Missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi was often critical of Saudi Arabia's government, but this wasn't what earned him a writing ban in the country two years ago. Rather, it was criticism of President Trump.
Saudi Arabia in 2016 banned Khashoggi from writing, appearing on TV, and attending conferences in the country, after he offered a light critique of America's then president-elect, The Independent reports. At a Washington think tank, Khashoggi said that Trump's Middle East policies were "contradictory," and he told The Washington Post that the incoming president's attempts for reconciliation in the region were "wishful thinking."
That was the final straw for Saudi Arabia, Wired's Virginia Heffernan points out. A Saudi spokesman quickly said that Khashoggi didn't represent the kingdom's views, and his newspaper column was subsequently canceled.
The State Department's own 2017 report on human rights in Saudi Arabia later noted that Khashoggi received a media ban "as the result of remarks he made that were interpreted as criticizing the president of the United States." This ban was reportedly lifted the following July, but by that point, Khashoggi had moved to the U.S. and feared he would be arrested if he returned home. He went on to write columns for the Post that often criticized Saudi Arabia's media suppression.
Earlier this month, Khashoggi went missing after visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain a marriage document. Although Saudi Arabia's government denies any knowledge of what happened, Turkey says it has evidence that he was tortured and murdered in front of a Saudi diplomat.
In March 2018, Khashoggi told the Columbia Journalism Review that he was "so insulted" when the royal court told him he couldn't write anymore. "In America," he said, "you take freedom for granted." Brendan Morrow
President Trump now has three chances to keep his financial records a secret.
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear Trump's appeal of three cases that involve subpoenas for his financial records, giving no explanation for the decision. Oral arguments for the separate cases are likely slated for March, with a decision expected at the end of June.
In three separate cases, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, the House Oversight Committee, and the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees requested Trump's financial records from his banks and other businesses he worked with. Trump's lawyers sued to block those subpoenas, but in each case, courts ruled against them. So they appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court, first getting stays on the rulings to block the records' immediate release to the oversight committee, and then getting the whole case accepted Friday.
Previous judges have noted that past presidents released their tax returns to the public, and Trump's lawyers subsequently argued that the subpoenas are not a legitimate legislative inquiry. Kathryn Krawczyk
President Trump has at least three Jewish friends. He just asks them all the same questions.
On at least four occasions over the past few months, Trump has pulled out a story where he's purportedly asking a friend which of his administration's moves have been bigger for the Jewish people. The friend always gives the same answer — but Trump changes the name of who he's talking to each time, The Washington Post reports.
"Charlie, let me ask you what’s bigger for the Jewish people," Trump recalled asking Charles Kushner, the disgraced real estate developer and father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, at a Hanukkah event on Wednesday. "Giving the embassy to Jerusalem" and recognizing it as Israel's capital or supporting Israel's sovereignty in the disputed Golan Heights. "Neither," Kushner apparently replied. "The biggest thing of all is what you did by ending the Iran nuclear catastrophe."
Yet just a few hours earlier, Trump told nearly the same story, this time involving the even shiftier New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. A few days earlier, it was Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson who Trump asked about Israeli accomplishments. And back in September, it was a nondescript "people" who told him they loved his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
Read the full accounts or watch them mashed up side-by-side at The Washington Post. Kathryn Krawczyk
Mitch McConnell has declared himself judge, jury, and White House coordinator in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.
As the House Judiciary Committee continued to debate its articles of impeachment against President Trump on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made a shocking statement: He'll be working "in total coordination" with the White House counsel's office on impeachment. That doesn't mesh well with senators' roles as impartial jurors in an impeachment trial, and it unsurprisingly caught Democrats' attention.
"Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel," McConnell said of impeachment in his Thursday segment with Fox News' Sean Hannity. "There will be no difference between the president's position and our position in how to handle this." Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) quickly brought up McConnell's comments as Thursday's impeachment debate continued, translating them to mean "the jury — Senate Republicans — are going to coordinate with the defendant — Donald Trump — on how exactly the kangaroo court is going to be run."
The next morning, other Judiciary Democrats took a stab at McConnell's comments. "I think it is outrageous for the chief juror who is organizing the trial to be coordinating with the defendant," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told CNN. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) went further, saying because McConnell is "working hand in hand with the White House, with the president's attorney," he should "recuse himself" from the trial. Kathryn Krawczyk