Mediaboss Marketing

The national political debate is consumed with allegations of collusion with a foreign government, playing dirty in the election and giving preferential treatment to family and friends.

Familiar charges, no doubt, but there is a twist: In each of these cases, President Trump and his allies are making the accusations, and their target is Hillary Clinton the Democrat vanquished in a presidential contest held nearly nine months ago.

For many Republicans, the 2016 election is still alive and well a go-to counterargument as Trumps agenda bogs down and questions multiply around the Trump campaigns possible improper contacts with Russian officials.

The latest example came Monday night when Trump, in an address to a Boy Scouts Jamboree in West Virginia, chided Clinton for not working hard enough in key Midwestern states that unexpectedly turned red on election night.

Do you remember that incredible night with the maps? Trump asked the Scouts.

(Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)

Earlier in the day, taking to Twitter, Trump asked why investigators and his beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, arent looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?

In both public pronouncements and on social media, the president and his allies including the Republican National Committee are arguing, often with scant evidence, that Trumps former rival engaged in similar, if not worse, behavior. The mere mention of Clinton, who remains a reviled figure among Trumps core supporters, also serves as a reminder of how much worse they think things would be if she were in the Oval Office.

[Republicans are in full control of government but losing control of their party]

This certainly seems to be a preoccupation, and as far as I can tell, its unprecedented, said Doug Heye, a Republican consultant and former RNC communications director.

Trump, in many respects, has never stopped reliving last years election. He still makes frequent references to his triumph over Clinton, even in official White House speeches. In an interview last week with New York Times reporters, he quickly mentioned Clintons failure while first lady to help pass a comprehensive health-care bill.

From the podium of the White House briefing room, Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders has also tried to shift the focus to Clinton.

Look, I think if you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, Id look no further than the Clintons, she said, citing a speech former president Bill Clinton had given to a Russian bank, among other things.

More recently, the RNC has started making a habit of focusing on Clinton in research memos distributed to reporters, White House and Capitol Hill staffers, GOP party leaders and other Washington insiders.

One recent memo highlighted Clintons initial opposition to a set of Russian sanctions while secretary of state. Another detailed internal discussions among Clintons campaign staff brought to light in hacked emails about whether to make an issue during the primaries of fraud allegations related to the wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).

Yet another highlighted opposition research done last year by a Democratic consultant regarding a leading Trump associate, allegedly with the assistance of the Ukrainian Embassy an exercise that Trump boosters have argued comes closer to collusion with a foreign government than anything proven about the Trump campaign.

Still another memo last week carried the subject header Hillary Clinton but was about another subject entirely: the governors race in Virginia. An RNC aide acknowledged that the use of Clintons name was an attempt to get more attention.

[Trump can usually make it about a third of the way through an interview without mentioning Hillary Clinton]

Republican operatives say Clinton remains fair game, even though she holds no government office and has given no indication that she plans to run for anything again. The Democrats are completely divided and without a leader, said RNC spokesman Michael Ahrens, adding that Clintons plans for a new advocacy group, Onward Together, shows she isnt trying to exit the political arena anytime soon.

Republican hands say some of the focus on Clinton is the result of her being in the headlines recently, including stories last week about an investigation that found the U.S. Postal Service engaged in violations of federal law by pressuring managers to approve letter carriers taking time off to campaign for Clinton last fall.

During the recent Group of 20 summit, Trump also referred to Clintons daughter, Chelsea, in a tweet after he caught flak for briefly turning over his seat to daughter Ivanka during a session with other world leaders. Claiming a double standard, Trump asserted that if the same thing had happened under a Hillary Clinton presidency, the Fake News would have cheered the move.

Undoubtedly, part of the reason that Clinton remains a popular target for Trump and his allies is that she remains a largely unpopular figure.

A Bloomberg News poll this month found 39 percent of Americans rating her favorably and 58percent unfavorably. That hasnt changed much since the election and is about where Trump stands: His favorable rating was 41 percent while his unfavorable rating was 55 percent in the same poll.

Among Republicans, Clinton is even more of an anathema. Only 11percent of Republicans viewed her favorably in a Gallup poll last month.

I dont know if theres some grand scheme here, Barry Bennett, a Republican operative who advised Trump during the general election campaign, said when asked about all the attention Clinton is still receiving. Shes a great motivator for our party. She makes Trump look popular.

[Sean Hannity provides a hospitable TV forum for embattled Donald Trump Jr.]

The focus on Clinton has also reverberated in conservative media, including on Fox News.

Before his recent exclusive interview with Donald Trump Jr. about his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign, host Sean Hannity spent several minutes outlining unfavorable stories about Clinton and the Democrats, including the Ukrainian reporting. Saying much of the media was obsessed with coverage of the Trump campaigns alleged Russian connections, Hannity said: I pose this question to everybody in the media thats forced to tune in tonight: Which is worse?

More recently, Jesse Watters, another Fox News host, cited reports that the special counsel investigating Russia was expanding his probe into Trumps business dealings before he became president.

The fact that the Trump Organization is now allegedly being investigated and the Clinton Foundation is not really scares me, Watters said, referring to the charity run by the former president, first lady and their daughter.

The latest cover of the National Enquirer supermarket tabloid, a publication with friendly ties to Trump, promised a world exclusive on the Russia scandal, alleging that HILLARY FRAMED DONALD TRUMP!

Democratic consultant Mary Anne Marsh said Trumps continued focus on Clinton appears to be part of a broader plan by the White House to play to the presidents base, which also includes plans to travel to Ohio on Tuesday for the latest in a series of campaign rallies in states he won.

Everything theyre doing is about keeping the base in place, because they know its going to get worse from here, Marsh said, referring to the multiple Russia probes. The Trump base loathes Hillary Clinton. Shes a great foil to muddy the waters on all these topics, whether its true or not.

Other presidents have cited their predecessors as a means of contrasting policy choices or pleading patience to turn around what was inherited.

President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies often talked about having to overcome the economic mess left by his predecessor, George W. Bush. And President Ronald Reagan and his team continued to talk about the malaise of Jimmy Carters presidency. But this dynamic is different, analysts say.

What is absolutely unprecedented is the focus on someone who wasnt president, who wasnt the incumbent, said Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian at New York University. Trump knows his base hates Hillary Clinton. He reminds them of why they should hate Hillary Clinton. Its a way of making them feel good about the choice they made in November.

Heye, the Republican operative, said Trump and his team would be better served by talking up his agenda for the country.

Jesse Ferguson, a former Clinton campaign spokesman, said that with few major accomplishments to tout, Trump seems mired in the past.

Hes like the guy at work who cant talk about anything but his high school football glory days because he hasnt done anything with his life since, Ferguson said.

Read the original post:
Trump and the Republicans just can't stop running against Hillary Clinton - Washington Post

This article first appeared on the Just Security site.

On Monday night, the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to compel Paul Manafort, the former chairman of the Trump presidential campaign, to testify at a public hearing on Wednesday.

The subpoena came as a surprise because just days earlier, Manafort and Donald Trump Jr. had reached a deal with the panel where they would provide records and be interviewed privately (versus in open session) in order to avoid being subponeaed at that time.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Paul Manafort, former Trump's campaign manager, at the Mayflower Hotel April 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty

According to the statement from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, negotiations with Manafort broke down over who in Congress would be able to access his transcribed interview:

Mr. Manafort, through his attorney, said that he would be willing to provide only a single transcribed interview to Congress, which would not be available to the Judiciary Committee members or staff. While the Judiciary Committee was willing to cooperate on equal terms with any other committee to accommodate Mr. Manaforts request, ultimately that was not possible.

To better understand this latest development, I turned to Andy Wright, Just Security s in-house expert on congressional investigations, to help explain it.

Manafort made demands that the committee, and likely the broader Congress, could not accept.

The committee wanted to get a transcribed interview of Manafort and Trump, Jr. before any subsequent public hearing. Sen. Grassley, as committee chair, had threatened to issue subpoenas for a public hearing, and used that leverage to obtain agreements to voluntarily appear for transcribed interviews.

However, unlike a hearing under subpoena compulsion, someone who voluntarily appears can seek to extract some procedural concessions from the investigating committee. For example, witnesses might seek commitments on the duration, format, legal representation, and transcript access (so the witness can review for error).

Once negotiations broke down, the committee reverted to its compulsory subpoena power.

First, Manafort wanted to do only one transcribed interview before all of Congress.

From his perspective, one interview minimizes the risk that differences in his answers, whether semantic or material, would be used as a perjury trap.

However, its a terrible deal for Congress. A single shot would mean that other committees, including the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the House Oversight Committee would all have to rely on the Senate Judiciarys single transcript.

More important, they would have had to rely on Senate Judiciarys questions. Other committees have different jurisdictions, different interests, and different memberships that may want to take questioning in other directions. Also, it might risk losing the opportunity to get Manafort on the record about facts we learn later.

It appears from the statement that the Senate Judiciary Committee was open to trying to play the pool reporter role for the other committees. I cant imagine any other committee would agree without being able to participate in the questions, and Senate Judiciary has no authority to extinguish other committees interests, especially in the House.

Perhaps Senate leadership could engage in deconfliction, but the House has its own prerogatives and constitutional role.

Second, Manafort sought to get an agreement that Grassley and Feinstein would restrict committee staff and member access to the interview transcript. That was a bridge too far. The transcript would then be of little utility to the investigators. Im not convinced that the committees or Senates rules would allow restrictions on Member access to non-classified materials, especially other committee members.

Confining Manaforts interview transcript within one committee would significantly hamper Congresss investigations.

Committees have different jurisdictions, interests, and agendas. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee has interests in counterintelligence and Russian election interference. They have access to intelligence products that the Senate Judiciary Members do not.

Naturally, Senate Intelligence will have different questions for Manafort than Senate Judiciary. And those questions are critical to the overall inquiry.

Adding to the confusion, Manafort met with the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

It is not unusual for witnesses to make requests that their transcripts, or certain topics covered, be kept confidential by a congressional committee. However, Congress almost never agrees. The problem here isnt that Manafort made the request, but that his legal team believed it was gettable.

Under both House and Senate rules, congressional subpoenas can command two things: production of documents and appearance to testify at a formal hearing or deposition. The rules do not permit compelled transcribed interviews.

That is why Congress uses its subpoena power threat, which raises the specter of public shaming, to extract agreements to sit for nonpublic transcribed interviews. That was the process here, but it apparently went off the rails.

Those negotiations would be separate, although Im sure his legal team is acutely monitoring these developments. We still dont know the terms of Trump, Jr.s interview.

If they dont strike a last-minute bargain, Manafort will need to appear at the hearing ready to testify on Wednesday. If he does not show, the Committee could find him in contempt.

I would not be surprised if Manafort pleads the Fifth at this point. However, given his meeting with the Senate Intelligence Committee, Manafort may have waived the Fifth at this point.

If he does show and testify, I anticipate he will get extremely rough treatment by members of both parties.

Kate Brannen is the deputy managing editor of Just Security and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council.

Andy Wright is a professor at Savannah Law School and former Associate Counsel to the President in the White House Counsels Office.

Continue reading here:
Will Manafort claim the Fifth Amendment? Where does this leave Donald Jr.? - Newsweek

The Second Circuit held in United States v. Allen, an appeal arising from the first U.S. prosecution in connection with the LIBOR manipulation scandal, that it violates a defendants Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to present an investigating grand or a trial jury with testimony that the defendant was compelled to give to foreign officials, regardless of whether the compelled testimony was presented directly or through another witness.

On July 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the conviction of two former London-based bankers, Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti, who were convicted in October 2015 on multiple counts of bank and wire fraud in connection with a scheme to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). See United States v. Allen, Crim. No. 16-939 (2d Cir. July 19, 2017). Witnesses for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) before both the grand and trial juries had been exposed to inculpatory testimony that the defendants were compelled to give against themselves by the UK government pursuant to UK law, and the Court of Appeals held that using that compelled testimony violated the defendants Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Second Circuit further held that the DOJ failed to carry its heavy burden under the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in United States v. Kastigar, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), to show that the testimony introduced before the grand and trial juries did not derive from the defendants compelled testimony. Because the prosecution failed to carry its Kastigar burden, and using the compelled testimony was not harmless error, the Second Circuit reversed the convictions and dismissed the indictments.

Alleged LIBOR Manipulation

Allen and Conti worked at Coperatieve Centrale RaiffeisenBoerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank), a Dutch bank. During the 2000s, Rabobank was one of 16 banks that submitted its borrowing rates for U.S. dollars and Japanese yen on a daily basis to the British Bankers Association (BBA), the entity that calculated the LIBOR. The LIBOR is a series of daily benchmark rates at which banks can borrow funds in various currencies for various time periods. For each currency for which it calculated the LIBOR, the BBA accepted rates the banks submitted, discarded certain high and low submissions, and averaged the remaining submissions. Many financial transactions, including interest rate swaps, are tied to the LIBOR on a particular date, and those transactions are either profitable or not depending on the LIBOR in the relevant currency for the relevant time period on the relevant date, called the fixing date.

Allen and Conti each had, at various times and with varying frequency, responsibility for Rabobanks rate submissions to the BBA. Neither Rabobank nor the UK government had any policies concerning the submission of rates used to derive the LIBOR. Like a number of other banks that submitted their borrowing rates to the BBA, Rabobank was a party to a large number of LIBOR-tied transactions.

The prosecutions evidence at trial, which the Court of Appeals reviewed in detail, showed that the defendants received requests from Rabobank traders who had taken LIBOR-tied positions in transactions that would either make or lose money for the bank depending on the LIBOR. The Court of Appeals wrote, The Governments theory of the case was that these trader requests were dictated by the traders (and thus Rabobanks) interest in having LIBOR be higher or lower on particular dates based on the transactions that the trader had entered or positions they held.

The defendants conceded that it was inappropriate to base Rabobanks LIBOR submissions on rates that would benefit Rabobank, rather than on market-based evidence of the range of reasonable rates that fairly represented the rate at which Rabobank could borrow in dollars or yen for various intervals on that day. The defendants position at trial was that, although they received requests from traders for higher or lower submissions to the BBA, they did not honor those requests.

Financial Conduct Authoritys Investigation and Aborted Prosecution

The UKs Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) worked in parallel with officials from the DOJ to investigate allegations of LIBOR manipulation and to interview individuals, including the defendants, in 2013. It was undisputed in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals that defendants Allen and Conti were compelled, on pain of imprisonment, to testify before the FCA. The FCA offered the defendants direct use immunity for their compelled testimony, but not derivative use immunity, according to the court. In other words, the FCA could not use the defendants statements against them at trial (i.e., no direct use), but could introduce evidence against them that it obtained based on their compelled statements (i.e., derivative use).

In contrast, when the DOJ seeks to compel a witness to testify over the witnesss invocation of his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the immunity order that is entered confers both direct and derivative use immunity. To avoid having the DOJs LIBOR investigation tainted by compelled testimony, the DOJ and the FCA interrogated witnesses on different days, with the DOJ interviewing first.

The FCA and the DOJ also investigated a Rabobank employee with rate submission responsibilities, Paul Robson, whom the FCA later charged with criminal conduct for his role in manipulating the LIBOR. As part of its pre-trial process in the UK, the FCA disclosed to Robson the compelled testimony that Allen and Conti had given. The Second Circuit stated that Robson closely reviewed that testimony, annotating it and taking several pages of notes. The FCA later abandoned its prosecution of Robson, and the DOJ picked up where the FCA left off.

In April 2014, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York indicted Robson and two other individuals but not Allen and Conti charging them with wire fraud, among other things. Robson proffered, signed a cooperation agreement, and pled guilty in summer 2014. Although Robson did not testify before the grand jury, information he provided to the DOJ was presented to the grand jury through an FBI agent. The grand jury subsequently indicted Allen and Conti, charging them with wire and bank fraud charges.

Allen and Conti waived extradition and filed a motion under Kastigar to suppress Robsons testimony at trial. The trial court deferred the Kastigar hearing until after trial. Robson testified at trial, and the jury convicted the defendants on all charges.

At the post-trial Kastigar hearing, Robson explained that he had been exposed to the defendants compelled testimony before the FCA. The trial court found, however, that Robsons statement that he had independent knowledge of the facts he presented at trial (and that had been presented to the grand jury through an FBI agent) was an independent source within the meaning of Kastigar.

Court of Appeals Holds Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Privilege Applies to Foreign-Compelled Testimony

The Court of Appeals held that the Fifth Amendments privilege against self-incrimination requires that a defendants statement to a foreign government official be voluntary before it can be admitted in a U.S. trial. The Second Circuit emphasized repeatedly that the self-incrimination privilege is a personal trial right that is absolute. As a result, in the courts opinion, the self-incrimination privilege applies to bar the admission in U.S. trials of a defendants compelled statements to a foreign government official even when, as in this case, the foreign government official acted pursuant to the foreign nations legal process in obtaining those statements. In short, if a sovereign power compelled the defendant to testify under the cruel trilemma of self-accusation, perjury or contempt, the statement cannot be used in a U.S. court to indict the defendant or obtain a conviction. The Court of Appeals was unwilling to countenance the DOJs position in the case, which would remove all impediment to introducing the defendants foreign compelled testimony, as in, the court wrote, Your honor, we offer Government Exhibit 1, the defendants compelled testimony.

The Second Circuit considered misplaced the U.S. governments concern that a foreign government might attempt to sabotage U.S. prosecutions by compelling and then broadcasting a defendants testimony to potential witnesses. The court quoted a speech by former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell, who spoke of the DOJs efforts to coordinate with its counterparts abroad in investigating and prosecuting crime. The court noted that the DOJ was aware of its burden to avoid using compelled testimony as reflected by the interview scheduling system used in this case. The court also left open the possibility that there may be a different result if the foreign power appeared to be attempting to undermine a U.S. prosecution, noting that it would call into question whether the testimony obtained was really involuntary.

Having defined the defendants Fifth Amendment rights, the court concluded that the government violated their privilege against self-incrimination by introducing Robsons testimony at trial and to the grand jury through an FBI agent. Relying on Kastigar, the court explained that the privilege against self-incrimination applies not only to the testimony itself but to evidence derived from that testimony. The court noted that, when a defendant has been compelled to testify and is later prosecuted, the trial court will convene a hearing, a so-called Kastigar hearing, at which the prosecution must carry the heavy, albeit not insurmountable, burden that the evidence it will introduce was derived from legitimate independent sources. Typically, the prosecution meets this burden with canned testimony, that is, testimony the witness gave before he or she was tainted by exposure to the compelled testimony.

At the Kastigar hearing before the trial court in the Allen case, the exact opposite happened: Robson admitted that his testimony to the FCA was very different from the testimony he gave in the United States after reviewing the testimony of Allen and Conti. The Second Circuit held that the Kastigar hearing actually proved Robson had been tainted by the defendants compelled testimony to the FCA. The court concluded that the presentation of the tainted evidence to the grand and trial juries was not harmless, and it both vacated the conviction and dismissed the indictment against the defendants.

Implications

The Second Circuit explained that cross-border prosecutions are on the rise and observed that the DOJ is detailing its prosecutors to foreign investigators, including INTERPOL and the FCA. The court understood that, in the governments view, witness testimony is often the key to unraveling international financial crime. Although the court would not presume to know exactly what this brave new world of international criminal enforcement will entail, it was certain that these developments abroad need not affect the fairness of our trials at home.

Indeed, earlier this year, the DOJs Antitrust Division issued a Division Update, explaining that international cooperation on investigations of cartels was a top a priority and it was exploring bi-, tri- and multilateral agreements to foster greater international cooperation. Additionally, at a recent speech in Brazil, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Trevor N. McFadden stated that cooperation with our foreign partners has become a hallmark of our work and observed that reciprocity in information sharing is a vital tool in the modern prosecutors toolbox.

Indeed, recent settlements and investigations show that the DOJ is actively coordinating its efforts with the FCA and other foreign investigators. For example, earlier this year, State Street Corporation announced that it had reached a settlement with the DOJ concerning allegations it overcharged certain clients, an allegation first disclosed to the FCA in 2011. Also, in April, it was reported that the DOJ and the FCA are collaborating in an investigation into whether individuals at Barclays Bank engaged in civil or criminal misconduct in attempting to unmask a whistleblower. And the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York, the office that prosecuted Allen and Conti, announced late last year that it had charged several individuals with wire and securities fraud, identify theft and computer hacking following an investigation conducted in concert with Lahav 433, the cyber unit of the Israeli National Police, which, like the FCA, can legally compel witness testimony.

This international cooperation also is occurring among government regulators with civil remedies at their disposal. For example, when the SEC announced the filing of a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act complaint against executives at investment firm Och-Ziff Capital Management Group in January 2017, the SEC thanked the FCA and financial regulators in Guernsey, Jersey, Malta, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Switzerland for assisting in the investigation that led to the complaint.

Given the increase in cross-border investigations involving cooperation between U.S. and foreign law enforcement and regulatory authorities, practitioners representing defendants who have been interrogated abroad should investigate the possibility that compelled testimony was disseminated to witnesses the DOJ put before the grand jury or will call at trial. While the fact pattern in Allen is somewhat unique, there is a significant tactical advantage to identifying whether any witnesses were exposed to the compelled testimony and forcing the prosecution to carry its heavy burden under Kastigar of showing its evidence is untainted.

Read more:
Fifth Amendment Prohibits Use of Compelled Foreign Testimony in ... - Lexology (registration)

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday countries which promised to get back weapons supplied to Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria were trying to trick Turkey and would eventually realize their mistake.

Ankara was infuriated by a U.S. decision last month to arm the YPG, which Washington sees as a vital ally in the battle against Islamic State in its Syrian stronghold of Raqqa but which Turkey deems an extension of the outlawed Kurdish PKK.

The PKK, designated a terrorist group by the United States, the European Union and Turkey, has been waging an insurgency in southeastern Turkey since the 1980s.

Turkish defense ministry sources said on Thursday the United States had pledged that weapons provided to the YPG would be taken back once Islamic State was defeated.

However Erdogan, addressing members of his ruling AK Party in a speech marking the start of the Islamic Eid holiday, appeared to dismiss those assurances, saying Turkey's friends and allies were cooperating with terrorists.

"The ones who think they are tricking Turkey by saying they are going to get back the weapons that are being given to this terrorist organization will realize that they are making a mistake eventually," he said.

"But it will be too late for them," he added, saying that if violence spilled over Syria's border into Turkey, Ankara would hold to account anyone who supplied arms to the YPG.

"We will make the real owners of those weapons... pay for any bullet that will be fired to our country, for every drop of blood that will be shed," he said.

U.S. President Donald Trump decided to arm the YPG fighters, who form a main part of the U.S.-backed force fighting Islamic State inside Raqqa, despite protests from NATO ally Ankara and a direct appeal from Erdogan at a White House meeting last month.

Erdogan said the decision contravened the military alliance's framework of cooperation.

Faced with turmoil across its southern border, Turkey last year sent troops into Syria to support Syrian rebels fighting both Islamic State and Kurdish forces who control a large part of Syria's northern border region.

"I want all the world to know that in northern Syria, on our border, we are never going to allow a terrorist state to be established," Erdogan said.

(Reporting by Omer Berberoglu; Writing by Dominic Evans; Editing by Gareth Jones)

More:
Erdogan dismisses pledges over weapons for Kurds in Syria

Chancellor candidate Martin Schulz of the German Social Democratic Party speaks at his party's annual economy forum in Berlin, Germany, June 13, 2017. REUTERS/Axel Schmidt

BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Union must become stronger in response to a weakening of democracy in the United States, Russia and Turkey, the leader of Germany's centre-left Social Democrats said in remarks published on Saturday.

Martin Schulz, who is also a former president of the European Parliament, said that U.S. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan behaved like "autocratic rulers".

"It is now important to rejuvenate Europe and make it stronger. Not only through words but also through concrete policies," Schulz told the Passauer Neue Presse.

Chancellor Angela Merkel hosts leaders of the G20 leading economies at a summit in Hamburg on July 7-8, where Trump's vow to renegotiate trade agreements and make them better for the United States is expected to be one of the most divisive topics on the agenda.

Opposition to Trump's protectionist agenda is one area on which Schulz and Merkel agree. Schulz last month accused Trump of destroying Western values and undermining international cooperation.

"There are some in the G20 that behave like autocratic rulers: Turkish President Erdogan, Russian President Putin and also U.S. President Trump," Schulz said.

Schulz's SPD are 14 percentage points behind Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavaria-based Christian Social Union sister party three months before a national election on Sept. 24.

Trump wants Germany and other European allies to boost defence contributions to the NATO military alliance. He has criticized Germany's large trade surplus with the United States.

Merkel said this week that open markets and free trade were a key focus of Germany's G20 presidency.

(Reporting by Joseph Nasr; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

See the article here:
Trump, Putin and Erdogan behave like autocratic rulers ...