Instant Alert: Conspiracy theorists are already making wild claims about the Amtrak train full of Republican lawmakers that collided with a truck in Virginia

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   Conspiracy theorists are already making wild claims about the Amtrak train full of Republican lawmakers that collided with a truck in Virginia by David Choi on Feb 1, 2018, 12:37 AM Advertisement Conspiracy theories were spread after an Amtrak train carrying Republican lawmakers collided with a truck. The cause of the crash has yet to be determined and the scene is still under investigation. Various social media accounts propagated the conspiracy theories Wednesday night, some of which linked them to a secret GOP memo on the Russia investigation that is expected to be released. Following a Wednesday morning train crash that killed one person and severely injured another in the Washington D.C. area, conspiracy theorists attempted to commandeer the story on social media. The Amtrak train carrying Republican lawmakers and their family members to an annual retreat struck a garbage truck on its way from Washington D.C. to West Virginia. The  incident spurred multiple conspiracy theories in light of heightened partisan bickering over the Russia probe and accusations of law-enforcement bias against President Donald Trump. Some of the conspiracy theories claimed the train incident was perpetrated by so-called "deep-state" actors — a term used by fringe right-wing groups to describe rogue government employees who secretly attempt to manipulate US policy. "If you think that that truck just stalled there by itself, and somebody didn't kill that guy and park it up there on the tracks, that's how they like to do it," InfoWars host Alex Jones said on Wednesday. "It's a classic CIA tactic too." "You'll kill somebody, have them in the car, and remote control it into the next vehicle. That is the standard assassination tool right now," Jones continued. "This is standard dump truck ... that is CIA playbook 100%." Jones' website suggested someone hacked the traffic controls in the area, prompting the collision. Others began analyzing images of a damaged train to support a theory that a truck intentionally rammed the train to derail it. The timing of the crash also raised eyebrows amongst purveyors of the "deep-state" conspiracy, amid the looming release of a polarizing House Intelligence Committee memo that claims anti-Trump bias at the FBI. Conspiracy theorists also drew connections between tweets allegedly posted by political personalities. A screenshot purporting to show an ill-timed tweet from the conservative political analyst Bill Kristol attracted suspicion as well. "Once we're sure everyone involved is ok, assuming they are, I hereby give permission to Twitter to indulge in all manner of GOP train wreck jokes. I do think that by having the train hit...yes, a garbage truck...the scriptwriters of '2018' jumped the shark," the purported tweet read. The alleged Kristol tweet, as illustrated by the screenshot, had an 11:07 a.m. time stamp, meaning it would have been sent 13 minutes before the train crash occurred. Meanwhile, the cause of the crash is still under investigation, Reuters reported. A search of "GOP train crash" on Twitter yielded results from users who have made unverified claims about the incident. Top tweets with the most engagements included posts from users who amplified the conspiracy theories. "Isn't it odd that a dump truck was on the tracks of a scheduled GOP retreat? Are we supposed to believe this was an 'accident' ?," one tweet with over 870 retweets and 1,700 likes said. "Don't forget when republicans were targeted by a crazy liberal when they had a baseball game!" "Wray should be worrying about a truck that just happened to crash into a GOP train," another user tweeted. "Not covering the asses of corrupt FBI agents. Wake up!" The conspiracy claims also spread to Facebook, as posts made by users not affiliated with news organizations began adding their own comments to otherwise-reputable news articles, which then began appearing at the top Facebook's curated news sections. Facebook responded to the incidents. calling them a "bad experience" and saying it would "work to fix the product." "Trending includes a separate section of people's individual posts related to the news event; it's essentially a comments section," a Facebook spokesperson said in a Daily Beast report. "We built this as a way for you to easily see what others are saying around a topic." SEE ALSO: Train carrying GOP members of Congress collides with truck, leaving one person dead   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: Former Trump legal team spokesman plans to tell Mueller that Hope Hicks hinted at concealing explosive emails about the Trump Tower Russia meeting

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   Former Trump legal team spokesman plans to tell Mueller that Hope Hicks hinted at concealing explosive emails about the Trump Tower Russia meeting by Sonam Sheth on Jan 31, 2018, 11:55 PM Advertisement President Donald Trump's legal team's former spokesman, Mark Corallo, plans to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that a key White House aide may have sought to obstruct justice last year. Corallo reportedly spoke to White House communications director Hope Hicks on a conference call with Trump last year, during which Corallo said Hicks may have hinted at concealing crucial emails that are relevant to the Russia probe. The emails related to a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, between several Russia-linked individuals and members of the Trump campaign, that is being heavily scrutinized by Mueller and congressional investigators. Mark Corallo, the former spokesman for President Donald Trump's legal team, plans to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that White House communications director Hope Hicks may have hinted at concealing crucial emails that were exchanged prior to Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting in June 2016 with a Kremlin-connected lawyer, The New York Times reported.  Corallo was contacted by the special counsel's team last week for an interview, as Business Insider previously reported. The interview is set to take place sometime in the next two weeks.  Corallo served as the legal team spokesman until July 2017. He resigned shortly after news of Trump Jr.'s Russia meeting emerged. According to author Michael Wolff's book, "Fire & Fury: Inside the Trump White House," Corallo resigned because he believed that the president's decision to craft a misleading statement on his son's behalf in response to reports of the meeting could have represented obstruction of justice. The meeting, as well as Trump's alleged role in it, have been a source of keen interest for both Mueller's team and congressional committees investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Trump Jr. said in an initial statement — which The Washington Post later reported was "dictated" by Trump — that "it was a short introductory meeting" that focused on Russian adoptions and did not relate to campaign business.  But the statement had to be repudiated when it emerged that Trump Jr. accepted the meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after he was offered kompromat on then Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Later, The New York Times published a chain of bombshell emails which showed the meeting was pitched to Trump Jr. as being "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."  According to The Times' report on Wednesday, Corallo plans to tell Mueller that Hicks said during a conference call last July with Corallo and Trump that the emails "will never get out." The call reportedly concerned Corallo for several reasons. For one, Corallo reportedly believed Hicks may have been suggesting that the emails be concealed. He was also concerned because Hicks had made the statement without a lawyer present and while the president was on the call.  He resigned from his position shortly after the call.  Hicks' attorney pushed back against Corallo's reported account of the call. "She never said that," her attorney, Robert Trout, told The Times. "And the idea that Hope Hicks ever suggested that emails or other documents would be concealed or destroyed is completely false."  Hicks is one of several key current and former Trump aides that the special counsel was interested in speaking to. She interviewed with Mueller's team in early December.   Hicks has long been one of Trump's closest confidants, and The Washington Post reported last year that she was among several aides who urged Trump aboard Air Force One last summer to release a truthful statement about the purpose of the Russia meeting so that it would not have to be amended later.  The Times reported that Hicks and Trump began strategizing about the statement shortly after the paper sent a list of 14 questions about the meeting on July 8, 2017. While they were discussing how to craft the statement, the report said, Hicks was in frequent contact with Trump Jr. via text message.  Neither Corallo nor Trump's personal lawyer at the time, Marc Kasowitz, were in on the meeting or informed about the statement until after it was released.  While Hicks and other close aides were at odds over how truthful the statement should be, Trump reportedly was adamant that it should say the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Russian adoptions. "We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow up," the final statement read. Trump Jr. had insisted that the statement include the word, "primarily," per the report.  Trump is a key figure in several threads of the Russia investigation, and Mueller is said to be building an obstruction-of-justice case against him based on his decision to fire FBI director James Comey last May. Comey was overseeing the Russia investigation at the time, and Trump told NBC's Lester Holt that "this Russia thing" had been a factor in his decision. Legal experts said Mueller's focus on Trump's involvement in issuing the statement about the Russia meeting is likely an attempt to establish a pattern of conduct and intent, which is critical to proving obstruction of justice.  "It also shows that he's interested in attempts to conceal or shape testimony. The President's actions are under scrutiny," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote on Twitter. But "even if Trump is not charged with a crime in connection to the statement, it could be useful to Mueller's team to show Trump's conduct to a jury that may be considering other charges" like obstruction of justice, a source told NBC News last year. It is routine for investigators to revisit individuals with whom they previously spoke as new information arises, as Mueller did earlier this month when he recalled for questioning at least one person who was involved in the June 2016 meeting. That information can be in the form of statements by others they interviewed or press accounts. "Here, it is clear that Mueller still has questions about how the Administration's statement was crafted aboard Air Force One," said former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer. "That focus seems to be on the President and his son." He added that the statement by itself does not prove obstruction, and that it is unclear whether Trump intended to mislead the public and obstruct the investigation, or to avoid embarrassment.  "We are, however, seeing a mosaic being constructed which all point to the President and/or a few around him trying to derail the investigation," Cramer said. SEE ALSO: Mueller is homing in on the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian lawyer and whether Trump sought to obstruct justice   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: Trump administration says it'll let some 7,000 Syrian refugees remain in the US under protected status for at least another 18 months

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   Trump administration says it'll let some 7,000 Syrian refugees remain in the US under protected status for at least another 18 months by Yeganeh Torbati on Jan 31, 2018, 8:57 PM Around 7,000 Syrians to remain in the United States for at least another 18 months under temporary protected status. They will now be allowed to stay in the US through September 30, 2019. The administration stopped short of re-designating Syria’s status, which means that it will continue to benefit only Syrians who have been in the United States since 2016 or earlier. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration said on Wednesday it would allow some 7,000 Syrians to remain in the United States for at least another 18 months under protected status as civil war rages in their native country. The decision was a relief for the Syrians who would have faced the prospect of returning to a fractured country racked with violence if the administration had rescinded their temporary protected status (TPS) when it ran out in March. Instead, they are allowed to stay through September 30, 2019. “After carefully considering conditions on the ground, I have determined that it is necessary to extend the Temporary Protected Status designation for Syria,” said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a statement. “It is clear that the conditions upon which Syria’s designation was based continue to exist, therefore an extension is warranted under the statute,” she added. The administration stopped short of re-designating Syria’s status, which means that it will continue to benefit only Syrians who have been in the United States since 2016 or earlier. “It fell short that they didn’t re-designate it but I think it’s a positive action nonetheless that should be praised,” said Monzer Shakally, 21, a Syrian student at the University of Iowa with the temporary status. “I‘m happy this decision came out now and I don’t have to worry about this for another 18 months at least.” Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Sandra Maler and Alistair Bell   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: Facebook just dropped a big hint that the News Feed's days may be numbered

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   Facebook just dropped a big hint that the News Feed's days may be numbered by Alexei Oreskovic on Jan 31, 2018, 8:51 PM Advertisement Stories, which are short photo slideshows or collections of videos, are on track to overtake regular news feed posts as the most common form of social sharing across apps, company CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Wednesday. Zuckerberg said this change will influence how the company builds products in the future. The Stories format was pioneered by Facebook-rival Snapchat. The writing may be on the wall for Facebook's most iconic feature, the News Feed.  During Facebook's fourth-quarter earnings call on Wednesday, CEO Mark Zuckerberg discussed how social media usage is evolving. For many people listening, one specific comment by Zuckerberg quickly attracted a lot of attention.  "We expect Stories are on track to overtake posts in Feed as the most common way that people share across all social apps," Zuckerberg said. Scrolling through the News Feed — the collection of photos, comments, and web links users see when they log into Facebook or open its app — has been the basic way users interact with the service for the past decade. Using it is as familiar as the keypad on a telephone. Even as Facebook has tinkered with the algorithms that decide what appears in the stream, the feed's primacy within the social network has remained consistent and unchallenged. Stories, by contrast, is a newer format for sharing videos and pictures on apps that's more akin to a sequence or montage of clips that users stitch together.   The fact that Stories were first developed by archrival Snapchat does not seem to have turned off Facebook, which essentially copied the feature and incorporated it into all of its products over the last year. According to Zuckerberg, WhatsApp and Instagram are now the top two apps for sharing Stories worldwide.  Still, the fact that Zuckerberg sees Stories overtaking News Feed posts is a big deal and could have significant implications for the look of Facebook's service and the stability of its advertising business going forward. An abuse-proof format?  Zuckerberg's comments about Stories do not come in a vacuum. They come as Facebook is trying to respond to  criticism that its service has been easily hijacked to spread misinformation and that it induces kids and others to overuse its social network. It's possible Zuckerberg sees Stories as a feature that's less prone to abuse than the News Feed. If Facebook does shift its design focus from the Feed to Stories, it's likely to do it in communications products such as Instagram and WhatsApp first. Those products both have younger user bases that may be more amenable to Stories. And rolling out changes on those services would pose less risk to Facebook's ad business, which currently relies largely on marketers pushing ads into the News Feed.  But don't underestimate Facebook's potential to dump the News Feed on its main service and app. The company has prided itself on being nimble enough to "move fast," and it's proven capable of doing so. In 2012, the company completely overhauled its ad business, moving away from ads that ran on the right side of its web page when viewed in a browser on a desktop computer. In their place, the company created mobile-friendly ads that it incorporated into the News Feed. Today, mobile ads account for 89% of Facebook's ad revenue. The rise of Stories could be the company's next big story. Here are Zuckerberg's full comments about Stories from the the company's earnings call: "Another important shift that we’re seeing across the industry is the growth of Stories. We expect Stories are on track to overtake posts in Feed as the most common way that people share across all social apps. That's because Stories is a better format for sharing multiple quick video clips throughout your day. The growth of Stories will have an impact on how we build products and think about our business, including WhatsApp and Instagram, which are the No. 1 and No. 2 most used Stories products in the world."  SEE ALSO: Mark Zuckerberg boasts that changes to Facebook have caused people to spend 50 million fewer hours on the social network every day   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: 'Bloody nose' strikes and diplomatic drama: US officials push back on reports of a preemptive North Korean strike

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   'Bloody nose' strikes and diplomatic drama: US officials push back on reports of a preemptive North Korean strike by David Choi on Jan 31, 2018, 8:42 PM Advertisement The front-runner candidate and eventual nominee for US ambassador to South Korea is no longer being considered by the White House. Speculation over the decision to cancel Victor Cha's nomination follows reports that he disagreed with the National Security Council's approach to a "bloody nose" strike. Officials reportedly pushed back on the notion of an imminent strike against North Korea. Confusion and worry spread in foreign policy circles following reports that the White House jettisoned the nomination of Victor Cha for an ambassadorship to South Korea. Cha is the former director for Asian affairs for the National Security Council and a leading authority on matters regarding the Korean Peninsula. His nomination was announced in December to much fanfare. The move had been widely applauded by foreign-policy experts, so the abrupt reversal came as a shock; it followed weeks of silence from the Trump administration, leading many to wonder why the yearlong vacancy was not yet filled. Speculation grew after The Washington Post, which first published the news of the White House's decision on Tuesday, reported that Cha had privately disagreed with US National Security Council officials, who considered the possibility of a preemptively targeting North Korea in a "bloody nose" attack — a limited strike intended to send a message to the regime. Cha also reportedly had reservations about Trump's assertion that the US has a "horrible" trade deal with South Korea, which the president has suggested should be scrapped. Additionally, Cha wrote an opinion column published by The Post in which he argued against a proposed "bloody nose" strike on North Korea, saying "hope must give in to logic" when it comes to reading the tea leaves on Kim Jong-Un's actions and motivations. "These are real and unprecedented threats," Cha wrote. "But the answer is not, as some Trump administration officials have suggested, a preventive military strike." Following The Post's report, other people familiar with the situation told the newspaper the White House stopped returning Cha's calls, presumably because of his stated opposition to the "bloody nose" proposal. Two sources in a Financial Times report said Cha had already received his US security clearances and was approved by the South Korean government before his nomination was scrapped. One official appeared to dismiss the notion that Cha was rejected merely because of differences in policy, saying the decision was made during the vetting process, according to The Wall Street Journal. And US officials told The Washington Post's Josh Rogin that a possible first-strike at North Korea was not imminent. Trump touted his stance on North Korean aggression during his State of the Union address on Tuesday, calling for a "campaign of maximum pressure." "Past experience has taught us that complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation," Trump said. "I will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations that got us into this dangerous position." "The policy is supposed to be that we are open potentially down the road to talks with North Korea but only in a multilateral forum and only after a sustained and undefined period of no provocations," a senior administration said in the Washington Post report on Wednesday. The purpose of Trump's strategy, which was reportedly signed off by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and National Security Council senior director for Asian Affairs Matthew Pottinger, was to bring North Korea to the negotiation table through measures like sanctions, and not making concessions on the regime's own terms. "If we assess that they are coming to the table not to play that game, we're open to talk to them," the official told The Post. "We're not going to define it, we'll know it when we see it." Although reassurances from officials provide some solace amid the unexpected decision to pass over Cha's nomination, the Trump administration still appears have made little progress on the issue of North Korean aggression. Without an official ambassador in Seoul, and with fresh memories of North Korea's provocations and its efforts to refine its missile technology, the US may find itself in a precarious situation with regard to inter-Korean relations in the near-term. SEE ALSO: Trump touts 'maximum pressure' against North Korea in State of the Union address   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011

Instant Alert: Facebook's usage decline should have investors worried — no matter what Mark Zuckerberg says

MANAGE SUBSCRIPTIONS   |   UNSUBSCRIBE   |   VIEW ONLINE   Facebook's usage decline should have investors worried — no matter what Mark Zuckerberg says by Troy Wolverton on Jan 31, 2018, 8:29 PM Advertisement In its fourth-quarter earnings report Wednesday, Facebook reported a 5% drop in daily usage of its service. Company CEO Mark Zuckerberg assured investors that this was actually a good thing, saying the Facebook was focusing on promoting "meaningful interaction" not maximizing the amount of time users spent on the site. But the drop follows a host of negative publicity for the company and growing concerns about how its site may be promoting addiction and depression. Facebook's discussion of the decline in usage raised several red flags — among them, that the company plans to make further changes to its service that could reduce usage further. How much time users devote to Facebook is a big concern, because advertisers — whose spending comprises nearly all of the company's revenues — determine where to place their ads in part based on where their target users spend their time. Facebook investors had good reason to be concerned about the sizeable drop in usage of the social network in the fourth quarter — no matter how reassuring CEO Mark Zuckerberg tried to be about it. In announcing its holiday period results Wednesday, the tech giant revealed that usage of its service declined by an average of 50 million hours a day. That's a 5% drop, Zuckerberg noted on a call with investors and analysts, linking it to recent changes the company made to what it shows users in their news feed. But Zuckerberg argued that the decline was actually a good thing. The company is focusing on promoting meaningful interactions with users, not on the gross amount of time they spend with its service, he explained. "By focusing on meaningful interaction, I expect the time we all spend on Facebook will be more valuable," Zuckerberg said on the call. "I always believe that if we do the right thing, and deliver deeper value, our community and our business will be stronger over the long term." Zuckerberg may be right that by giving more prominence in users' news feeds to posts from their friends and family members and reducing the number of videos and news stories from publishers and other organizations, Facebook may become more valuable for its users. Even if users spend less time overall with the service, they may end up interacting with their friends and family members on it more often. Investors seemed mollified by such assurances. After falling more than 4% in after-hours trading immediately following the release of the company's earnings announcement, Facebook's shares rebounded during the call. After it was over, the stock was up 1%. Facebook's earnings call raised some big red flags But shareholders may have some second thoughts after they parse through the comments Zuckerberg and his fellow executives made on the call. That's because they raised several red flags. One big one has to do with how Facebook — or investors — should evaluate whether its new focus is working. Measuring the time users spend on the site is fairly easy. It also has the benefit of being something that can be directly compared across sites and other forms of media. One big indication for advertisers and investors of how important Facebook has become is the degree to which consumers have shifted their time away from newspapers, books, magazines and watching traditional television and toward social media. But it's completely unclear how the company plans to measure the amount of "meaningful interaction" its users engage in — something it said it plans to track on and off its service. Facebook has already talked with users to get a sense of what they find meaningful and is using that to guide its decisions about what to show in the news feed and how it designs future products. But it's uncertain whether the company will share its measurements on "meaningful interactions" with the wider world or whether outside organizations will be able to track such things on their own — much less compare them with similar data from other sites and media outlets. Another big concern is that it's unclear what exactly led to the drop-off in usage during the final three months of 2017. Was it due entirely to the recent changes Facebook made on its own or might it have been caused by outside factors that could reflect a problem in Facebook's business? When asked specifically about that on the call, Zuckerberg ducked the question, instead simply repeating what he'd said earlier about the changes the company made to its service. The decline in usage follows growing discussion about fake news and social-media addiction But there's reason to believe that the decline wasn't entirely due to Facebook's own moves. For the better part of the last year, the company has been getting negative press about how its service was manipulated into spreading propaganda and fake news. Meanwhile, a growing chorus of researchers, parents, and tech insiders, including several prominent former Facebook executives, have been raising concerns that the company's service is leading to addiction and depression and have been cautioning people to curtail their use of it. There's some indication that all this negative sentiment was already having an effect on Facebook — even before it tweaked its news feed. A recent survey by Baird Equity Research, for example, found that about half of all users across all age groups reported that they used Facebook less often to connect with friends and family members. The reported decline was particularly pronounced among those aged 18 to 34. Regardless of whether the decline in usage came as a result of all this bad news or the changes Facebook made to its service, there's a final reason to be concerned about it — Zuckerberg himself warned there are more changes to come. Facebook has only just started making changes to its web site as part of its effort to play down what it calls "passive" consumption and to promote "meaningful interaction." And additional tweaks to the news feed or other services could further decrease usage. "It's not just one news-feed change that happens overnight," Zuckerberg said. Time spent on the site is important, no matter what Zuckerberg says Given all the backlash Facebook has received of late, it's not a surprise that the company is making these changes. It had to do something to show it was addressing the concerns about fake news and social media addiction or risk being forced to do something by regulators. The problem for Facebook is that its business depends almost entirely on advertising. And advertisers determine where to spend their money at least partially based on where their target customers are spending their time. If consumers are spending less time with Facebook, there's a good chance advertisers will eventually spend less money there. And that's going to be meaningful to investors — no matter how much spin Zuckerberg puts on it. SEE ALSO: Facebook says its users are spending 50 million fewer hours a day on the platform   Share the latest business news with your network:    Email sent to: nguyenvu1187.love5@blogger.com   |   Manage your email preferences   |   Unsubscribe Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy Business Insider. 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011