogations and destroying evidence of them already once hindered her career. In 2013, the C.I.A. wanted to name Ms. Haspel to run clandestine operations, but Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the Democrat who was then the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, blocked the promotion because of her work in Thailand.

Haspel Says She Won’t Act Immorally

One aspect of the debate about the C.I.A.’s post-Sept. 11 torture program is whether it was illegal all along. Despites anti-torture laws and treaties, Bush administration officials in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote secret memos that embraced a disputed and idiosyncratic view of the president’s constitutional power, as commander-in-chief, to say that it would be lawful to override those restrictions.

The Justice Department later rescinded those memos, but determined that no one could be prosecuted for taking actions that relied upon the department’s own interpretation of the law at the time; one Bush-era official deemed the memos a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” Congress has also enacted statutes further tightening laws against torture.

In her opening statement, Ms. Haspel said she would not restart a detention and interrogation program “such as” the Bush-era one, and emphasized her commitment to follow current law. But the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, put his finger on the difficulty of the malleability of “the law,” especially in secret national-security matters. Calling her comments “legalistic,” he said he wanted to know what she would do if the Justice Department was once again willing to secretly invoke esoteric theories of presidential power to say that the president was lawfully overriding statutory restrictions on torture — or some other activity seemingly barred by statute.

“I need to at least get a sense of what your moral code says about those kinds of actions because there is the potential that this president could ask you to do something,” Mr. Warner said.

Illustrating the complexity of the law is defined, Ms. Haspel insisted that the “C.I.A. follows the law. We followed the law then. We follow the law today.” But she also said that she would refuse orders to have the C.I.A. do something she found immoral, even if it was deemed to be legal.

“I would not put C.I.A. officers at risk by asking them to undertake risky, controversial activity again,” she said, adding: “My moral compass is strong. I would not allow C.I.A. to undertake activity that I thought was immoral, even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it.”

Haspel: Torture of 9/11 Planner Cast ‘Shadow’ Over His Capture

Ms. Haspel invoked one of the greatest counterterrorism successes in the immediate years after the Sept. 11 attacks: the capture, in March 2003, of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the principal mastermind of the attacks. Over the next few weeks, Mr. Mohammed was tortured by the C.I.A. at black-site prisons in Afghanistan and Poland, including being waterboarded 183 times over 15 sessions and being deprived of sleep for about a week by being forced to stand with his arms chained over his head.

She said she was proud of her service in the frantic hunt for the Sept. 11 conspirators.

“After 9/11, I didn’t look to go sit on the Swiss desk — I stepped up,” she said. “I was not on the sidelines. I was on the front lines in the Cold War, and I was on the front lines in the fight against Al Qaeda. I am very proud of the fact that we captured the perpetrator of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”

She lamented that the interrogations of Mr. Mohammed and the ensuing controversy overshadowed his capture. “It has cast a shadow over what has been a major contribution to protecting this country,” she said.

While Ms. Haspel ran the secret prison in Thailand in late 2002 while another detainee was waterboarded, it is not publicly known what she was doing in 2003 and whether she had any connection to Mr. Mohammed’s interrogation. Notably, this week Mr. Mohammed asked a military judge at the wartime prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for permission to give the Senate Intelligence Committee six paragraphs of unspecified information about her.

Haspel Won’t Say Whether Sought Expanded Use of Brutal Interrogation Techniques

Democrats have complained that under Ms. Haspel’s control as acting director, the C.I.A. has selectively declassified aspects of her record, making information public that will help her get confirmed while keeping more controversial secrets concealed. Against that backdrop, a line of questioning by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, was striking.

Most of the C.I.A.’s use of torture took place in the first term of the Bush administration; it is not known to have waterboarded any prisoner, for example, since 2003. But Mr. Wyden stated: “Between 2005 and 2007, the program was winding down. The CIA was capturing fewer detainees and waterboarding was no longer approved. During that time, did you ever call for the program to be continued or expanded?”

Ms. Haspel did not directly answer. Instead, she talked about how C.I.A. officials were committed to making sure that the country was not attacked again and “had been informed that the techniques in C.I.A.’s program were legal and authorized by the highest legal authority in the country and also the president. So, I believe, I and my colleagues the Counterterrorism Center were working as hard as we could with the tools that we were given to make sure that we were successful in our mission.”

Mr. Wyden noted that her answer was not responsive to his question, adding: “I would really like to have on the record whether you ever called for the program to be continued which it sure sounds to me like your answer suggests it. You said well, we were doing our job. It ought to be continued. That troubles me very much.”

Her Chances of Confirmation

After her wavering last week and in anticipation of contentious moments at her hearing, Senate Republicans urged their colleagues on Tuesday to confirm Ms. Haspel but dismissed calls from Democrats for more sensitive information about her career to be made public.

“That has never happened in the history of the C.I.A., and it’s not going to happen with Gina Haspel’s nomination,” Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee, told reporters.

Several prominent members of the Republican-controlled Senate have indicated they are likely to object to Ms. Haspel’s confirmation, primarily over her role in the agency’s use of torture. They include Ms. Feinstein; Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky; and Senator John McCain, an influential Republican from Arizona and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. McCain’s dissent would normally be potent, but he is being treated for brain cancer and is not expected to be in Washington to vote or to try to persuade Republican colleagues to join his objection.

That leaves at least two key members of the Intelligence Committee to watch: Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Maine Republican who often breaks with Mr. Trump; and Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat who has sided with the president.

If Ms. Collins indicates she is leaning against Ms. Haspel, she could provide cover for Mr. Manchin and other moderate Democratic senators to vote no, sinking her candidacy. But if Ms. Collins signals that she is satisfied with Ms. Haspel’s answers and intends vote yes, at least some Democrats — enough to secure a positive vote on the Senate floor — are likely to make a political calculation that they must follow suit.


People protested Ms. Haspel’s nomination at her confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

Tom Brenner/The New York Times

Protests from the Gallery

Demonstrators are a familiar sight in Hart 216, the Capitol Hill hearing room where many of the Senate’s most charged hearings take place. But as Ms. Haspel offered a nuanced defense of her role in the C.I.A.’s advanced interrogation program, she was treated to a more persistent chorus than usual.

“What do you do to human beings in U.S. custody?” interjected one woman, bringing the hearing to an abrupt halt after nearly two hours of questioning. Capitol Police rushed to detain and remove the woman, but she had the floor.

“Bloody Gina, bloody Gina, bloody Gina!” she yelled. “You are a torturer.”

She picked up where another protester had left off just before the hearing started.

“Don’t reward torturers,” he yelled as he struggled with police officers and was forcibly removed from the hearing room before Ms. Haspel sat down. “What meaning does love have in this world if we allow torture?”

Mr. Burr asked only that demonstrators make their point brief.

“For the benefits of our members: Do it fast, do it early, and be gone,” he told them.

Continue reading the main story

New York Times Metro Editor Resigns, Citing ‘Mistakes’


Wendell Jamieson in September 2017. “I regret and apologize for my mistakes and leaving under these circumstances,” he said in a statement announcing his resignation.

Earl Wilson/The New York Times

The New York Times announced on Monday that Wendell Jamieson, the newspaper’s metro editor, had resigned after an internal investigation but did not specify the reason for his departure.

“I regret and apologize for my mistakes and leaving under these circumstances,” Mr. Jamieson said in a statement that was included in a note to employees from Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, and Joseph Kahn, the managing editor.

Mr. Jamieson, 51, joined The Times in 2000 after having worked for Newsday, The Daily News and The New York Post. He was named metro editor in 2013.

Susan Chira, a senior correspondent and an editor covering gender issues, replaced Mr. Jamieson in an interim capacity.

Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for The Times, declined to specify the reason that Mr. Jamieson had been investigated. In their message to Times employees, Mr. Baquet and Mr. Kahn said, “To protect the privacy of those involved, we do not intend to comment further.”

In his statement that was included as part of that note, Mr. Jamieson said, “Leading Metro for the last five years and working with the incredible Times team has been the high point of my professional life.” After issuing his apology, he added: “I’m especially proud of all the talent I’ve helped bring to The Times. Susan Chira is a wonderful editor, a true New Yorker, and I know Metro will rise to even greater heights under her leadership.”

Continue reading the main story

White House Withdraws Jackson Nomination for V.A. Chief Amid Criticism

“These are all false accusations,” Mr. Trump said. “These are false. They’re trying to destroy a man.”

The president said he had already selected a new nominee but would not reveal the name. It will be “somebody with political capability,” he said.

But even as Dr. Jackson and the president were denying the accusations, new ones were coming in. The question on Thursday was whether Dr. Jackson could continue in his role as the president’s physician, one he has filled since 2013.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said in a statement only that Dr. Jackson “is a doctor in the United States Navy assigned to the White House and is here at work today.”

The New York Times spoke with two former members of the White House medical office staff on Wednesday, both of whom described a culture under Dr. Jackson where medications were freely distributed and lightly accounted for. They both said they had witnessed Dr. Jackson intoxicated during White House travel, and said it was a regular occurrence while overseas.


Who is Ronny Jackson, and What Are the Allegations Against Him?

The questions surrounding President Trump’s former nominee to lead the Veterans Affairs Department.

OPEN Graphic

Both of the former officials separately told of a standing order to leave a bottle of rum and Diet Coke in Dr. Jackson’s hotel room on official travel.

And both said they had been uncomfortable enough with Dr. Jackson’s behavior to file complaints at the time with the White House Military Office. Records of such complaints were not immediately verifiable. They requested anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Such reports have cast a negative light not only on the current White House vetting process but on the Obama White House, which repeatedly promoted Dr. Jackson and recommended his advancement through the Navy’s highest ranks.

The White House did not immediately announce a nominee to replace Dr. Jackson. His withdrawal ensures that the department, which employs more than 370,000 people and includes vast health and benefits systems, will remain without a permanent leader for at least weeks to come.

Senator Tester did not respond to the president’s threat but did praise the people — mostly past and current members of the military — who came forward to discuss Dr. Jackson’s issues. He did nod to the bipartisan nature of the vetting process at the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the close work he has done with its chairman, Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

“I want to thank the servicemembers who bravely spoke out over the past week,” he said in a statement. “It is my Constitutional responsibility to make sure the veterans of this nation get a strong, thoroughly vetted leader who will fight for them. The next Secretary must have a commitment to reform a strained health care system and a willingness to stand up to special interests who want to privatize the VA. My sleeves are rolled up and ready to work with Chairman Isakson to vet and confirm a Secretary who is fit to run the VA.”

The concerns raised on Capitol Hill over Dr. Jackson’s nomination were bipartisan and emerged after the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee interviewed more than 23 people, including current and former military personnel, who had worked alongside him. The accusations included a hostile work environment, the improper dispensing of prescription drugs to White House staff and reporters during official travel, and intoxication while traveling with the president.

The White House had initially moved to defend Dr. Jackson against what officials there called “ugly” abuse and false accusations. And he indicated repeatedly in interactions with reporters that he intended to stay the course.

But the nomination was clearly in peril when the top senators on the committee announced on Tuesday that they would postpone a confirmation hearing for Dr. Jackson scheduled for the next day, pending further investigation.

On Wednesday, the committee’s Democratic staff released a two-page document fleshing out the accusations. They were explosive.

In one instance, Dr. Jackson stood accused of providing such “a large supply” of Percocet, a prescription opioid, to a White House Military Office staff member that he threw his own medical staff “into a panic” when it could not account for the missing drugs, the document said.

In another case, at a Secret Service goodbye party, the doctor got intoxicated and “wrecked a government vehicle.”

And a nurse on his staff said that Dr. Jackson had written himself prescriptions, and when caught, had simply asked a physician assistant to provide him with the medication.

An aide to Mr. Tester said each of the allegations included in the document was based on information provided by two or more individuals.

President Trump nominated Dr. Jackson to the position in March after firing his first Veterans Affairs secretary, David J. Shulkin, an experienced hospital administrator and veteran of the department’s medical system. The decision was largely made out of a personal affinity for Dr. Jackson, who did not undergo the kind of policy vetting that usually accompanies a nomination to a cabinet post.

Mr. Trump had strongly defended Dr. Jackson on Tuesday as “one of the finest people that I have met,” but he also suggested that Dr. Jackson might soon withdraw from consideration, amid what the president characterized as partisan attacks from Capitol Hill.

“I don’t want to put a man through a process like this,” Mr. Trump said. “The fact is, I wouldn’t do it. What does he need it for?”

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said on Wednesday that Dr. Jackson had been through at four background checks, including by the F.B.I., during his time at the White House. She said that none had turned up areas for concern.

But even before the accusations about his conduct became public, Dr. Jackson was expected to face tough questioning from senators from both parties skeptical of his inexperience managing a large bureaucracy and of his views on key policy debates gripping the department. The Veterans Affairs Department is the federal government’s second largest and Dr. Jackson had little to no experience with policy or leading a large staff.

Mr. Isakson, who had backed Mr. Tester’s decision to investigate, said Thursday morning that it was the White House’s decision to make, and that he would work to confirm a new secretary once nominated.

“I respect his decision, and I thank Admiral Jackson for his service to the country,” Mr. Isakson said. “I will work with the administration to see to it we get a V.A. secretary for our veterans and their families.”

Continue reading the main story

Harassment at WNYC Was Not ‘Systemic,’ Says Report


A report on the workplace culture at WNYC said the station’s head, Laura R. Walker, had not been aware of harassment and bullying.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

An investigation into the workplace culture of New York Public Radio and its flagship station WNYC found that incidents of bullying and harassment were not reported to senior managers, in part because of fear of reprisals, a lack of confidence in how reports would be handled, and the perception that the station’s stars were “untouchable.”

But the investigation did not find “systemic discrimination” that was known to, and tolerated by, senior management. The investigation also largely absolved Laura R. Walker, the president and chief executive of New York Public Radio, who acknowledged last year that she had “prioritized growth, and content and programming, over investment in some of the processes and people.”

Instead, the investigation focuses on the station’s human resources department and recommends steps familiar to many workplaces grappling with the #MeToo movement, such as adding training for managers and creating an anti-bullying policy.

“NYPR needs to build a level of confidence that it is intent on fostering and preserving a respectful work environment and that all employees — even ‘stars’ — are held to that standard, and that no one will suffer adverse consequences for alerting NYPR to inappropriate conduct,” the report says.

[Read the report here.]

The investigation was conducted by the law firm of Proskauer Rose at the behest of the station’s board of trustees and released Tuesday afternoon. The station was holding an all-staff meeting at its offices in Lower Manhattan to discuss it.

The issues at WNYC exploded into the open last year, when the writer Suki Kim described her experiences at the station, as well as those of other women, for New York magazine, writing that John Hockenberry, the former host of “The Takeaway,” had harassed her after her appearance as a guest. A subsequent probe conducted by the newsroom revealed additional cases, as well as management’s awareness of myriad problems with “The Takeaway.”

Continue reading the main story

Overseer Faults Volkswagen’s Reform Efforts Since Emissions Scandal

Herbert Diess, who was named chief executive of Volkswagen earlier this month, delivered a stern lecture to top managers last week, complaining that the company generates too many scandals and must become more ethical.

“Ethics, integrity and compliance are core for him as a necessary foundation for our future business,” Peik von Bestenbostel, Volkswagen’s vice president for global group communications, said in an email on Sunday in which he confirmed Mr. Diess’s remarks.

Mr. von Bestenbostel said that the objectives outlined in the report by Mr. Thompson are valid and “will help to change Volkswagen in the right direction.”

Mr. Diess replaced Matthias Müller, who had prevented a collapse in Volkswagen sales in the wake of the scandal but struggled to remove the cloud it cast over the company’s reputation. A former BMW executive, Mr. Diess began working at Volkswagen only a few months before the emissions cheating became public and is less tainted by it.

Mr. Diess is likely to be less restrained by personal connections to Volkswagen managers or other employees linked to the emissions wrongdoing. Mr. Müller spent his entire career at Volkswagen or its divisions and had worked closely with some of the people suspected of playing a leading role.


Herbert Diess, at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January. Mr. Diess, who was just named chief executive of Volkswagen, delivered a stern lecture on ethics last week to top managers.

Tony Ding/Associated Press

Despite promises to reform, Volkswagen remains dominated by longtime insiders, and there have been few visible legal or disciplinary consequences for people involved in the emissions cheating. Volkswagen did not keep a promise to publish an internal report on the causes of the scandal prepared by the Jones Day law firm.

As he tries to take a tougher approach, Mr. Diess is also likely to face resistance to change within the sprawling Volkswagen empire, which is famous for its insular, hierarchical corporate culture.

Mr. Thompson is one year into a three-year assignment that was part of Volkswagen’s guilty plea last year to United States Justice Department charges that included obstruction of justice and conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Volkswagen promised to take steps to prevent the same kind of thing from happening again.

Mr. Thompson’s job is to make sure that Volkswagen complies, and the report he submitted this month to the Justice Department is the first of three annual assessments.

Since being appointed the Volkswagen monitor in April 2017, Mr. Thompson has avoided the limelight but, as the report indicates, he has made his presence known at the company’s Wolfsburg headquarters. Though based in Atlanta, Mr. Thompson has an office in the same building as members of the management board and has made an effort to learn German.

Mr. Thompson has substantial leverage over the company. If he concluded that Volkswagen was violating the terms of the plea agreement, it could be voided and the company would land back in court.


Matthias Müller was replaced as chief executive of Volkswagen earlier this month. He prevented a collapse in Volkswagen sales in the wake of the scandal but struggled to remove the cloud it cast over the company’s reputation.

John Macdougall/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Among other things, Mr. Thompson has been urging Volkswagen to create a more effective whistleblower system to allow employees to report suspected wrongdoing without endangering their careers. He has also been pressing the company to improve its systems for vetting vehicle software.

The emissions scandal occurred after a group of employees, including some who reported to top management, devised software that caused diesel engines to emit less nitrogen oxide pollution when the engine computer detected that the car was being tested.

The software was installed in 11 million cars over almost a decade, but as far as is known no employees reported its existence to the authorities until shortly before the company confessed in September 2015.

During a long career, Mr. Thompson has worked in both government and private industry, including stints as a federal prosecutor in Georgia and general counsel of PepsiCo. In 1991, Mr. Thompson advised Clarence Thomas in his battle to win nomination to the Supreme Court in the face of sexual harassment accusations.

Though Mr. Thompson is a Republican, he has been sharply critical of Donald Trump. He was among former high-ranking government officials who published a letter during the presidential campaign in 2016 that said that Mr. Trump “would be a dangerous president and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

The letter also said that “Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be president.”

Continue reading the main story

Fidel Died and Raúl Resigned, but Castros Still Hold Sway in Cuba

But even Mr. Castro, with his revolutionary credentials and fraternal connections, could not pull off all of the changes he had set out to make. Too many old-guard associates put up obstacles when they saw the widening inequalities that accompanied economic reforms. So although Mr. Castro is widely believed to be planning a move from Havana to Santiago de Cuba — on Cuba’s southeastern coast, the other side of the country — he is not expected to leave Mr. Díaz-Canel entirely to his own devices.

Mr. Castro was credited with strengthening institutional control and formalizing the concept of consensus governing. He believes in delegated authority. He has made sure that there are enough internal checks and balances to keep an eye on any successor with big ideas, while still watching this one’s back. Mr. Díaz-Canel was a handpicked successor, and it is not in Raúl Castro’s interest to see him fail.

“Raúl will be watching,” said Andy S. Gómez, a Cuba expert, now retired, who worked at the University of Miami. “Raúl, as first party secretary, will be not only watching him, but, more importantly, being there for him, symbolically, so he can move forward.”

Alcibíades Hidalgo, who was Raúl Castro’s chief of staff for a dozen years, believes that his former boss will hold on to power “until the day he dies.”


Alejandro Castro Espín, left, Raul Castro’s son, runs the intelligence services for both the armed forces and the Interior Ministry.

Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Alejandro Castro Espín, 52, is Raúl Castro’s son. Mr. Castro Espín runs the intelligence services for both the armed forces and the Interior Ministry. That is a big task in a country that works hard to stifle dissent and sniff out spies.

Mr. Castro Espín was part of the team that negotiated with President Barack Obama’s administration over restoring diplomatic ties with the United States, a sign that he is part of the most trusted inner circle.

But he also has serious anti-imperialist credentials: The title of a book he wrote in 2009, “Empire of Terror,” offers a not-very-subtle clue of his opinion of Cuba’s big neighbor to the north.

“The most important of the younger generation is Castro Espín,” said Brian Latell, a former C.I.A. analyst who has closely watched the Castro family. “I think he has a lot of influence with his father.”

Juan Juan Almeida, the son of a Cuban revolutionary war hero, grew up with Mr. Castro Espín and lived in his house when they were children. He said he was not convinced that his former best friend had the skills to succeed after his father dies.

“He’s powerful, but his power was given to him by his father,” Mr. Almeida said. “He will last as long as his father’s power lasts.”

Some experts believe that Raúl Castro would have liked to have made his son president, but that it would have looked bad internationally to have another Castro take over.

Gen. Luis Alberto Rodríguez López-Callejas was a Castro by marriage — he used to be married to Raúl Castro’s daughter Débora, and is the father of Mr. Castro’s favorite grandson.

General Rodríguez is president of Gaesa, the holding company that controls the military’s business interests. The military runs all of the hotels and state-run restaurants, convenience stores and gas stations, making General Rodríguez one of the country’s most powerful men.

“He must have 1,200 companies under him,” said Guillermo Fariñas, an outspoken critic of the government who lives in Villa Clara Province. “I think the one who manages the country economically is him.”

Raúl Rodríguez Castro, General Rodríguez’s son, is Raúl Castro’s bodyguard, the kind of position that lends itself to knowing all kinds of secrets, Mr. Fariñas said.


Mariela Castro, center, is Raúl Castro’s daughter, a Cuban lawmaker, the director of the National Center for Sexual Education and an outspoken supporter of the rights of gay and transgender people.

Ramon Espinosa/Associated Press

Mariela Castro is Raúl Castro’s daughter. A member of Parliament, she enjoys an international and domestic following, largely because of her support for gay and transgender rights.

“Mariela is part of the scenery,” Mr. Hidalgo said. “She’s a decorative figure with a nice cause. In terms of power, she is far from the role of her brother or her ex-brother-in-law.”

Mr. Almeida said it boiled down to appearances.

“In terms of becoming a vice minister or joining the Council of State, I don’t see her doing that,” Mr. Almeida said. “The idea is to present a democratic face and erase the faces of the past. For the international community, they need to offer a nice friendly face of Cuba, which means not putting forth a Castro.”

Mr. Hidalgo, a former ambassador to the United Nations who later defected and now lives in Miami, does not think it will work.

“They are trying to give an appearance of change to what is fundamentally the same,” he said. “They are trying to continue Castroism without Castros in the near future, which is practically impossible.”

Continue reading the main story

Trump Wants to Close Trade Gap, but Leaves Export Agency in Limbo

In the past, the bank had been used by large corporations like Boeing and General Electric, which received loan guarantees to sell products like airplanes, satellites and industrial equipment to developing countries, lifting sales and supporting American jobs. It has provided loan guarantees to overseas airlines looking to buy American-made jets and helped organizations like the Environmental Chemical Corporation build water facilities in Africa.


The Export-Import Bank, a federal agency, provides loan guarantees to American companies selling to foreign customers.

Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg

Proponents of the bank, including some lawmakers, argue the institution could be a powerful weapon for a president who wants to increase domestic manufacturing and narrow the gap between what the United States imports and what it exports overseas.

Ex-Im provides the kind of government subsidies that other nations regularly use to help domestic companies compete abroad. Mr. Trump regularly blames those subsidies for a flood of cheap imports, saying they exacerbate the United States trade imbalance.

The bank was languishing before Mr. Trump took office, but it has worsened under his watch. Last year, Mr. Trump’s pick to oversee Ex-Im, Scott Garrett, a critic of the bank, was rejected by the Senate over concerns that he would close the agency. The other directors who were nominated by Mr. Trump remain stalled in the Senate, and the president has yet to pick a new leader to take the helm.

To business groups, manufacturers and veterans of the bank, Mr. Trump appears to be undermining his own trade aspirations by leaving Ex-Im in the lurch.

“I’m not sure he’s really being well served,” said Fred P. Hochberg, the most recent chairman of the bank, who departed in 2017. “If you want to be able to reduce trade deficits and you want to be able to export more, particularly capital goods, that’s what an Export-Import Bank does.”

In recent years, the bank has been barely functional. According to its most recent annual report, Ex-Im authorized just $3.4 billion of mostly short-term export credit in 2017. That is down from the $20 billion that it authorized in 2014, the last year that the bank was fully operational. The report points out that China provided $34 billion in medium- and long-term financing for its exports in 2016, underscoring the competitive disadvantage that the United States faces.

The bank’s crippling has been costly for both companies and their workers, including Boeing, which Mr. Trump has hailed as an emblem of American innovation. In the last two years, two deals involving the sale of its commercial satellites have been canceled and one was significantly delayed given the lack of a quorum at Ex-Im. The stalling of these deals alone has cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Restoring the Export-Import Bank to full strength is the single best thing Washington can do right now to build on the economic momentum of tax reform, shrink our trade deficits and level the playing field so American workers can win,” said Tim Keating, Boeing’s executive vice president for government operations.


Fred P. Hochberg, the most recent chairman of the bank, who departed in 2017. Ex-Im has been without a leader since President Trump took office.

Drew Angerer for The New York Times

In 2015, General Electric said that it would stop manufacturing certain gas engines in Waukesha, Wis., and that it would instead build a $265 million plant in Canada, which was offering financial support through its version of Ex-Im, known as Export Development Canada. G.E. attributed the move to the lack of United States export financing, saying in a statement that the company “will secure access to Canadian Export Finance to fill the gap from the lapse of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.”

After the bank’s board became empty last month, Jay Timmons, the chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers, sent letters to every senator urging them to hold a vote on Mr. Trump’s nominees. Mr. Timmons warned that the lack of action was costing American jobs.

“Countries in Europe and beyond have been luring U.S. manufacturers to set up shop overseas to take advantage of foreign export financing because the U.S. system is effectively broken,” Mr. Timmons said. “Manufacturers in the United States have lost billions of dollars in deals, and tens of thousands of American workers have lost opportunities for well-paying jobs supported by the exports that the Ex-Im Bank could have helped secure.”

At a congressional hearing last week, Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, pressed Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, about the fate of the bank and argued that not using its financing amounted to a lost opportunity. He suggested that some in the Trump administration wanted the bank to collapse.

“The president says he wants to see the trade deficit shrink, here’s a way we can do it,” Mr. Dent said.

In an interview after the hearing, Mr. Mnuchin would not say when the president would nominate a new leader for the bank, or whether some of his colleagues were rooting for its demise, but he insisted that Mr. Trump supported keeping the bank alive.

“The president does want it to function,” Mr. Mnuchin said.

In an interview last year with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Trump said he had initially been opposed to Ex-Im, seeing it as unnecessary, but had changed his mind.

“So instinctively you would say it’s a ridiculous thing, but actually it’s a very good thing and it actually makes money,” he said. “You know, it actually could make a lot of money.”


A Boeing plant in North Charleston, S.C. In the past, Boeing and large corporations like it have asked the bank for loan guarantees to sell products like airplanes, satellites and industrial equipment to developing countries.

Randall Hill/Reuters

But the White House has done little to advance its nominees and politics continue to be an obstacle. Conservatives have traditionally disliked the bank because they argue that it amounts to corporate welfare and rewards rich corporations that do not need taxpayer assistance.

“They distort markets, impose risk on taxpayer sand they’re bad policy for everybody,” said Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, who has been one of the most outspoken critics of Ex-Im and favors private financing alternatives.

Mr. Toomey has used procedural tactics to delay the nomination of the remaining nominees to the bank’s board. He said he wanted Mr. Trump to pick a “reformer” like Mr. Garrett, who does not believe in the current mission of the bank. And he said he hoped that the president would urge other countries to unwind their export financing banks as part of his trade negotiations.

Democrats who support the bank are growing increasingly impatient.

“One of the best things we can do to help the economy support jobs is to get Ex-Im fully functioning as soon as possible,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and “the full Senate should immediately confirm the bipartisan nominees so we can continue to support American businesses, manufacturing and jobs.”

Action does not appear to be forthcoming. An aide to Mr. McConnell said that votes on Mr. Trump’s other nominees would not be held until he names a new chairman.

For now, Ex-Im is ambling along. Veterans of the bank say that career employees are increasingly heading for the exits. Atop the bank’s website is an image of its boardroom, with five empty chairs.

This week, Ex-Im will hold its annual conference in Washington, but considering the circumstances, the gathering is unlikely to be a festive event.

“Who are you going to get to speak?” Mr. Hochberg wondered. “I want to know what they are going to say.”

Continue reading the main story

With Choice of New Director, the Met Gets a Scholar and a Showman

“You fulfill your programmatic ideas and then you do everything you can to find the funding to make that happen,” Mr. Hollein said in an interview at the Met.

A ‘Think Big’ Coach

This ability to strike a balance between art and business was a skill Mr. Hollein learned from Mr. Krens at the Guggenheim.

Mr. Hollein met Mr. Krens through his father, the prominent postmodern architect Hans Hollein, whom the Guggenheim had tapped for a branch in Salzburg that ultimately never materialized.


The young Max Hollein, background, left, grew up in a creative household and attended the opening of the Museum Abteiberg in 1982 with his father, Hans Hollein, the building’s architect, and Joseph Beuys, the German conceptual artist. “My parents would have loved me to be an artist,” he said last week, “but I had no talent for that or inclination.”

Udo Dewies

“You became part of the family,” Mr. Krens said. “We had a close relationship.”

Growing up in a creative household (his mother Helene was a fashion designer), Mr. Hollein became conversant in the art world and interacted with leading figures like Joseph Beuys and Claes Oldenburg. When Andy Warhol went to Vienna in the 1980s for a show of his late large-scale silk-screens, 12-year-old Max got the artist to sign every single page of Warhol’s exhibition catalog.

“Contemporary artists for other students were these out-of-this-world figures,” Mr. Hollein said. “For me, it was a friends and family background.”


Hans Hollein, the Pritzker Prize-winning architect, in 1988 with a proposal (never built) for a suite of buildings that would have integrated Mies van der Rohe’s Nationalgalerie in Berlin.

Günter Peters/ullstein bild, via Getty Images

When Max had to do a report on an artist at school, other students chose subjects like van Gogh and Monet; Mr. Hollein said he chose Naum Gabo, the Russian avant-garde sculptor.

“My parents would have loved me to be an artist,” he added, “but I had no talent for that or inclination.”

Mr. Hollein’s sister, Lilli Hollein, the director of Vienna Design Week, said her brother’s business instincts were apparent early on. “He once developed a game that had an economic background,” she said. “It was played with farm animals and people, and you had to buy cattle and stuff and then sell it.”

At the University of Vienna he studied under Konrad Oberhuber, an eminent scholar of drawings, and Hermann Fillitz, who directed Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches Museum — but also, “as a revolution against my parents,” studied business.

When Max was 21, he came to New York to work as an intern at the Guggenheim and Mr. Krens invited him to return for a job after completing his education. He ultimately became Mr. Krens’s chief of staff and executive assistant, working closely on projects like the Guggenheim branch designed by Frank Gehry in Bilbao, Spain.


Thomas Krens, then the director of the Guggenheim Foundation, in Bilbao, Spain, in 1997. As his chief of staff and executive assistant, Mr. Hollein watched Mr. Krens plan the export of the Guggenheim to Bilbao and other cities.

Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho, via Getty Images

“The reason that Max is so multifaceted and has had so many great opportunities in life has a lot to do with Tom Krens,” said Lisa Dennison, chairman of Sotheby’s Americas division, and a former director of the Guggenheim, who overlapped with Mr. Hollein. “Tom gave Max opportunities — he was building museums, he was thinking about technology and he told Max to think big.”

After five-and-a-half years at the Guggenheim, Mr. Hollein told Mr. Krens, “I have to leave here because I risk becoming a copy of you.”

What he took from Mr. Krens, Mr. Hollein said, was that he could push an ambitious agenda until the pieces fell into place and naysayers came around.

“One must not forget the success of Bilbao,” Mr. Hollein said, by way of example. “Two years before it opened there were large amounts of people who thought it would be a huge failure.”

Returning to Europe, Mr. Hollein imported the strategies and techniques he’d learned in New York. “He has this mixture of the European and the American know-how, and that’s a very rare thing,” said Renée Price, the director of the Neue Galerie and a fellow Vienna native.

In 2001, after impressing Frankfurt’s mayor, Petra Roth, at a dinner in New York, Mr. Hollein was named director of that city’s Schirn Kunsthalle, a non-collecting institution with such low attendance that local politicians were arguing for its closure.

Mr. Hollein quickly whipped it into shape, and was savvy about sponsorships, getting private corporations to help pay for exhibitions of Yves Klein and Pablo Picasso.

Attendance surged, and hipsters in Berlin began to take note of the upheaval underway in sleepy, big-money Frankfurt. By 2010, the weekly newspaper Die Zeit had called the Schirn “the most exciting exhibition hall in Germany.”

Ambitions Beyond the Rhine

Mr. Hollein was soon invited by trustees to take the director’s post at the Städel foundation, a more venerable institution, and home to one of Germany’s best collections of medieval, Renaissance and Baroque painting. He agreed to take the post, as well as the directorship of the neighboring Liebieghaus sculpture museum under a surprising condition: that he keep the Schirn as well.

This struck some as a power grab, and in Germany, a country whose citizens stick their academic titles on every surface, Mr. Hollein’s lack of a doctorate in art history caused additional concern.

Eventually, Mr. Hollein’s efforts began to speak for themselves. At the Städel, he helped expand the collection to include 20th- and 21st-century art by brokering unusual long-term loans with two German banks — Deutsche Bank and DZ Bank AG — that allowed the museum to retain the works in perpetuity.

Exhibitions of Cranach, Botticelli and Monet attracted hundreds of thousands of visitors. An ambitious digital program — including art history video lectures in German and English — brought international attention to what was once a museum of only regional influence.

And at both museums, Mr. Hollein indulged his abiding passion for electronic music. At the Schirn, he backed exhibitions featuring experimental composers like Carsten Nicolai and Ryoji Ikeda; at the Städel, during a 2012 exhibition of Romantic and Symbolist painting, he invited the public to dance until 2 a.m. to D.J.s from the Berlin nightclub circuit.

Mr. Hollein’s progress gained attention on the other side of the Rhine. In 2013, he emerged as the odds-on favorite to become director of France’s leading modern art museum, the Pompidou Center in Paris.


Max Hollein and his wife Nina, an architect turned fashion designer, in San Francisco on March 1.

Drew Altizer

“Max, in Frankfurt, had been committed to very strong temporary exhibitions — blockbuster shows as well as more scholarly, researched, niche shows,” said Alain Seban, who was the Pompidou’s president from 2007 to 2015. He praised Mr. Hollein’s “capability to make the whole curatorial team participate in an exhibition strategy for the museum. And perhaps, considering the current situation of the Met, it’s something that he might have to do there as well.”

Mr. Seban would continue to hold the top job — a situation that closely parallels Mr. Hollein’s new arrangement at the Met, where he will report to Daniel H. Weiss, the Met’s president and chief executive.

Yet leaks to the French press damaged his Pompidou candidacy, particularly reports that his requested salary was three times higher than expected. Mr. Hollein withdrew before the final selection. (The job went to Bernard Blistène, a Pompidou veteran.)

In his Met interview, Mr. Hollein said he felt that the French government couldn’t give him the freedom he needed to make significant strides.

“I draw a lot of energy where I feel I can move the institution forward,” he said, adding: “It clearly was not the money.”

Some people in the art world were surprised to see Mr. Hollein take the job in San Francisco, in part because of its powerful board president, Diane B. Wilsey, who has a reputation for being loath to relinquish control of the Fine Arts Museums.

Ms. Wilsey, 74, ceded the chief executive title after the museums paid a $2 million settlement to a former high-ranking executive who said Ms. Wilsey had her ousted for revealing alleged museum misspending.

But both Mr. Hollein and Ms. Wilsey said they have had a very productive working relationship. “He pushes the staff, but they like it,” Ms. Wilsey said in a telephone interview. “They’re energized by his energy and intelligence and ambitions.”

Indeed, Mr. Hollein managed to make an impact during his short tenure at the museum, balancing the budget and initiating shows like “Contemporary Muslim Fashions,” which is set to open in September. (Breitbart News Daily questioned whether it was “a celebration of subjugation.”)

Continue reading the main story

James Comey vs. President Trump. How It Came to This.

An inauguration and a termination

Here is a timeline of Mr. Comey’s short tenure as F.B.I. director under Mr. Trump.

Mr. Comey met the president-elect for the first time in January 2017, during an intelligence briefing about Russian meddling in the election. In meetings and conversations afterward, Mr. Comey has said, the president tried in vain to secure his loyalty.


James Comey with President Trump at the White House in January 2017. Mr. Comey told a friend he had hoped Mr. Trump would not spot him at the event.

Pool photo by Andrew Harrer

In March 2017, Mr. Comey confirmed that the F.B.I. was investigating Russian links to the Trump campaign. He later said the president repeatedly asked him to say publicly what he had said privately: that Mr. Trump was not personally under investigation.

Two months later, Mr. Comey testified on Capitol Hill to defend reopening the Clinton investigation in 2016. A memorable quote: “It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election.”

On May 9, 2017, Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey.


Times Reporters Decode the Trump-Comey Saga

The New York Times reporters Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Matthew Rosenberg analyze the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

By A.J. CHAVAR on Publish Date May 11, 2017.


Watch in Times Video »

But let justice roll down like waters

For Mr. Comey, getting fired was in some ways like being freed.

He started tweeting under his own name in 2017. He shared quotes about leadership. He posted photos, often of nature and sometimes including himself, towering and pensive in bucolic landscapes.

Mr. Trump grew bolder in criticizing Mr. Comey, calling him a “showboat,” a “nut job” and, more recently, an “untruthful slime ball.” The president’s stated reasons for firing the F.B.I. director have been inconsistent.

Five Contradictions in the White House’s Story About Comey’s Firing

The Trump administration has offered conflicting answers about how and why the F.B.I. director, James Comey, was fired.

In June, Mr. Comey discussed the president at length at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. It was quite an event.

In testimony that was plain-spoken but forceful, he accused Mr. Trump of lying, defaming the F.B.I. and trying to derail an investigation.


Highlights From Comey’s Testimony

James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date June 8, 2017.

Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times.

Watch in Times Video »

Mr. Comey has now written a memoir, “A Higher Loyalty” Here is our review. It describes Mr. Trump as “unethical, and untethered to truth,” compares the president to a mafia boss and wonders about his reasons for refusing to acknowledge Russia’s attempts to meddle in the election.

The book is set to be released on Tuesday.

Continue reading the main story