Media playback is unsupported on your device

Ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about meetings with Russia’s ambassador weeks before Donald Trump became president.

The charges were brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as part of his inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US election.

Mr Flynn is the most senior member of the administration to be indicted.

He also revealed he was co-operating with Mr Mueller’s inquiry.

Significantly, a statement made by Mr Flynn to prosecutors appears to implicate a more senior, though unnamed, Trump team official – indicating the direction in which Mr Mueller’s investigation may be heading.

What happened in court?

Appearing in a federal court in Washington DC, he admitted to one count of knowingly making “false, fictitious and fraudulent statements”.

• The Trump-Russia saga in 200 words
• Who’s who in the drama to end all dramas?

According to an AFP reporter in court, the judge accepted Mr Flynn’s guilty plea and said he would not face trial.

Mr Flynn then issued a statement in which he said: “I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right”.

He said his plea and co-operation deal “reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country”. The retired Army lieutenant-general is unlikely to serve more than six months in prison.

• Russia: The ‘cloud’ over the Trump White House
• How did we get to this point?

The White House issued a statement saying that “nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr Flynn”. A presidential appearance in front of reporters was then cancelled.

As he was escorted from court by FBI agents, a handful of protesters shouted “criminal” and “lock him up”, echoing a chant he led against Hillary Clinton during the Republican party convention last year.

What are the charges?

Mr Flynn was forced to resign 23 days into his job in February, a month after he was questioned by the FBI for misleading the White House about meeting then Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak during the transition period, before Mr Trump took office.

Then, just over a week ago, US media said his legal team had told the president’s lawyers they could no longer discuss the case, prompting suggestions that he had begun co-operating with prosecutors.

• Who is Michael Flynn?

It is not clear why he did not tell the truth to investigators. But it is illegal for a private US citizen, as Mr Flynn was during the transition, to conduct foreign affairs without the permission or involvement of the US government.

According to the charge sheet, Michael Flynn is accused of:

• falsely telling FBI agents that on or about 29 December 2016 he did not ask Mr Kislyak to “refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day”
• failing to recall that Mr Kislyak had later told him Russia was moderating its response to the sanctions as a result of his request
• falsely saying that, on or about 22 December 2016, he did not ask Mr Kislyak to “delay the vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution”. Although there is no detail of the resolution in question, the discussion came a day before the Obama administration decided not to veto a resolution asserting that Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territory “had no legal validity”
• making false statements about the Turkish government’s involvement and supervision of a project that his intelligence company was taking part in.

Mr Flynn is not the first former Trump official to be charged.

In October, Mr Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his business associate Rick Gates were accused of conspiring to defraud the US in dealings with Ukraine (both deny the charges). Another ex-aide, George Papadopoulos, has also pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents

How damaging is this for President Trump?

By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News North America reporter

Michael Flynn lost his prized national security adviser post because of December 2016 conversations he had with Sergei Kislyak. Now he’s facing criminal charges.

That’s bad news for Mr Flynn, but it could be even worse news for Donald Trump, who reportedly directly lobbied former FBI Director James Comey to back off the Flynn investigation before firing the top law man.

Mr Flynn has told Robert Mueller’s team that he spoke with Trump presidential transition officials before and after reaching out to Mr Kislyak, and was instructed on how to handle the call. This contradicts public assertions made by the president himself that Mr Flynn was operating independently and against orders.

If the former national security adviser has evidence that corroborates his claims, it would be the biggest bombshell yet in this wide-ranging investigation.

It’s clear the independent counsel investigation is casting a very wide net, and Mr Mueller just landed his biggest fish yet.

What have we learned about Russia?

Media playback is unsupported on your device

As part of his plea bargain, Michael Flynn has signed a “statement of the offence” that gives us a timeline of the days of presidential transition in late December 2016, before Donald Trump was sworn in on 20 January 2017.

This is what federal prosecutors allege happened:

• 22 December: A “very senior” Trump transition team official tells Michael Flynn to contact foreign governments including Russia to discuss a pending UN Security Council vote on Israeli settlements
• 22-23 December: Mr Flynn urges Sergei Kislyak to vote against or delay the resolution; the next day Mr Kislyak says Russia would not vote against such a resolution
• 28 December: Mr Kislyak contacts Mr Flynn – on the day President Obama announces sanctions against Russia for interfering in the presidential election
• 29 December: Mr Flynn contacts “a senior official” in the Trump transition team at Mar-a-Lago in Florida to discuss a response. He “immediately” calls the ambassador back, urging Russia not to escalate the situation, then gets back in touch with the Trump transition official
• 30 December: Russian President Vladimir Putin announces no immediate retaliation will take place
• 31 December: Mr Kislyak calls Mr Flynn to inform him of Russia’s position, and Mr Flynn contacts the Trump transition team.

Note: This story is auto-generated from BBC syndicated feed and has not been edited by AFRICA PRIME NEWS

Image copyright Getty Images

Republicans who control the US Senate say they are confident of passing the biggest tax cuts since the Reagan era as soon as Friday.

Party leaders sounded bullish after three Republican holdouts said yes despite a Senate committee finding it would add $1tn (£742bn) to the deficit.

The committee’s report contradicts a White House claim that economic growth would compensate for the tax cuts.

President Donald Trump wants the measure enacted by Christmas.

The nonpartisan Senate Joint Committee on Taxation found on Thursday that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would add significantly to the federal deficit over a decade.

But Senators Ron Johnson, Jeff Flake and Steve Daines said on Friday they would support the legislation, which includes steep corporate tax cuts.

Mr Daines, of Montana, and Mr Johnson, of Wisconsin, and Mr Flake, of Arizona, were among a dwindling band of Republicans on the fence.

“After weeks of fighting for Main Street businesses including Montana’s farmers and ranchers, I’ve decided to support the Senate tax cut bill which provides significant tax relief for Main Street businesses,” Mr Daines said in a statement.

John Cornyn, majority whip of the chamber, said he is confident the party has the votes to pass the bill.

“We are confident of the 50 and would like to build on that,” he said.

Senate Republicans can afford to lose just two members of their party if they are to succeed.

The votes of Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and James Lankford of Oklahoma were also being courted by the Republican leadership.

The party’s fiscal conservatives have for years lamented the nation’s debt time bomb.

• Republican Tax Plan: What you may have missed

But despite the Senate committee’s deficit warning, the party is full steam ahead on the bill.

If it passes, the Senate would need to merge its legislation with that passed last month by the House of Representatives.

The reconciled bill would then be sent to the president’s desk for his signature to be enacted into law.

How do House and Senate bills compare?

• Under the Senate bill, the corporate tax cut would not go into effect until 2019, instead of going into effect immediately.
• The Senate bill would repeal the requirement that individuals have health insurance or face a fine. That is not included in the House plan.
• The Senate bill does not allow households to deduct anything for state and local property taxes, a sticking point for lawmakers in high-cost states. The House plan allows families to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes.
• The Senate bill doubles the amount of money exempt from inheritance tax. The House plan would also eventually eliminate the inheritance tax entirely.
• The Senate bill maintains seven tax brackets, but cuts the top rate to 38.5%, while the House would slim the number of brackets to four, preserving a top rate of 39.5%.
• The Senate preserves some popular benefits for people with medical expenses and student loans, which the House would eliminate.

What is in the bill?

The details of the Senate bill remain in flux.

The heart of the proposal is a move to slash the corporate rate from 35% to 20%, a move that supporters say will make the US more competitive. But as a vote nears, some senators have raised the possibility of lowering the rate to 22%, in an effort to reduce the cost of the proposal.

The plan would also boost the amount individuals and families can deduct from their tax bill, while eliminating other targeted benefits. That change is meant to simplify tax filing for the average household.

But the bill’s effects would be much broader.

For example, the Senate has proposed eliminating a requirement that people have health insurance – a change that would rock US insurance markets.

Who will benefit?

Wall Street expects to benefit from lower rates, as companies use additional cash to buy back shares or pay out higher dividends.

But the effects of the changes are mixed for households.

Wealthy families would benefit from proposals such as one that would increase the amount exempt from inheritance tax.

Analyses suggest some lower- and middle-class families would eventually see higher bills as other benefits expire.

One of the most controversial parts of the bill is a measure that would stop allowing families to deduct their state and local taxes from their federal bills. The issue is especially important in high-tax states, many of which are Democratic.

Note: This story is auto-generated from BBC syndicated feed and has not been edited by AFRICA PRIME NEWS

Image copyright KEVIN DIETSCH / POOL

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson dismissed as “laughable” on Friday reports that his job security is uncertain.

But rumours that the White House is considering a plan to replace him because of tensions with President Donald Trump have swirled in Washington DC for months.

The White House has said it has no personnel announcements to make. And the State Department says it is business as usual.

Meanwhile, the drama is further disrupting the already dysfunctional way foreign policy is run in this administration.

So here are my takeaways on where things stand.

Takeaway 1: A complex relationship

It clearly has not been a happy one since the summer, starting with Mr Trump’s politicised speech to the Boy Scouts of America, an organisation that Mr Tillerson used to head.

The secretary of state also distanced himself from the president’s equivocal response to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville.

Then there was that extraordinary moment in October when Mr Trump suggested an IQ-test challenge after a report that Mr Tillerson had called him a moron (which the latter denounced but did not deny, although his spokeswoman eventually did).

• Trump challenges Rex Tillerson to IQ test

The two have also aired striking policy differences in public: several times Mr Trump has openly undermined Mr Tillerson’s positions with his tweets.

Yet the president has quietly accepted his secretary of state’s diplomatic strategy on some issues, such as dealing with North Korea tensions, co-operating with Russia for a political settlement of the Syrian civil war, and agreeing to punt the Iran nuclear deal to Congress rather than abandoning it outright.

He also gave Mr Tillerson a shout out during his recent trip to Asia, where the two men shared plenty of quality time. But they are chalk and cheese in temperament and the way they work, which matters to a president who operates on instinct and interaction.

And Mr Tillerson has not really learned to play the game of Washington politics – nor does he seem interested in doing so. Which means that if this is a game to try and force him out, it is not clear if he will follow the rules.

CIA director Mike Pompeo is being lined up to replace Mr Tillerson, according to the Beltway rumour mill.

Mr Pompeo plays it well and has cultivated a relationship with Mr Trump, making a point of delivering his intelligence briefings in person. His positions are also much more in line with Mr Trump’s tough approach to national security.

Takeaway 2: A deeply dysfunctional house

I am struck by the parallel universes inhabited by the secretary and his critics at the state department. According to Mr Tillerson, it is functioning well – figures show about the same number of Foreign Service Officers now as this time last year.

It is not being hollowed out, Mr Tillerson says: such reports offend him on behalf of the hardworking career diplomats who have stepped into acting roles during an excruciatingly slow process of appointing political nominees.

As for his controversial redesign of the department, he says changes to its organisation and technology are badly needed. No one disputes that the state department needs to be dragged into the 21st Century.

And at least one anecdotal report from someone who is engaged with the “employee-led” process sounded upbeat about the prospects for organisational reform. But we don’t hear much from these employees leading the process, we do not hear much of anything at all.

More importantly to veteran diplomats, Mr Tillerson has not spelled out what strategy and priorities lie behind his drawing board: the department will be smaller and more efficient, but what will it be for?

And even if the numbers are stable, the expertise is draining away. Dozens of senior officials have been removed from their positions or taken early retirement. Hiring and promotion freezes mean they are not currently being replaced. Communication is a serious problem: between Mr Tillerson’s staff and the rest of the building, and with the press.

Those of us who travel with the secretary find him personable, straightforward, and seriously engaged with the issues. But there is no importance placed on delivering his message to the wider public.

He travels in a smaller plane, which means a scaled back staff that does not give regular updates about his movements, and turns the trips into logistical nightmares.

Morale at the state department is rock bottom.

Takeaway 3: How can he do his job?

The political intrigue that may unseat Mr Tillerson is separate from the state of the state department, but together they have undercut the effectiveness of US diplomacy.

And all this has contributed to confusion about what America stands for. “The whole administration suffers from not having articulated a clear vision for what American foreign policy is beyond the bumper sticker slogan of America First,” Harvard international affairs professor Stephen Walt told me. Nor have they articulated how they will achieve that with a reformed state department.

Mr Tillerson has begun to try and define policy in a more systematic way region by region. His recent speech on Europe was the least “America First” one I have heard from this administration – extolling historic ties and emphasising the importance of and commitment to the transatlantic alliance in the face of a resurgent Russia.

But when he travels to Europe next week, will he be taken seriously? How much weight will governments there give his words if he does not appear to have the president’s confidence? And how much longer can he operate this way, even if he is not sacked?

Note: This story is auto-generated from BBC syndicated feed and has not been edited by AFRICA PRIME NEWS

Image copyright WRGB

An amateur blacksmith started a fire that engulfed three blocks after attempting to imitate a sword-forging scene he had seen on TV, reports say.

John Gomes from the town of Cohoes in New York state was trying to bend metal in imitation of the TV series Forged in Fire when the yard blaze started.

The series shows professional bladesmiths competing to make “history’s most iconic edged weapons”.

It was the “worst disaster the city has ever seen,” Mayor Shawn Morse said.

Fanned by high winds, the flames destroyed three buildings and damaged 18 others. It was brought under control after three hours but then started up again an hour later, CBS reported.

Twenty people were displaced and a firefighter was taken to hospital with unspecified injuries but no-one else was hurt, the Albany Times Union reported.

Mr Gomes, 52, has been charged with reckless endangerment and arson and is in custody, the newspaper said.

“We often tell people we don’t allow open burns in the city and they often say, ‘What’s the worst that could happen? Well, this open burn just caused millions of dollars of damage and destroyed half our downtown,” CBS quoted Mr Morse as saying.

Mr Gomes’s teenage son defended his father on Facebook.

“My father John Gomes didn’t mean to burn his house down,” 16-year-old John Gomes wrote, the Albany Times Union reported.

Assistant police chief Tom Ross said the fire had been started unintentionally.

Note: This story is auto-generated from BBC syndicated feed and has not been edited by AFRICA PRIME NEWS