Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

"the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects (and) …are insufficient to protect public health"….

"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on
general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."

https://www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/

The EMF Call

Call for Truly Protective Limits for Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)

ICNIRP's opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health

---

Download The EMF Call as pdf  EN | FR | DE | ES | IT | RU | FI | SL | GR

---

In order to protect the public and the environment from the known harmful effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) we ask the United Nations, the World Health Organization and all governments not to accept the ICNIRP guidelines. They are not protective, rather they pose a serious risk to human health and the environment since they allow harmful exposure to the world population, including the most vulnerable, under the unscientific pretext that they are "protective".

Background

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issued draft Guidelines on 11^th July 2018 for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).¹ These guidelines are unscientific, obsolete and do not represent an objective evaluation of the available science on effects from this form of radiation. They ignore the vast amount of scientific findings that clearly and convincingly show harmful effects at intensities well below ICNIRP guidelines.² The guidelines are inadequate to protect humans and the environment.

ICNIRP guidelines only protect against acute thermal effects from very short and intense exposure. The guidelines do not protect against harmful effects from low-intensity and long-term exposure, such as cancer, reproductive harm, or effects on the nervous system, although these effects are convincingly shown to appear from chronic exposure at intensities below ICNIRP limits.^2,3

In May, 2011, the World HealthOrganization's cancer agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) concluded that radiofrequency radiation in the frequency range 30 kHz–300 GHz is a "possible" human carcinogen (Group 2B).⁴ ICNIRP ignores this importantconclusion. On the contrary, in the past seven years, the evidence base forcarcinogenicity has increased substantially.^2,3,5-10

244 scientists state that ICNIRP guidelines are not protective

The ICNIRPopinion is not in line with that of the scientific community that has published peer-reviewed research on EMF biologic or health effects. Since 2015, 244 scientists have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal¹¹ and are of the opinion that more protective EMF guidelines than ICNIRP's arenecessary to protect public health:

"the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects (and) …are insufficient to protect public health"….

"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on
general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."

ICNIRP's mandate needs to be questioned

ICNIRP's mandate to issue exposure guidelines needs to be seriously questioned. ICNIRP is not independent of industry ties as it claims.^12,13 Its opinions are not objective, not representative of the body of scientific evidence, but are biased in favor of industry. It is obvious from their reluctance to consider scientific findings of harm that ICNIRP protects industry, not the public health, nor the environment.

ICNIRP's first chairman and other experts have or have had financial ties to the telecom, military and/or power industry.^12-15 Their first chairman managed to head the WHO EMF project using WHO as an umbrella to promote ICNIRP guidelines as the world standard. That person was also responsible for channeling funding from the telecom industry to the WHO EMF project for several years.^13,14

New truly protective guidelines are needed

Weask the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and all governments to support the development and consideration of medical guidelines¹⁶,that are independent of conflict of interests in terms of direct or indirectties to industry, that represent the state of medical science, and that aretruly protective.  

Date: October 30, 2018

Note: The signatories to this call have signed as individuals, but that does
not necessarily mean that this represents the views of their employers or the
professional organizations they are affiliated with.

Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D, Department ofOncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden (retired), The Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Örebro, Sweden

Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria

¹ https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/public-consultation/consultation-1.html

² https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118310157

³ www.bioinitiative.org

⁴ https://monographs.iarc.fr/iarc-monographs-on-the-evaluation-of-carcinogenic-risks-to-humans-14/

⁵ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2017/9218486/

⁶ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557

⁷ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr595peerdraft.pdf

⁸ https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr596peerdraft.pdf

⁹ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118304973

¹⁰ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367

¹¹ https://emfscientist.org/

¹² https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-4/reveh-2016-0060/reveh-2016-0060.pdf

¹³ https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijo.2017.4046

¹⁴ https://microwavenews.com/CT.html

¹⁵ https://microwavenews.com/news-center/iarc-drops-anders-ahlbom-rf%E2%80%93cancer-panel

¹⁶ https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.2016.31.issue-3/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.pdf

Kwekwecnewtxw: Protect the Inlet – Four Sentenced to Jail and Taken Into Custody Today For Trans Mountain Pipeline Opposition

https://protecttheinlet.ca/october_30_four_women_jailed/?fbclid=IwAR1s-Y_lGAwFYI8TLWbz7jnL8I7Y4g25AIEAPSZS9SF0xuA2jt8AI7jP_ss

Four Sentenced to Jail and Taken Into Custody Today For Trans Mountain Pipeline Opposition

14-Day Jail Sentence begins today for women, while defense lawyer seeks bail

30 October 2018, Unceded Coast Salish Territories (Vancouver, BC): Four women were just sentenced to 14 days in jail and taken away by bailiffs after blocking construction at a Trans Mountain pipeline Burnaby construction site in August.

Kathryn Cass (66), Deb Wood (64), Kira McLean (24), and Brenda Morrice (57), pled guilty to criminal contempt on October 19th after being charged with violating a court-ordered injunction meant to protect construction on the pipeline and tanker project.

Defence lawyer Donna Turko is appealing all four sentences and will be working to have Protectors released on bail pending appeal. She is anticipating a possible bail hearing with the BC Court of Appeal as early as tomorrow morning.

On October 19th, the judge reserved sentencing until October 30th after a request from defense counsel for a written ruling in order to appeal any custodial sentence.

Despite the August 30th Federal Court of Appeal ruling that quashed the approval of and stopped construction on the federal pipeline project, Protectors who blocked Trans Mountain construction sites in late August are still subject to the Crown Prosecution Services recommendation of up to 28 days in jail to prevent more protest.

There are now 20 Protectors who have already served, or are serving, jail time for their opposition to the pipeline, including Order of Canada recipient and Vancouver councillor Jean Swanson. Since March, over 240 people have been arrested while blocking construction on the Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker project.

"On August 24th, I defied an injunction granted by the Canadian court while I was on unceded land belonging to Coast Salish Nations," said Kathryn Cass outside the BC Supreme Court on October 19th. "In my heart, I was following laws that have been in place long before my European ancestors occupied this land. It is my understanding that those laws include taking care of the health of our land and water."

From April until June, penalties for blockading Kinder Morgan's gates consisted of increasing fines and community service, until the Crown Prosecution Service petitioned the court for sentences of jail time to deter Protectors from taking action. The Crown Prosecutor Monte Rattan argued in June that senior citizens willing to be arrested for civil disobedience constituted a "sinister challenge to the authority of the court."

After the Federal Court of Appeal ruling on August 30th that quashed construction on the pipeline and tanker project, Protectors argued in court that the Crown's jail deterrent should no longer stand, as there is no longer any basis to re-offend. The court has rejected that argument, and continues to send Protectors to jail.

Apple iPad Pro Announcement 2018 Liveblog | WIRED

https://www.wired.com/2018/10/liveblog-apple-october-event/?intcid=inline_amp

Apple Liveblog: Get Live Updates on New iPads and MacBooks

Wired Staff

On Tuesday, October 30, Apple is expected to debut some new hardware. At the top of the list of anticipated announcements is a refresh of the iPad Pro. The powerful tablet, which comes in two sizes and is optimized for creative professionals, is likely to get an update that shrinks the bezels, adds USB-C charging, and introduces a new size Pro with an 11-inch display.

Also expected: a new ultraportable MacBook to take the place of the aging MacBook Air. Yeah, we've been saying that for a while, but recent reports are making it seem like this Goldilocks PC might be dropping this week.

Apple's live event starts at 10 am EDT. That's 7 am Pacific, which is blisteringly early for a big news event. But we have delicious coffee, so we'll be liveblogging all the action, posting live updates as the New York City event unfolds. Come back right here to this post to read our liveblog starting at 9:30 am EDT / 6:30 am PDT. We'll discuss the latest news leading up to the main event, so join us to get an early start. This page will switch to our liveblog once we begin.

You can watch live video of Apple's big show on the internet. Why do we publish a liveblog even though you can watch a video stream? Because we love liveblogs, that's why. You probably love liveblogs too. So join us here starting at (yawn) 6:30 am PDT, 9:30 am EDT. Apple's presentation then begins at 7 am PDT, 10 am EDT.

Apple Store Down Ahead of Today's Event in New York City - Mac Rumors

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/30/apple-store-down-ahead-of-todays-ny-event/amp/

Apple Store Down Ahead of Today's Event in New York City

Tim Hardwick

Apple has taken down its online store ahead of today's event in New York, scheduled to begin 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, Howard Gilman Opera House.


Apple's October event will focus on products not introduced at the iPhone-centric event in September. On that occasion, Apple failed to take down its sitemap XML leading up to the event, resulting in a raft of major leaks ahead of the keynote. That's not the case this time around.

We're still awaiting multiple product refreshes before the end of 2018, including updates to several Mac models and the iPad Pro, which are likely to see a debut at the event.

2018 iPad Pro models are expected to adopt an iPhone X-style design with no Home button, slimmer bezels, and a TrueDepth camera system that will enable Face ID for biometric authentication. We could also see a redesigned Apple Pencil with new gesture and swipe features.

Along with new iPad Pro models, we're also expecting refreshes to the MacBook line. Refreshed 12-inch MacBooks are said to be in the works, and according to rumors, Apple has developed a low-cost notebook with a Retina display that could be positioned as an updated MacBook Air.

The Mac mini, which has not been updated for 1,475 days, is expected to be refreshed for the first time since 2014. We don't know a lot about what to expect for the Mac mini update, but upgraded internals and faster processors are certain.

Apple typically streams the event live on its website and on Apple TV, but for those who are unable to watch, MacRumors will be providing full event coverage both on MacRumors.com and through our MacRumorsLive Twitter account.

Readers who can't follow the event live and are interested in avoiding all of the announcements until Apple's posts the full video online can bookmark this page, where we'll post a spoiler-free link once it's up.

Venice under five feet of water as the city suffers its worst floods in 10 years - ITV News

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-10-30/venice-under-five-feet-of-water-as-the-city-suffers-its-worst-floods-in-10-years/

Venice under five feet of water as the city suffers its worst floods in 10 years

30 October 2018 at 9:30am

The Italian city of Venice was engulfed with water after high tides and strong winds caused the most severe flooding for a decade.

Tourists and residents donned high boots to navigate the streets of the lagoon city after water levels rose more than five feet.

The water exceeded the raised walkways normally put out in flooded areas of Venice.

Tourists and residents donned high boots to navigate the streets. Credit: AP

The flooding prompted transport officials to close the city's water bus system, except to outlying islands.

The city, famous for its canals, gondolas and beautiful churches, is frequently overwhelmed by water in the period from October to December, but the recent flooding was particularly heavy.

The peak water level was the highest it has reached in the city since December 2008, officials said.

People walk in a flooded St. Mark's Square in Venice, Italy. Credit: AP

The vast expanse of St Mark's Square was transformed into a lake, and raised walkways were laid out in front of the Doge's Palace and in other parts of the city.

Runners in Sunday's Venice Marathon also had to battle the flooding, but were undeterred as they splashed their way through ankle-deep water.

Conditions today in Venice Marathon pic.twitter.com/ut0cqViSdB

— Cuan Walker (@runwithcuan) October 28, 2018

Much of Italy is under alert for flooding from heavy rains, a problem exacerbated by a lack of maintenance of the country's many river beds.

High winds toppled trees and killed passers-by in four incidents in Naples, Lazio and Liguria.

A woman attempts to remove water from her shop in the flooded streets of Venice. Credit: AP

Officials closed major tourist attractions early in Rome, including the Colosseum and Roman Forum, because of heavy rains.

The Interior Ministry urged officials in storm-struck regions, about half of the country, to consider closing schools and offices for a second day on Tuesday.

Last updated Tue 30 Oct 2018

IBM to buy Red Hat for $34B in cash and debt, taking a bigger leap into hybrid cloud | TechCrunch

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/28/ibm-to-buy-red-hat-for-34b-in-cash-and-debt-taking-a-bigger-leap-into-hybrid-cloud/?utm_medium=TCnewsletter

IBM to buy Red Hat for $34B in cash and debt, taking a bigger leap into hybrid cloud

Oct 28 3:15p

After rumors flew around this weekend, IBM today confirmed that it would acquire open source, cloud software business Red Hat for $190 per share in cash, working out to a total value of $34 billion. IBM said the deal has already been approved by the boards of directors of both IBM and Red Hat but is still subject to Red Hat shareholder and regulatory approvals. If all goes as planned, the acquisition is expected to close in the latter half of 2019.

The deal is all about IBM, which has long continued to rely on its legacy server business, taking a bigger bet on the cloud, and very specifically cloud services that blend on-premises and cloud-based architectures — something that the two companies have already been working on together since May of this year (which now might be looked at as a test drive). Red Hat will be a distinct unit within IBM's Hybrid Cloud team — which is already a $19 billion business for IBM, the company said — and it will continue to focus on open-source software. 

"The acquisition of Red Hat is a game-changer. It changes everything about the cloud market," said Ginni Rometty, IBM Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, in a statement. "IBM will become the world's number-one hybrid cloud provider, offering companies the only open cloud solution that will unlock the full value of the cloud for their businesses."

The combined businesses will be able to offer software in services spanning Linux, containers, Kubernetes, multi-cloud management, and cloud management and automation, IBM said. IBM also added that together the companies will continue to build partnerships with multiple cloud providers, including AWS, Microsoft's Azure, Google Cloud, Alibaba and others, alongside the IBM Cloud.

As Josh Constine notes here, it's one of the biggest-ever tech acquisitions, and arguably the biggest that is dedicated primarily to software. (Dell acquired EMC for $67 billion, to pick up software but also a substantial hardware and storage business.)

While companies like Amazon have gone all-in on cloud, in many cases, a lot of enterprises are making the move gradually — IBM cites stats that estimate that some 80 percent of business workloads "have yet to move to the cloud, held back by the proprietary nature of today's cloud market." Buying Red Hat will help IBM better tap into an opportunity to address that.

"Most companies today are only 20 percent along their cloud journey, renting compute power to cut costs," she continued. "The next 80 percent is about unlocking real business value and driving growth. This is the next chapter of the cloud. It requires shifting business applications to hybrid cloud, extracting more data and optimizing every part of the business, from supply chains to sales."

On top of that, it will give IBM a much stronger footing in open source software, the core of what Red Hat builds and deploys today.

"Open source is the default choice for modern IT solutions, and I'm incredibly proud of the role Red Hat has played in making that a reality in the enterprise," said Jim Whitehurst, President and CEO, Red Hat, in a statement. "Joining forces with IBM will provide us with a greater level of scale, resources and capabilities to accelerate the impact of open source as the basis for digital transformation and bring Red Hat to an even wider audience –  all while preserving our unique culture and unwavering commitment to open source innovation."

While IBM competes against the likes of Amazon, the companies will see to remain partners with them with this acquisition. "IBM is committed to being an authentic multi-cloud provider, and we will prioritize the use of Red Hat technology across multiple clouds" said Arvind Krishna, Senior Vice President, IBM Hybrid Cloud, in a statement. "In doing so, IBM will support open source technology wherever it runs, allowing it to scale significantly within commercial settings around the world."

IBM said that Red Hat will add to its revenue growth, gross margin and free cash flow within 12 months of closing.

New Harvard theory: Aliens have star-powered spaceships | From the Grapevine

https://www.fromthegrapevine.com/travel/harvard-university-theory-aliens-have-star-powered-spaceships

New Harvard theory: Aliens have star-powered spaceships

Scientists discovered a massive radio wave, and they can't find a good explanation for it. Unless ...

Scientists discovered a massive radio wave, and they can't find a good explanation for it. Unless ...

A couple of scientists from the well-respected Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics recently wrote an astrophysics paper that is so awesome, it will make you want to read an astrophysics paper. The scientists have been puzzling over some weirdly strong radio wave bursts in space, and they've come up with an explanation: aliens.

"An artificial origin is worth contemplating and checking," said Avi Loeb, an Israeli-American professor who worked on the study.

It all started when an astrophysicist was combing through the archives in Australia's Parkes Observatory, and he noticed a mysterious spurt of radio activity. It was short but intense. Really intense. Like, 500 million times the power of the sun intense.

Space is full of weird light, so that's no big deal, right? Wrong, apparently. Scientists have been trying to figure out what the burst could be for 10 years, and they still don't know. Some think it's a massive, particularly weird star that collapsed into its core. Or maybe it's a solar flare that somehow managed to travel across the known universe. Or ...

Yep. Aliens. At least, that's what the Harvard-Smithsonian scientists are proposing. You can start freaking out now.

Here's the theory: There's a faraway alien civilization that uses artificial beams to power spaceships with light sails. They harness energy from a star and cool their beam machine with planet-sized buckets of water.

Cool, right? We're not talking about boring, single-celled aliens here. We're talking about an advanced civilization, way more advanced than, you know, us. Our sail-related ships are limited to the kind that stay in water.

"Deciding what's likely ahead of time limits the possibilities," said Loeb, an alumnus of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "It's worth putting ideas out there and letting the data be the judge."

It's still a theory, but we at From the Grapevine are definitely rooting for it. Discovering alien life would mean a total change in how we view reality. Plus, we could do so much cool stuff with aliens. Like discover new things about the universe and have alien romances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmiZb3ndMCk

Korea.net : The official website of the Republic of Korea

http://www.korea.net/Government/Constitution-and-Government/Constitution

Featured Topics

The country’s Constitution was promulgated on July 17, 1948 after a month and half of work for its enactment. The government observes it as a national holiday. The first amendment to the Constitution was made in July 1952, while the 9th and last amendment was passed by referendum on October 27, 1987.

The country’s Constitution adopts liberal democracy as the basic principle of governance. The Constitution guarantees the people’s freedom and rights under various laws. It also guarantees equal opportunities in all sectors, including politics, economy, society and culture, and recognizes the necessity of establishing a welfare state. The Constitution also stipulates that all people have the obligation to pay taxes, engage in national defense, educate their children, and work.

The Constitution states that the country should endeavor to maintain international peace. It stipulates that international treaties signed by the country and generally accepted international laws have the same effects as domestic laws. Under the Constitution, the status of aliens is guaranteed in accordance with international laws and treaties.

http://www.korea.net/Government/Constitution-and-Government/Constitution

URL Copy

Department Global Communication and Contents Division,  Contact Us

https://www.livescience.com/62445-hiroshima-atomic-bomb-radiation.html

Human Bone Reveals How Much Radiation Hiroshima Bomb Released — And It's Staggering

By Laura Geggel, Senior Writer | May 1, 2018 06:52am ET

This story was updated May 1 at 10:48 a.m. EDT.

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan, leading to a nuclear blast that instantly claimed about 45,000 lives. Now, the jawbone of one of those casualties — belonging to a person who was less than a mile from the bomb's hypocenter — is helping researchers determine how much radiation was absorbed by the bones of the victims, a new study finds.

The amount is staggering: Analyses show that the jawbone's radiation dose was about 9.46 grays (Gy). A Gy is the absorption of one joule of radiation energy per kilogram of matter, which in this case is bone. [5 Everyday Things That Are Radioactive]

"About half that dose, or 5 Gy, is fatal if the entire body is exposed to it," study co-researcher Oswaldo Baffa, a professor at the University of São Paulo's Ribeirão Preto School of Philosophy, Science & Letters, said in a statement.

Previous studies have measured other aspects of the bomb's catastrophic effects, including the radiation dose victims were exposed to from nuclear fallout (which is radioactive dust) and how the fallout affected human DNA and health, the researchers said. 

However, this is the first study to use a victim's bone as a dosimeter — a tool that allows scientists to measure an absorbed dose of ionizing radiation, the researchers said. Moreover, the technique the scientists used — known as electron spin resonance (ESR) — is a precise method that can measure radiation dose in future nuclear events, the researchers said.

The victim's jaw was found about a mile (1.5 kilometers) from the atomic bomb hypocenter in Hiroshima, Japan.

Credit: Kinoshita et al./PLoS ONE/CC by 4.0

"Currently, there's renewed interest in this kind of methodology due to the risk of terrorist attacks in countries like the United States," Baffa said. Techniques such as this one "can help identify who has been exposed to radioactive fallout and needs treatment" in the event of a nuclear attack, he added.

Decades-long research

The new finding is decades in the making. In the 1970s, study senior researcher Sérgio Mascarenhas, who was then a physicist at the University of São Paulo's São Carlos Physics Institute, discovered that X-ray and gamma-ray irradiation made human bones slightly magnetic, according to the statement.

This phenomenon — called paramagnetism — happens because the bone contains a mineral called hydroxyapatite. When bone is irradiated, it produces CO2- that shows up in the hydroxyapatite. The resulting free radicals can then be used as a marker for radiation dose in bone.

At first, Mascarenhas thought he would use this technique to date ancient bones for archaeologists. His research was so widely lauded that Harvard University invited him to teach. On one trip from Brazil in 1972, Mascarenhas stopped in Japan so he could test the method on the remains of people from the Hiroshima blast.

"They gave me a jawbone, and I decided to measure the radiation right there, at Hiroshima University," Mascarenhas said in the statement. "I needed to prove experimentally that my discovery was genuine."

His analysis was rudimentary; the lack of advanced computers meant that the estimate couldn't separate the atomic-bomb-induced signal from the background signal. Even so,he presented the results at the American Physical Society's annual March Meeting in Washington, D.C., in 1973.

Mascarenhas was allowed to keep the jawbone and brought it back with him to Brazil.

New analysis

Thanks to new advances in technology, researchers are now able to separate the background signal from the radiation dose from the nuclear attack. [Doomsday: 9 Real Ways Earth Could End]

"The background signal is a broad line that may be produced by various different things and lacks a specific signature," Baffa said. "The dosimetric signal is spectral. Each free radical resonates at a certain point on the spectrum when exposed to a magnetic field."

When the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb, the weapon exploded about 1,900 feet (580 meters) above Hiroshima, Live Science previously reported. The person whose jaw the researchers examined was about 0.9 miles (1.5 kilometers) from the bomb's hypocenter, or the spot below the bomb's blast.

To study the bone, the researchers removed a small piece that was used in the previous study and then irradiated that piece in the lab, a process known as the additive dose method.

"We added radiation to the material and measured the rise in the dosimetric signal," Baffa said. By extrapolating from this signal, the researchers were able measure other samples, including different parts of the jawbone.

This technique allowed them to determine the radiation dose the bone received, which was similar to the dose distribution found in different materials around Hiroshima, including wall bricks and roof tiles, the researchers said.

"The measurement we obtained in this latest study is more reliable and up to date than the preliminary finding, but I'm currently evaluating a methodology that's about a thousand times more sensitive than" ESR, Mascarenhas said. "We'll have news in a few months."

The study was published online Feb. 6 in the journal PLOS ONE.

Editor's Note: This story was updated to correct the process that produces CO2- in irradiated bone. CO2- is not produced when CO2 loses electrons.

Original article on Live Science.

Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/robert-mueller-questions-trump.html

Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction

April 30, 2018

Robert S. Mueller III is said to be trying to determine whether the president had criminal intent when he fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director.J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia's election interference, has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects he wants to ask President Trump to learn more about his ties to Russia and determine whether he obstructed the inquiry itself, according to a list of the questions obtained by The New York Times.

[Read the questions here.]

The open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president's thinking, to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative Twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers. They deal chiefly with the president's high-profile firings of the F.B.I. director and his first national security adviser, his treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

But they also touch on the president's businesses; any discussions with his longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, about a Moscow real estate deal; whether the president knew of any attempt by Mr. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to set up a back channel to Russia during the transition; any contacts he had with Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime adviser who claimed to have inside information about Democratic email hackings; and what happened during Mr. Trump's 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant.

President Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday that it was "disgraceful" that questions the special counsel would like to ask him were publicly disclosed, and he incorrectly noted that there were no questions about collusion. The president also said collusion was a "phony" crime.

The questions provide the most detailed look yet inside Mr. Mueller's investigation, which has been shrouded in secrecy since he was appointed nearly a year ago. The majority relate to possible obstruction of justice, demonstrating how an investigation into Russia's election meddling grew to include an examination of the president's conduct in office. Among them are queries on any discussions Mr. Trump had about his attempts to fire Mr. Mueller himself and what the president knew about possible pardon offers to Mr. Flynn.

"What efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?" Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to questions read by the special counsel investigators to the president's lawyers, who compiled them into a list. That document was provided to The Times by a person outside Mr. Trump's legal team.

A few questions reveal that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. In one of the more tantalizing inquiries, Mr. Mueller asks what Mr. Trump knew about campaign aides, including the former chairman Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from Moscow: "What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?" No such outreach has been revealed publicly.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel's office did not respond to a request for comment.

The questions serve as a reminder of the chaotic first 15 months of the Trump presidency and the transition and campaign before that. Mr. Mueller wanted to inquire about public threats the president made, conflicting statements from Mr. Trump and White House aides, the president's private admissions to Russian officials, a secret meeting at an island resort, WikiLeaks, salacious accusations and dramatic congressional testimony.

The special counsel also sought information from the president about his relationship with Russia. Mr. Mueller would like to ask Mr. Trump whether he had any discussions during the campaign about any meetings with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and whether he spoke to others about either American sanctions against Russia or meeting with Mr. Putin.

Through his questions, Mr. Mueller also tries to tease out Mr. Trump's views on law enforcement officials and whether he sees them as independent investigators or people who should loyally protect him.

For example, when the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was fired, the White House said he broke with Justice Department policy and spoke publicly about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's email server. Mr. Mueller's questions put that statement to the test. He wants to ask why, time and again, Mr. Trump expressed no concerns with whether Mr. Comey had abided by policy. Rather, in statements in private and on national television, Mr. Trump suggested that Mr. Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation.

Many of the questions surround Mr. Trump's relationship with Mr. Sessions, including the attorney general's decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation and whether Mr. Trump told Mr. Sessions he needed him in place for protection.

Mr. Mueller appears to be investigating how Mr. Trump took steps last year to fire Mr. Mueller himself. The president relented after the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, threatened to resign, an episode that the special counsel wants to ask about.

"What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel in June of 2017?" Mr. Mueller planned to ask, according to the list of questions. "What did you think and do in reaction to Jan. 25, 2018, story about the termination of the special counsel and Don McGahn backing you off the termination?" he planned to ask, referring to the Times article that broke the news of the confrontation.

Mr. Mueller has sought for months to question the president, who has in turn expressed a desire, at times, to be interviewed, viewing it as an avenue to end the inquiry more quickly. His lawyers have been negotiating terms of an interview out of concern that their client — whose exaggerations, half-truths and outright falsehoods are well documented — could provide false statements or easily become distracted. Four people, including Mr. Flynn, have pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry.

The list of questions grew out of those negotiations. In January, Mr. Trump's lawyers gave Mr. Mueller several pages of written explanations about the president's role in the matters the special counsel is investigating. Concerned about putting the president in legal jeopardy, his lead lawyer, John Dowd, was trying to convince Mr. Mueller he did not need to interview Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Mueller was apparently unsatisfied. He told Mr. Dowd in early March that he needed to question the president directly to determine whether he had criminal intent when he fired Mr. Comey, the people said.

But Mr. Dowd held firm, and investigators for Mr. Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr. Dowd the questions they wanted to ask Mr. Trump.

When Mr. Mueller's team relayed the questions, their tone and detailed nature cemented Mr. Dowd's view that the president should not sit for an interview. Despite Mr. Dowd's misgivings, Mr. Trump remained firm in his insistence that he meet with Mr. Mueller. About a week and a half after receiving the questions, Mr. Dowd resigned, concluding that his client was ignoring his advice.

Mr. Trump's new lawyer in the investigation and his longtime confidant, Rudolph W. Giuliani, met with Mr. Mueller last week and said he was trying to determine whether the special counsel and his staff were going to be "truly objective."

Mr. Mueller's endgame remains a mystery, even if he determines the president broke the law. A longstanding Justice Department legal finding says presidents cannot be charged with a crime while they are in office. The special counsel told Mr. Dowd in March that though the president's conduct is under scrutiny, he is not a target of the investigation, meaning Mr. Mueller does not expect to charge him.

The prospect of pardons is also among Mr. Mueller's inquiries, and whether Mr. Trump offered them to a pair of former top aides to influence their decisions about whether to cooperate with the special counsel investigation.

Mr. Dowd broached the idea with lawyers for both of the advisers, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Manafort has pleaded not guilty on charges of money laundering and other financial crimes related to his work for the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.

Mr. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who was ousted from the White House in February 2017 amid revelations about contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States, ultimately pleaded guilty last December to lying to federal authorities and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel.

"After General Flynn resigned, what calls or efforts were made by people associated with you to reach out to General Flynn or to discuss Flynn seeking immunity or possible pardon?" Mr. Mueller planned to ask.

A version of this article appears in print on May 1, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Questions for President Show Depth of Inquiry Into Russian Meddling. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

What Mueller Wants to Ask Trump About Obstruction, and What It Means - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/questions-mueller-wants-to-ask-trump-russia.html

What Mueller Wants to Ask Trump About Obstruction, and What It Means

The questions show the special counsel's focus on obstruction of justice and touch on some surprising other areas.

April 30, 2018

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel.Doug Mills/The New York Times

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, recently provided President Trump's lawyers a list of questions he wants answered in an interview. The New York Times obtained the list; here are the questions, along with the context and significance of each. The questions fall into categories based on four broad subjects. They are not quoted verbatim, and some were condensed.

[Read our main story on the questions for Mr. Trump here.]

Questions related to Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser

Michael T. Flynn in December 2017.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America

• What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?

These questions revolve around whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct justice to protect Mr. Flynn from prosecution. His phone calls with Mr. Kislyak are at the heart of that inquiry.

During the calls, Mr. Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to sanctions just announced by the Obama administration. But Mr. Trump's aides publicly denied that sanctions were discussed and, when questioned by the F.B.I., Mr. Flynn denied it, as well. Mr. Mueller wants to know whether Mr. Flynn was operating on Mr. Trump's behalf. Prosecutors may already know the answer: Mr. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying and is cooperating with investigators.

• What was your reaction to news reports on Jan. 12, 2017, and Feb. 8-9, 2017?

In January, the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius revealed Mr. Flynn's phone calls with Mr. Kislyak. Mr. Ignatius questioned whether those conversations had violated a law prohibiting private citizens from attempting to undermine American policies. In February, The Washington Post revealed the true nature of Mr. Flynn's conversations with Mr. Kislyak.

Mr. Mueller wants to know, among other things, whether Mr. Trump feared that his national security adviser had broken the law and then tried to shield him from consequences.

• What did you know about Sally Yates's meetings about Mr. Flynn?

Ms. Yates, the acting attorney general for the first weeks of the Trump administration, twice warned the White House that Mr. Flynn was lying, and those lies made him vulnerable to Russian blackmail. No one from the White House has ever said how much Mr. Trump knew about those warnings.

• How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?

Eighteen days after Ms. Yates's warning, Mr. Flynn was asked to resign. The White House said that Mr. Trump lost confidence in Mr. Flynn because he had lied. But the White House has never fully explained why, after learning about the lie, officials waited so long to act.

• After the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?

The Times recently revealed that, when Mr. Flynn began considering cooperating with the F.B.I., Mr. Trump's lawyers floated the idea of a pardon. Mr. Mueller wants to know why.

---

Questions related to James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director

Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

• What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?

The questions about Mr. Comey relate to whether Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last year to shield Mr. Flynn, or anyone else, from prosecution. Mr. Trump has denied that, saying he fired Mr. Comey because of his mishandling of the F.B.I.'s investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.

This question is important because, if Mr. Trump truly was upset about the Clinton investigation, he would have shown an early distaste for Mr. Comey.

• What did you think about Mr. Comey's intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?

The briefing revealed that American intelligence agencies had concluded that Russian operatives meddled in the election to hurt Mrs. Clinton and to boost Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on these conclusions and said he believes the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, who denies any interference.

• What was your reaction to Mr. Comey's briefing that day about other intelligence matters?

This question addresses documents written by a retired British spy, Christopher Steele, who said that Russia had gathered compromising information on Mr. Trump. The documents, which became known as the Steele Dossier, also claim that the Trump campaign had ties to the Russian government. Mr. Comey privately briefed Mr. Trump about these documents.

• What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

A few weeks after his briefing, Mr. Comey was called to the White House for a private dinner. Mr. Comey's notes say that Mr. Trump raised concerns about the Steele Dossier and said he needed loyalty from his F.B.I. director. This question touches on Mr. Trump's true motivation for firing Mr. Comey: Was he dismissed because he was not loyal and would not shut down an F.B.I. investigation?

• What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

That was a key moment. Mr. Comey testified that the president told him, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go." Mr. Trump has denied this.

• What did you know about the F.B.I.'s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey's testimony on March 20, 2017?

Mr. Comey's testimony publicly confirmed that the F.B.I. was investigating members of the Trump campaign for possible coordination with Russia. Mr. Mueller wants to know what role that revelation played in Mr. Comey's firing.

• What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony? Describe your contacts with intelligence officials.

In the aftermath, The Post reported, Mr. Trump asked the United States' top intelligence official, Daniel Coats, to pressure Mr. Comey to back off his investigation. Mr. Mueller wants to ask Mr. Trump about his contacts with Mr. Coats as well as the C.I.A.'s director at the time, Mike Pompeo, and the National Security Agency's director, Michael S. Rogers. The conversations could reflect Mr. Trump's growing frustration with Mr. Comey — not about the Clinton case, but about his refusal to shut down the Russia inquiry.

• What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?

It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something specific about Mr. Trump's reaction to these interviews, but the question shows that Mr. Mueller is keenly interested in how Mr. Trump responded to each step of his investigation.

• What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?

Mr. Comey said that Mr. Trump called twice to ask him to say publicly that he was not under F.B.I. investigation. In the second call, Mr. Comey said, the president added: "I have been very loyal to you, very loyal. We had that thing, you know."

• What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo?

While the White House ultimately said Mr. Comey was fired for breaking with Justice Department policy and discussing the Clinton investigation, Mr. Trump expressed no such qualms in an interview with Ms. Bartiromo of Fox Business Network. "Director Comey was very, very good to Hillary Clinton, that I can tell you," he said. "If he weren't, she would be, right now, going to trial."

• What did you think and do about Mr. Comey's May 3, 2017, testimony?

In this Senate appearance, Mr. Comey described his handling of the Clinton investigation in detail. Mr. Comey was fired soon after. Mr. Mueller's question suggests he wants to know why Mr. Trump soured.

• Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role?

Over the past several months, Mr. Mueller has asked White House officials for the back story, and whether the public justification was accurate. He will be able to compare Mr. Trump's answers to what he has learned elsewhere.

• What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?

The day after Mr. Comey's firing, Mr. Trump met with Russian officials in the Oval Office. There, The Times revealed, Mr. Trump suggested he had fired Mr. Comey because of the pressure from the Russia investigation.

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job," Mr. Trump said. "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off."

• What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?

Shortly after firing Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump undercut his own argument when he told NBC News that he had been thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Mr. Comey.

"I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."

• What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet?

After The Times revealed the president's private dinner with Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter.

Mr. Comey appeared unworried. "Lordy, I hope there are tapes," Mr. Comey said. The White House ultimately said that, no, there were no tapes.

• What did you think about Mr. Comey's June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?

After he was fired, Mr. Comey testified about his conversations with Mr. Trump and described him as preoccupied with the F.B.I.'s investigation into Russia. After the testimony, Mr. Trump called him a liar.

• What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Comey had testified falsely to Congress and suggested that the Justice Department might investigate. Mr. Trump followed up with tweets suggesting that he should be investigated for rigging an inquiry into Mrs. Clinton. Such comments reinforced criticism that Mr. Trump views the Justice Department as a sword to use against his political rivals.

• What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?

Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe are among Mr. Trump's favorite targets. Mr. McCabe is a lifelong Republican, but Mr. Trump has criticized him as a Clinton loyalist because Mr. McCabe's wife, a Democrat, ran unsuccessfully for office in Virginia and received donations from a Clinton ally. This question suggests that Mr. Mueller wants to know whether Mr. Trump's criticism is an effort to damage the F.B.I. while it investigates the president's associates.

---

Questions related to Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April in Washington.Lawrence Jackson for The New York Times

• What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?

Mr. Trump has criticized Mr. Sessions's recusal from the Russia investigation. The Times reported that Mr. Trump humiliated him in an Oval Office meeting and accused him of being disloyal. Mr. Sessions ultimately submitted his resignation, though Mr. Trump did not accept it. Along with the next two questions, this inquiry looks at whether Mr. Trump views law enforcement officials as protectors.

• What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?

The Times has reported that Mr. Trump told his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, to stop Mr. Sessions from recusing himself. Mr. McGahn was unsuccessful, and Mr. Trump erupted, saying he needed an attorney general who would protect him.

• Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?

Mr. Trump has spoken affectionately about past attorneys general who he said were loyal to their presidents. He cited Robert F. Kennedy and Eric H. Holder Jr. as examples. "Holder protected the president," he said in a Times interview in December. "And I have great respect for that."

• What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?

In a twist, Mr. Mueller's very appointment has become part of his investigation. Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced the inquiry as a "witch hunt." Mr. Trump blames the appointment on Mr. Sessions's recusal.

• Why did you hold Mr. Sessions's resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?

Mr. Trump rejected Mr. Sessions's resignation after aides argued that it would only create more problems. The details of those discussions remain unclear, but Mr. Trump's advisers have already given Mr. Mueller their accounts of the conversations.

• What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation? With whom did you discuss it?

Mr. Priebus, who was Mr. Trump's chief of staff, has said he raced out of the White House after Mr. Sessions and implored him not to resign. Mr. Mueller has interviewed Mr. Priebus and would be able to compare his answers with those of Mr. Trump.

• What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?

Again, Mr. Mueller's investigation intersects with its own existence. The Times reported that, in June 2017, Mr. Trump ordered Mr. McGahn to fire Mr. Mueller. Mr. McGahn refused. Though Mr. Trump's own advisers informed Mr. Mueller about that effort, Mr. Trump denied it: "Fake news," he said. "A typical New York Times fake story."

• What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?

Mr. Trump unleashed a series of attacks on Mr. Sessions in July.

---

Campaign Coordination With Russia

Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in June 2016.Leah Millis/Reuters

• When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?

This and other questions relate to a June 9, 2016, meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who offered political dirt about Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., arranged the meeting. He said he did not tell his father about it when it happened.

• What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.'s emails?

When The Times found out about the meeting, Mr. Trump helped draft a misleading statement in his son's name, omitting the true purpose of the meeting. After The Times obtained the younger Mr. Trump's emails, he published them on Twitter.

• During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?

The Trump Tower meeting was arranged through the Russian singer Emin Agalarov, his billionaire father, Aras Agalarov, and a music promoter. Mr. Mueller is scrutinizing the nature of connections between the Agalarovs, Mr. Trump and Russian officials.

• What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?

Mr. Mueller is referring to a failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Mr. Sater, a business associate, proposed the idea to Mr. Cohen, the longtime personal lawyer to Mr. Trump. Emails show that Mr. Sater believed that the project would showcase Mr. Trump's deal-making acumen and propel him into the presidency.

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?

Journalists and lawmakers have uncovered several examples of Russian officials trying, through intermediaries, to arrange a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin. Senior campaign officials rejected some overtures, but Mr. Trump's involvement has been a mystery.

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?

Even as the Obama administration stepped up sanctions on Russia, Mr. Trump struck a laudatory tone toward Mr. Putin.

• What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?

A portion of the Republican platform was changed in a way more favorable to Russia.

• During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?

This is a key question. Mr. Trump praised the release of hacked Democratic emails and called on Russia to find others. Mr. Mueller's investigation has unearthed evidence that at least one member of Mr. Trump's campaign — George Papadopoulos — was told that Russia had obtained compromising emails about Mrs. Clinton. But Mr. Trump has repeatedly said there was "no collusion" with the Russian government.

• What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

This is one of the most intriguing questions on the list. It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something new, but there is no publicly available information linking Mr. Manafort, the former campaign chairman, to such outreach. So his inclusion here is significant. Mr. Manafort's longtime colleague, Rick Gates, is cooperating with Mr. Mueller.

• What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?

Mr. Stone, a longtime adviser, claimed to have inside information from WikiLeaks, which published hacked Democratic emails. He appeared to predict future releases, and was in touch with a Twitter account used by Russian intelligence. This question, along with the next two, show that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible campaign cooperation with Russia.

• What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner's efforts?

Mr. Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law, has testified that the Russian ambassador proposed getting Mr. Flynn in contact with Russian officials to discuss Syria. In response, Mr. Kushner said, he proposed using secure phones inside the Russian Embassy — a highly unusual suggestion that was not accepted.

• What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?

The meeting was convened by Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates. It brought Mr. Prince, an informal adviser to Mr. Trump's team, together with a Russian investor close to Mr. Putin.

• What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

Mr. Cohen, the lawyer, hand-delivered to the White House a peace proposal for Ukraine and Russia. This unusual bit of backdoor diplomacy is of interest because it involved a Ukrainian lawmaker who said he was being encouraged by Mr. Putin's aides. Mr. Cohen has said he did not discuss the proposal with Mr. Trump.

Matt Apuzzo is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter based in Washington. He has covered law enforcement and security matters for more than a decade and is the co-author of the book "Enemies Within."

 @mattapuzzo

Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent for The Times who covers national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues and the other for coverage of President Donald Trump and his campaign's ties to Russia.@NYTMike