At Big Banks, a Lesson Not Learned

Abstract: Are the colossal regulatory fines extracted from big banks today likely to deter their officials from violating the same rules tomorrow? Or are these billion-dollar settlements viewed simply as a cost of doing business, and not a very large one at that? Judging from a regulatory action brought last week against 10 mostly large financial firms, the answers are “no” and “yes.” The case, brought on Thursday by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is striking. It takes us back to the financial scandal of the early 2000s involving corrupt Wall Street research. Remember that mess? Firms whose analysts were supposed to be impartial instead used their bullish stock recommendations to attract investment-banking business. The losers in the situation were investors who didn’t know that the analysts were biased and who heeded their calls to buy the shares. In 2003, 10 firms and two analysts struck a settlement with regulators over these practices, paying $1.4 billion. That was real money back then, and it was hoped that such a hefty fine, along with new research rules, might keep Wall Street analysts conflict-free. No such luck. According to the case brought by Finra, a securities industry regulator that oversees all of the nation’s brokerage firms and their employees, 10 firms, including many of the same banks in the 2003 settlement, paid $43.5 million for violating the research rules. The violations took place during a 2010 competition to underwrite an initial public offering of Toys “R” Us; among the firms named by Finra were Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. Although the Toys “R” Us stock offering was never completed, all of the firms enlisted their analysts’ help in trying to win the deal, according to Finra. It said the firms also promised favorable research coverage of the retailer. “The rules are not a great mystery here,” Brad Bennett, chief of enforcement at Finra, said in an interview last week. “You cannot use the analyst to solicit investment banking business.” As usual, the case features juicy emails. They show what can only be described as a feeding frenzy among firms that were competing for the Toys “R” Us public offering. The competition, known as a bake-off or beauty contest, occurred during a serious deal drought. The analysts were as eager to win the business as the investment bankers were. “I so want the bank to get this deal!” a Citigroup analyst exclaimed in an email to a superior recorded in the complaint. Winning the award for all-out enthusiasm, an analyst from Needham & Company offered in an email to “crawl on broken glass” naked to get the deal. “Right now, my whole life is about posturing for the Toys R Us IPO,” he wrote in a subsequent message. “Everyone really wanted to get this business,” said Susan Axelrod, Finra’s executive vice president for regulatory operations. “But instead of following the guidelines, everybody blurred the lines and did what they thought they needed to do to get it.” None of the banks settling with Finra would comment on the settlement for this column. The firms got into trouble by jockeying to please the owners of Toys “R” Us: a group of private equity firms that includes KKR and Bain Capital. Toys “R” Us was a tough customer in the pre-deal negotiations. It required any firm wishing to underwrite its initial public offering to submit an investment banking pitch and company valuation that included deep involvement and support from the firm’s retailing analyst. The retailer went so far as to tell Merrill Lynch that its analyst’s view could influence what underwriting role it might receive in the deal. If a bank was picked as an underwriter, Toys “R” Us said that “the firm, including the analyst, would be expected to stand behind the valuation provided” in the pitch, Finra found. Such pitches were intended to protect Toys “R” Us, one of the company’s officials said, “from being ‘burned’ by an analyst’s decision to adopt a negative view” of the retailer after winning the investment banking business. Never mind that securities regulations clearly bar this kind of activity. They say that “no research analyst may, among other things, participate in any ‘pitches’ for investment banking business to prospective investment banking clients or have other communications with companies for the purpose of soliciting investment banking business.” An analyst may communicate with a company during the I.P.O. process only to obtain information about its operations. Flouting these rules was the norm for every one of the firms participating in the bake-off, Finra said. None of them, it said, adhered to the regulations. Communications inside Citigroup provide an example. In its presentation to Toys “R” Us, Citigroup said that there was “firm-wide alignment” with respect to the company’s “unique investment opportunity.” Later, the firm’s investment bankers told Toys “R” Us that the firm, including equity research, would support the company’s offering. The retailer could “count on Citi’s firm-wide support and advocacy for the Toys story and valuation,” according to the bank, which also said that “post-I.P.O. research coverage would be positive and aligned with investment banking.” No surprise, Citigroup won a place on the underwriting team. So did other banks that enlisted their analysts as cheerleaders for the I.P.O. Unfortunately, the case last week is not an anomaly where Wall Street research is concerned. Another research-related complaint was filed against Citigroup a few weeks ago. In that matter, Finra found that an analyst at the bank had participated in road shows promoting initial public offerings that it was underwriting. Citigroup paid $15 million to settle that case. Sophia Stewart, a spokeswoman for Citigroup, said the bank was pleased to have put both matters behind it. Citigroup’s repeated failings in this area bring to mind Jack Grubman, the bank’s former telecommunications analyst. Although Mr. Grubman was barred from the industry in 2003 for publishing misleading research reports to generate investment-banking deals, his spirit lives on at the bank. With recidivism a way of life on Wall Street, perhaps it is time for securities regulators to consider far tougher penalties when bad conduct recurs. It’s becoming clearer by the day that collecting fines paid by bank shareholders is not enough to keep bankers from breaking the rules.

Banking and Finance
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
Fines
Regulation and Deregulation
Stocks,Bonds


Netanyahu Travels to Egypt for Indirect Talks

Abstract: JERUSALEM — The prime minister of Israel , Benjamin Netanyahu , met on Monday with Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak , in the Sinai resort of Sharm el Sheik, and the Obama administration’s envoy arrived in the region amid final preparations for the start of indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The talks, expected in days, will be the first in more than a year. But the atmosphere in the region was hardly enthusiastic, with Israeli officials expressing skepticism about the prospects of a breakthrough and Palestinian officials warning Israel against taking any steps that could torpedo the talks. The so-called proximity talks, to be brokered by the American envoy, George J. Mitchell , were delayed in March after the Israeli government announced plans for new Jewish housing in contested East Jerusalem. The top leaders on both sides have been taking care to avoid statements that could be deemed provocative; nevertheless, a certain dissonance remains evident. Dan Meridor, the Israeli minister for intelligence affairs, said Monday that “the real talks will be direct.” The idea of proximity talks was “quite strange,” he told Army Radio, after successive Israeli governments had held direct talks with the Palestinians on and off for the past 16 years. American officials said the purpose of Mr. Mitchell’s shuttling between the Israeli and Palestinian sides would be to get them into face-to-face talks as soon as possible. But the Palestinians insist that there will be no resumption of direct talks without a complete settlement construction freeze by Israel, including any additional Jewish housing in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as their future capital. Israel is committed to a partial freeze in the West Bank settlements until late September, but refuses to include East Jerusalem, where it claims sovereignty. Saeb Erekat , the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Army Radio that Israel must refrain from unilateral steps over the next four months, like building new settlements or evicting Palestinians. Adding to the sense of mutual distrust, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, said Monday that there was “an unprecedented wave of incitement” coming out of the Palestinian Authority , including the Palestinian boycott of some Israeli-produced goods, which he said violated a 1994 economic agreement. The boycott, which focuses on goods produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, is part of a new Palestinian effort at nonviolent resistance. The Palestinian Authority’s minister of economy, Hassan Abu Libdeh, wrote in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot on Monday that the campaign was not intended to be anti-Israeli, but was in part aimed at helping Palestinian consumers to distinguish between “products that come from the illegal settlements and those legal Israeli products that are imported in accordance with the economic agreement” in 1994. Refusing to make such a distinction, Mr. Ayalon said that images of the Palestinian Authority prime minister, Salam Fayyad, and others “happily” burning Israeli products reminded him of darker periods in Jewish history, mentioning Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass. During that episode in 1938, Nazis attacked Jews and burned synagogues across Germany and Austria in what many regard as the start of the Holocaust. “Before the start of the talks,” Mr. Ayalon said, “the Palestinian Authority must decide if it is a partner for true peace and stop the ongoing incitement and boycotts against Israel.” Ghassan Khatib, a spokesman for the Palestinian government, added that the Palestinian Authority was “committed” to the economic agreement and that to the Palestinians, there was a “huge difference” between products produced in the settlements and products from Israel. Mr. Ayalon made his comments at a news conference that Israel’s Foreign Ministry was host to, issuing a report documenting a hundred cases of places or events named for people held responsible for deadly acts of terrorism against Israelis. The report was released by Palestinian Media Watch , an Israeli group that monitors the Palestinian news media and which has also sponsored a $100,000 television advertisement campaign on Washington television channels highlighting its findings.

Israel
Palestinians
Israeli Settlements
Palestinian Authority
Hamas
Netanyahu Benjamin
Mubarak Hosni
Mitchell George J
Meridor Dan
Erekat Saeb


New Jersey Prosecutor Who Got Loan From Christie Resigns

Abstract: The No. 2 official in New Jersey’s United States attorney’s office resigned on Tuesday, less than two weeks after revelations that she borrowed $46,000 from her former boss, Christopher J. Christie , who is now the state’s Republican candidate for governor. The official, Michele A. Brown, the first assistant, was given the mortgage by Mr. Christie and his wife in 2007, while he was United States attorney and Ms. Brown’s husband was unemployed. But with Mr. Christie running for governor on his record as a corruption fighter, and Ms. Brown in a powerful position at a prosecutor’s office that has brought highly publicized corruption cases against Gov. Jon S. Corzine ’s Democratic allies in recent months, Ms. Brown’s financial ties to her former boss raised questions about her ability to be impartial in her duties. In a letter of resignation released on Tuesday, Ms. Brown said she was proud of her work during 18 years as a prosecutor, and was determined not to let the controversy disrupt the office. “I know how important it is that we continue to pursue our mission, and I do not want to become a distraction,” she wrote. Mr. Christie, who has described his loan to the Browns as a helping hand to friends, has asserted that he and Ms. Brown have not discussed the inner workings of the office, or its cases, since he stepped down last year. He praised her accomplishments, saying she had proved herself a determined and fair-minded prosecutor during Republican and Democratic administrations, and won respect from all corners of the legal system. “Michele’s long and distinguished record of public service is impressive, and during that time she’s shown herself to be a fair and respected federal prosecutor among judges, adversaries and her peers.” But Democrats vowed to continue their demand for more documents to explore whether Mr. Christie and Ms. Brown used the office to help bolster his candidacy. Even before the loan was revealed, Mr. Corzine’s campaign had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for e-mail, telephone and travel records that might link Ms. Brown and Mr. Christie. Democrats hope to use the controversy to regain momentum in a race that Governor Corzine has trailed in most public opinion polls. “Michele Brown’s resignation today does nothing to put to rest questions about Christie’s conduct both in and outside of the U.S. attorney’s office,” said Elisabeth Smith, the Corzine campaign’s press secretary. In the days since the loan first became publicly known, Corzine aides have criticized Mr. Christie for failing to report the loan on his financial disclosure forms or taxes. The governor’s running mate, Loretta Weinberg, called on Ms. Brown to recuse herself from any dealings with the Corzine campaign’s Freedom of Information requests for Ms. Brown’s records and complained to the Justice Department that the requests had been improperly delayed. Mr. Corzine’s top campaign aide, Tom Shea, also accused Mr. Christie of misusing his authority as United States attorney by giving a raise and promotion to Ms. Brown, a subordinate who owed him money. But Republicans say the attacks are an act of desperation by Democrats, and an example of Mr. Corzine’s willingness to use his wealth to trample anyone who stands between him and a political goal. “Jon Corzine earned a reputation that he was willing to spend millions on negative attacks and play down and dirty in order to win,” said State Senator Diane B. Allen, a Republican who said the Corzine campaign’s actions were shameful. “He has certainly lived up to that reputation with his most recent target — a career prosecutor who has made it her life’s work to end New Jersey’s culture of corruption. Apparently a nearly 20-year commitment serving the public doesn’t matter to Jon Corzine if you are a means to his political end.”

Christie Christopher J
Corzine Jon S
New Jersey
Elections


Quinn, Humor Intact, Endorses an Old Rival

Abstract: It is a time-honored rite of the political life. But tradition does not make it any less painful. In a ceremony that strove to convey unity, and set aside recent rancor, Christine C. Quinn on Tuesday bestowed her blessing on the rival she fought most bitterly in the Democratic mayoral primary, Bill de Blasio. After a campaign of jousts and fierce attacks, of dreams both realized and dashed, the erstwhile opponents wore only smiles. There were hugs, banter, and a gentle joke or two, as the high priests of local Democratic politics — labor leaders and activists, members of Congress and the City Council — presided on the steps of City Hall. “She has so much to be proud of,” said Mr. de Blasio, the Democratic nominee, beaming at his onetime foil. Ms. Quinn, her mayoral hopes derailed, urged her supporters to work for Mr. de Blasio’s campaign “just as hard as they did for me.” Unmentioned was the brutal fight between the two in 2005, when each pursued the Council’s speakership, and the bruised feelings that festered after Ms. Quinn won. Absent was any hint of the hostility that animated their primary debates, when Ms. Quinn said Mr. de Blasio “will say anything” to get votes, and he accused her of cutting “a back-room deal” to repeal the city’s term limits. Asked by reporters to square her previous criticism with Tuesday’s praise, Ms. Quinn, again, smiled. “I trust Bill de Blasio,” she said emphatically, before pledging to do what she could to ensure he is elected mayor in November. Ms. Quinn, who spent the weekend after her defeat relaxing in Vermont, betrayed no sign of inner turmoil. She kissed her taller rival on the cheek several times, let loose a few of her trademark chortles, and made clear that the defeat had done little to dent her sense of humor. “I just told Bill not to faint,” Ms. Quinn said after the two emerged from City Hall, a sly reference to the teenagers — two of them — who passed out at her events over the summer. “We’re turning a new leaf on that today.” Of course, there was no doubt that Ms. Quinn, as the former front-runner, had been disappointed at the outcome. “I offered to have a unifying party, to thank her for running and everything, and she was not up for it,” said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a stalwart Quinn supporter who attended Tuesday’s event. Thomas K. Duane, a former state senator and Ms. Quinn’s mentor in matters both political and personal, stood stoically behind his protégé. “It’s the day to be a good Democrat,” Mr. Duane said afterward, adding, “I believe that there is a plan for the way things are going to work out, that none of us expect.” Was the moment bittersweet? Mr. Duane paused a moment. “Yes, it is,” he replied. Ms. Quinn, he added, “will have challenges, and she’ll meet them. I know that, for sure.” As the rally began, a top aide to Ms. Quinn stood apart from the crowd, watching from the top of the City Hall staircase. A sympathetic security guard stopped at his side. “It’s just the beginning,” the guard said, encouragingly, to which the aide flashed a mirthless smile. “Beginning of what?” he asked.

Mayoral races
Political endorsement
Christine C Quinn
Bill de Blasio
NYC
Joseph J Lhota


Call for Russia to Reconsider Law

Abstract: The governing body for track and field called on Russia to reconsider its views on gays but said it did not want to raise political issues at the world track championships, which begin in Moscow on Saturday. Russia recently introduced a law that bans “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” and imposes fines on those holding gay pride rallies.


As City Employees Tighten Belts, Some Elected Officials Are Reluctant to Adjust Theirs

Abstract: When aldermen vote Nov. 17 on a budget for 2011, they are expected to help close the city’s $655 million fiscal hole by again requiring all employees to take almost five weeks off without pay. But some elected officials have not been practicing what other public employees have been forced to do. Through Oct. 15, five City Council members had not taken any unpaid days off in 2010, even as rank-and-file city workers forgo their wages for 12 days off, as well as for a dozen holidays for which they used to get paid. Aldermen and other elected city officials — the mayor, clerk and treasurer — are not obligated to take furlough days. Many of them, including Mayor Richard M. Daley , are doing so voluntarily as a gesture of solidarity with their workers and as a matter of good political sense, given that the city election is fast approaching. Their actions have saved taxpayers almost $250,000, according to the city’s budget office. The five who have not shared the same fiscal pain as city employees are Frank Olivo (13th Ward), Howard Brookins (21st), Ricardo Muñoz (22nd), Carrie Austin (34th) and Rey Colon (35th). Unlike Mr. Daley, who is not seeking a seventh term, those five aldermen appear poised to run for re-election on Feb. 22. Mr. Brookins said he would take his unpaid days off before the end of the year. Mr. Muñoz said he took no furlough days because he had already agreed to decline the pay increase he was entitled to for 2010. Mr. Colon, Ms. Austin and Mr. Olivo did not return calls seeking comment. Ms. Austin is the chairwoman of the Council’s Budget Committee and has expressed her support for Mr. Daley’s plan to require more employee furlough days next year. Mr. Olivo, who is alderman of a Southwest Side ward controlled by Michael J. Madigan, the speaker of the Illinois House, did not take any furlough days last year. Others lagging near the bottom of the Council’s 2010 furlough list are Sharon Denise Dixon (24th), with two unpaid days off, and Willie Cochran (20th), with one. Mr. Daley has taken 25 unpaid days off this year, cutting his $216,000-a-year salary by almost 10 percent. Miguel del Valle, the city clerk who is campaigning to move up to the mayor’s office, has taken eight furlough days. He plans to take a total of 12 by the end of the year, said Kristine Williams, his spokeswoman.

Budgets and Budgeting
City Councils
Daley Richard M
Politics and Government
Chicago (Ill)


N.B.A. Finals — For Spurs, Every Game Is a Global Summit

Abstract: MIAMI — When the N.B.A. finals began here Thursday, basketball fans across the world were watching, whether it was early in the day or the middle of the night. So it was appropriate that one of the teams on the court was the San Antonio Spurs, with a roster including an N.B.A.-record nine players from outside the continental United States. Many fans know that Tim Duncan is from the Virgin Islands, Manu Ginobili is from Argentina, and Tony Parker is from France. Fewer may realize that Boris Diaw is from France, too, or that Tiago Splitter is from Brazil, or that Cory Joseph is from Canada. The Spurs’ 15-man roster also includes Nando de Colo of France and Aron Baynes and Patty Mills of Australia. The Spurs’ opponents, the defending champion Miami Heat, have only one international player: Joel Anthony of Canada. This disparity does not necessarily make the Spurs the more popular team around the world; the Heat, after all, have LeBron James. But as the Spurs, a model of consistency in American professional sports, seek their fifth championship in the last 15 seasons, they can be proud that they are, in Splitter’s words, the United Nations of the N.B.A. “It’s great to play with these guys,” said Splitter, who was born in Blumenau, Brazil. He added: “Everybody wants to do it right and make the effort to win. I’m really proud to be a part of this team.” In recent decades, the N.B.A. has been hugely successful in helping to make basketball a global sport. As the league has grown, both in revenue and in marketing, more players have decided to leave their homelands for the United States. The N.B.A. finished its regular season with a record 85 international players, from 36 countries and territories. But no N.B.A. team does it quite like the Spurs. They had six players from outside the United States when they last won the title, in 2007, and had seven players who competed for national teams during the 2012 London Olympics. Diaw, who was born in northern France, said he knew people in his home country who went to bed early and woke at 3 a.m. Friday to watch Thursday night’s Game 1 in Miami, which the Spurs won, 92-88. “A lot of people follow us during the season,” Diaw said. “Usually, they record it and watch it the next day. But for the finals, as I remembered when I was living there, when you were young, you wake up to watch the games.” For R. C. Buford, San Antonio’s general manager, having the most international players in N.B.A. history was not necessarily done by design. For years, he has worked with Coach Gregg Popovich to build a team that fits Popovich’s system, which emphasizes teamwork and selflessness. These concepts may be easier to sell to players who learned the game far from the hype that can distort the development of fundamental basketball in the United States. “I think our coaches have embraced, ‘Let’s get the best basketball team we can, and let’s not limit ourselves by the borders of countries,’ ” Buford said. “We’re the beneficiary of the growth of basketball.” Popovich, who has led the Spurs since 1996 and is the longest-tenured coach in American professional sports, majored in Soviet studies at the Air Force Academy. He has said that his travels while playing basketball in the military exposed him to the high quality of basketball being played around the world. That realization in turn laid the groundwork for the emphasis on adding international players to the Spurs’ roster. It also helps the Spurs that their three best-known players — Duncan, Parker and Ginobili — have been with the team for so long, making San Antonio a particularly attractive destination for players from overseas. “I’m sure they may make it easier,” Buford said of the effect that Duncan, Parker and Ginobili can have on the assimilation process that international players face when they join the N.B.A. Splitter said Ginobili had been important to his growth on and off the court. In 2010, during Splitter’s first months in San Antonio, he said, Ginobili helped him look for a house and learn the Spurs’ playbook. “He is the guy that helps me out the most here,” Splitter said of Ginobili. “I’m appreciative of what he’s done for me.” Ginobili said that when the Spurs brought in a new international player, he loved being a mentor. “The first years, I started to feel like a guide to the new guys,” Ginobili said. “It felt great because I needed that at the beginning, a sort of an anchor. I’m very lucky. At the same time, it’s great to have so many international players that went through some of the things you’ve been through.” Danny Green, one of the six American-born players on the Spurs, is a 25-year-old from New York. He played at North Carolina and spent his rookie year with the Cleveland Cavaliers. After a brief stint in Slovenia during the 2011 lockout, he found stability with the Spurs. So what is it like to play alongside teammates who can speak French, Portuguese or Spanish just as easily as they can converse in English? Green said that he enjoyed the experience and that the conversations were always interesting. “We all have our different stories,” Green said. “It’s amazing how small the world is and who knows who and what type of basketball they play. It’s fun.” When international players started to enter the league in large numbers, a common perception was that they might not be tough enough to compete with, and beat, Americans. The Spurs disproved that notion. Now, after achieving a long list of distinctions, they are in range of another: the N.B.A. champion with the fewest American-born players. The essence of the Spurs was symbolized late in Game 1, when they ran a perfect play on offense. Parker used a screen from Duncan to find an open Ginobili behind the 3-point line. Ginobili could have taken the shot, but instead found a wide-open Green, whose 3-pointer gave the Spurs their biggest lead of the game, 88-81. For those keeping score, the ball had gone from a Frenchman to an Argentine to an American. Not bad for the United Nations of the N.B.A.

Spurs
Manu Ginobili
Tiago Splitter
Tim Duncan
Boris Diaw
Tony Parker
Basketball


New York Sues Credit Suisse Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

Abstract: The New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman , sued the Credit Suisse Group on Tuesday, accusing it of misleading investors in mortgage-backed securities. The lawsuit claims that Credit Suisse, Switzerland’s second-largest bank after UBS, misrepresented the quality of loans underlying residential mortgage-backed securities it sponsored and underwrote in 2006 and 2007, costing investors $11.2 billion. The bank, which is based in Zurich, did not adequately evaluate the loans and ignored the defects its limited review uncovered, the lawsuit said. The suit, filed in New York State Supreme Court, also said the bank did not perform promised due diligence. The lawsuit was brought under the Martin Act, a New York securities fraud statute. Credit Suisse said it rejected the complaint and looked forward to presenting its defense in court. The complaint "recycles baseless claims from private lawsuits and uses an inaccurate and exaggerated number," the bank said in a statement, apparently referring to the $11.2 billion loss figure. The bank announced a management shake-up on Tuesday. The lawsuit, which seeks damages, restitution and other relief, is the latest action by a working group created by President Obama to pursue wrongdoing that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Mr. Schneiderman, co-chairman of the group, called the suit “another significant step in our efforts to hold financial institutions accountable for the misconduct that led to the worst financial crisis in nearly a century.” On Friday, the bank agreed to pay $120 million to settle federal civil accusations that it misled investors in the sale of risky mortgage bonds before the crisis. JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay $296.9 million in a similar case. The banks settled without admitting wrongdoing. Mr. Schneiderman also brought a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase last month over mortgage-backed securities packaged and sold by Bear Stearns, which JPMorgan acquired. The working group’s actions are viewed as a last effort for the government to hold banks and others responsible for misconduct in the mortgage business. Credit Suisse, JPMorgan and other banks have already been sued by pension funds, insurers and others contending they misrepresented the quality of the mortgages underlying securities.

Banking and Financial Institutions
Mortgage-Backed Securities
Suits and Litigation
Subprime Mortgage Crisis
Securities and Commodities Violations
JPMorgan Chase & Company
Credit Suisse Group AG
Schneiderman Eric T


In Enron Chess Game, Lawyers Weigh Value of One Piece

Abstract: HOUSTON, March 3 - Do federal prosecutors in the Enron trial need the headache of calling Andrew S. Fastow, the Enron figure some view as the government's star witness? A steady drumbeat of damaging testimony in the five-week-old criminal trial against the former chief executives, Jeffrey K. Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay, has led legal experts to praise the government case presented so far. That has raised questions about the risks prosecutors would run by putting Mr. Fastow, the former chief financial officer, on the stand as early as Tuesday. Mr. Fastow, who has already pleaded guilty to many felonies, is raw meat in the eyes of defense lawyers, who have portrayed him as the chief architect of the only fraud that took place at Enron. They have described Mr. Fastow's actions as a "minor thievery" of tens of millions of dollars that was not big enough to sink the company, and have contended that Mr. Fastow and his small cadre kept it hidden from Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay. "If you're stealing from the house, you don't tell the boss," Michael W. Ramsey, Mr. Lay's lead lawyer, said of Mr. Fastow in his opening statement. But Mr. Fastow could become important, not only in reinforcing damaging testimony already leveled against Mr. Skilling, but also in helping to strengthen a case against Mr. Lay that legal experts still say is lacking. "The government will be marshaling its efforts in the coming weeks to bolster its case against Lay, but it will be a tough task," said Christopher J. Bebel, a former federal prosecutor based in Houston. Little in the government's case has played out as anticipated just a few months ago. Legal experts had expected a drawn-out affair, delving deeply into Enron's books and accounting tactics, with Mr. Fastow serving as the jury's guide into the byzantine partnerships used to burnish the company's financial statements. But prosecutors have taken a different approach, avoiding conflicting expert opinions on the maze of accounting rules and financial treatments. Instead, they have focused on what people said, both inside the company and to the public, in the two years leading up to Enron's collapse into bankruptcy in December 2001. Prosecutors have presented what might be called a mosaic of specific instances in which witnesses said Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay intentionally misled investors and Wall Street about the financial performance of individual Enron divisions and the company as a whole. The partnerships have barely been mentioned at all. The result, experts said, is that Mr. Fastow, who is sure to elicit aggressive cross-examination about the millions of dollars he stole from Enron and the myriad other blemishes on his character, may not be needed as a witness at all. "Prosecutors have made their case, and from a strategic standpoint, Fastow's evidence offers more of the same," said David Berg, a specialist in white-collar crime, in Houston. "The risk the government runs in putting Fastow on the stand is shifting the spotlight away from Skilling and Lay, where they have brilliantly placed it, and onto Fastow, who was a one-man crime spree." Mr. Fastow's appearance on the stand seemed to diminish in importance this past week with the testimony of David W. Delainey, the former chief executive of Enron's energy services retail unit. Mr. Delainey described a meeting in Mr. Skilling's office on March 29, 2001, where he said a plan was devised to shift more than $200 million in losses from troubled retail contracts to another unit. The apparent intention was to mislead investors about the problems in the retail division. While Mr. Skilling did not order Mr. Delainey to go forward with the plan, he did not stop it, either. The meeting was the strongest and most specific evidence yet linking Mr. Skilling to the sort of criminal conspiracy alleged by the government. In October 2001, Mr. Delainey, still pained by the decision, commiserated with Greg Whalley, then Enron's president, about the transfer of the contracts. "Yeah, that was a little dirty," Mr. Delainey recalled Mr. Whalley telling him. Paula H. Rieker, the former manager of investor relations and corporate secretary, also provided memorable testimony, including her contention that Mr. Skilling told her to omit from a press release a mention that profits in the broadband business were coming from the sale of a stock of an outside company, not from broadband's core business. Citing e-mail messages and handwritten notes, Ms. Rieker said Mr. Lay had lied to employees and analysts who questioned him about the company's cash position and his Enron stock holdings in late 2001. But Ms. Rieker and Mr. Delainey suffer from the same issues that have cast some doubt on the strength of the government's prosecution so far. In building its case over four years, the government has rounded up a stable of cooperating witnesses, 16 of whom have pleaded guilty to Enron-related crimes. The defense has sought to show that crucial witnesses like Ms. Rieker, Mr. Delainey and the former chief of the broadband unit, Kenneth D. Rice, were serial liars facing long jail terms and thus had strong motivation to shade their testimony to support allegations against Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay. Daniel Petrocelli, Mr. Skilling's lead lawyer, bore into Mr. Delainey on cross-examination, portraying his sudden crisis of conscience as all too convenient. Mr. Petrocelli also mocked Mr. Delainey for not confronting Mr. Skilling for deceiving him about the troubled state of the retail unit before Mr. Delainey took it over. "It was kind of like there was no honor among thieves?" Mr. Petrocelli asked. Mr. Delainey replied, "I guess." And Mr. Delainey acknowledged under questioning by Mr. Ramsey, of Mr. Lay's team, that he could have been prosecuted for perjury for lying repeatedly about that meeting to F.B.I. agents in initial interviews. The defense lawyers have also been able to highlight the fact that much of the government's case is built on bits and pieces of indirect evidence, not hard evidence or a solid trail of documents and e-mail messages. In the end, jurors would have to believe at least some of the crucial cooperating figures if they are to convict Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay. Some of those witnesses have already acknowledged that they were motivated to deceive outsiders about Enron because of high compensation and what they called a culture of intimidation fostered in part by Mr. Skilling. "Why didn't you just quit?" Mr. Petrocelli asked Ms. Rieker, who was paid $5 million from 2000 to 2001. "I considered it on a number of occasions," she said, but "I was very well compensated." She added, "I didn't have the nerve to quit." Pushing the cooperating witnesses to acknowledge their repeated lies as employees could also underscore a major theme of the government's: that the culture of Enron became one of a criminal organization, where lies and deceptions were the norm. That could prove tough for defense lawyers to reconcile. "This is not a case of hear no evil, see no evil," Mr. Petrocelli told jurors in his opening argument. "This is a case of there was no evil." Legal experts agree that Mr. Fastow could be important if he is able to offer compelling evidence about Mr. Lay, who has been far less damaged by the recent testimony than Mr. Skilling. To date, Mr. Lay has rarely been mentioned as a participant in the most controversial events, and the testimony against him involves much subtler allegations than those against his co-defendant. If Mr. Fastow brings additional evidence against Mr. Lay to the stand, that could assist the government's case. But a criminal prosecution is not only about evidence; it is also about strategy. And it is here that calling Mr. Fastow to the witness stand proves most necessary. In essence, the legal experts said, using Mr. Fastow may be a way to prevent his being called by the defense lawyers, who could then portray him as the hidden cause of the Enron debacle. "Fastow would be a ticking time bomb for the government if they tried to bypass him in this case and allowed the defense to call him," said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor who is now a white-collar criminal defense lawyer in Newark. "He has come to personify all that was wrong at Enron and is widely recognized as having been the prime architect of the off-books partnerships that formed one of the critical elements of this fraud." But the testimony of Mr. Fastow, the legal experts said, is likely to be far more limited than originally anticipated. The government, in fact, has already signaled that probability, announcing that it expects to question Mr. Fastow for no more than a day. There is strong reason for this. Cross-examination is limited to those issues raised on direct questioning. If the government avoids any in-depth discussion of the company's financial statements, and instead uses Mr. Fastow to depict particular falsehoods by the defendants, then the avenues for questioning by the defense will be limited. "Fastow's testimony is going to be the most dramatic confrontation, but I would expect that the prosecution is going to keep it fairly simple, fairly narrow," said John C. Coffee Jr., a securities law professor at Columbia. In the end, the legal experts said, that means that Mr. Fastow is almost certain to be presented as just another witness in the case. "I don't think there is a star witness in this case," Mr. Mintz said. "Fastow will just be another piece of the puzzle, just another opportunity for the government to paint Enron as a company that was rife with corruption. And any one of the witnesses that have testified could then serve as the basis for a conviction."

ENRON CORP
FASTOW ANDREW S
SUITS AND LITIGATION


Third Trial in 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings in Africa Begins

Abstract: Fourteen years after four men were convicted in a trial stemming from the deadly 1998 bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa, a third trial in that attack began in Manhattan on Thursday. The defendant, Khaled al-Fawwaz, is one of the earliest and most senior alleged members of Al Qaeda to be tried in the United States. In an opening statement at the trial, a federal prosecutor, Nicholas J. Lewin, depicted Mr. Fawwaz as a loyal and trusted operative who had worked for Osama bin Laden in the 1990s when Al Qaeda was a small, tight-knit group. He had run a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, and then helped to lead a terror cell in Nairobi, Kenya, Mr. Lewin said. Later, Mr. Fawwaz became “Bin Laden’s man in London,” pretending to live peacefully as a Saudi dissident but actually helping Al Qaeda “broadcast its message to the world,” Mr. Lewin told the jury. He said that, Mr. Fawwaz helped to publicize Bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa stating that Muslims should kill Americans anywhere in the world, and he vetted journalists who wanted to interview Bin Laden, who was living in the mountains of Afghanistan. “The defendant’s participation in Al Qaeda conspiracies to kill Americans and attack American buildings is simply overwhelming,” Mr. Lewin said. Mr. Fawwaz’s lawyer, Bobbi C. Sternheim, did not deny that her client knew Bin Laden and had often met with him, depicting them as fellow Saudi exiles seeking to end corruption in their country. “But what we emphatically dispute,” Ms. Sternheim said, “is the allegation that Khaled al-Fawwaz is a member of Al Qaeda, was in cahoots with members of Al Qaeda, to plan, to prosper and to in any way effect the heinous goals of Al Qaeda to commit violence.” She called her client an advocate of “peaceful reform.” The nearly simultaneous attacks on the embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killed 224 people. The four men convicted each received sentences of life imprisonment. In 2010, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was convicted of one count of conspiracy after prosecutors said he had assisted in the attack in Dar es Salaam. Mr. Fawwaz’s trial is expected to last about five weeks, the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court, has said. Mr. Fawwaz has pleaded not guilty to charges that include conspiracy to kill Americans, to destroy buildings and property of the United States, and to attack national defense utilities. Arrested in 1998 in Britain, Mr. Fawwaz was sent in 2012 to Manhattan to face trial after a long extradition fight. He originally had two co-defendants: one, Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, 50, who had liver cancer, died this month ; the other, Adel Abdul Bary, has pleaded guilty . Edith L. Bartley, a woman who lost two family members in the Nairobi attack, said in a phone interview that the passage of time “doesn’t make it any easier.” Her father, Julian L. Bartley Sr., was the consul general in Nairobi, and her brother, Julian L. Bartley Jr., was a student working at the embassy as an intern. “What I have comfort in,” Ms. Bartley said, “is knowing that we’re not dropping the ball. We’re still as a nation committed to trying to secure some justice for families of those whose lives were cut short.”

Khalid al- Fawwaz
Al Qaeda
Diplomats Embassies and Consulates
Terrorism
Bombs
Osama bin Laden


Italy: Guilt in Briton’s Death Reaffirmed

Abstract: A man convicted of murdering a British student in Perugia in 2007 “participated fully” in the crime and sexually assaulted the victim, an appeals court said in reasoning released Monday, the ANSA news agency reported. The man, Rudy Guede, was convicted in 2008 of killing Meredith Kercher, 21. An American college student, Amanda Knox, and her Italian former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were convicted last year in the case. In ambiguous language that could have an impact on Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito’s appeals, the court said Mr. Guede had “played his part in the violence that weakened the victim’s will, until the final tragedy, and also when the knives were brandished,” ANSA reported.

Guede Rudy Hermann
Kercher Meredith
Italy
Great Britain
Sex Crimes
Murders and Attempted Murders


LeMond Is Critical of Armstrong’s Antidoping Program

Abstract: Lance Armstrong ’s news conference Thursday at the Interbike cycling trade show in Las Vegas was intended to focus on his return to professional cycling. It hit a hiccup, however, when the three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond arrived to criticize Armstrong’s antidoping program. That program, still in development, will be led by Don Catlin, an antidoping researcher. Armstrong has called the program “completely independent” and has asked his new team, Astana, to pay for it. LeMond, who for years has suggested that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs to win, said that it was a conflict of interest for Catlin to take that payment, The Associated Press reported. He also said that Catlin’s testing methods were outdated. Addressing Catlin, who was on the podium with Armstrong, LeMond asked if he would measure Armstrong’s oxygen intake, power output and maximum aerobic capacity. He said that those factors could indicate doping. Catlin said that those factors were not his areas of expertise. When Armstrong redirected the questioning, LeMond said, “So the whole history has just been passed over?” At Interbike, Armstrong confirmed that he would race in the 2009 Tour of California. He plans to compete in Australia’s Tour Down Under in January and in next summer’s Tour de France.

Armstrong Lance
LeMond Greg
Bicycles and Bicycling
Doping (Sports)


Speeding in Finland Can Cost a Fortune, if You Already Have One

Abstract: HELSINKI, Finland — Getting a speeding ticket is not a feel-good moment for anyone. But consider Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman. He was recently fined 54,024 euros (about $58,000) for traveling a modest, if illegal, 64 miles per hour in a 50 m.p.h. zone. And no, the 54,024 euros did not turn out to be a typo, or a mistake of any kind. Mr. Kuisla is a millionaire, and in Finland the fines for more serious speeding infractions are calculated according to income. The thinking here is that if it stings for the little guy, it should sting for the big guy, too. The ticket had its desired effect. Mr. Kuisla, 61, took to Facebook last month with 12 furious posts in which he included a picture of his speeding ticket and a picture of what 54,024 euros could buy if it were not going to the state coffers — a new Mercedes. He said he was seriously considering leaving Finland altogether, a position to which he held firm when reached by phone at a bar where he was watching horse races. “The way things are done here makes no sense,” Mr. Kuisla sputtered, saying he would not be giving interviews. Before hanging up, he added: “For what and for whom does this society exist? It is hard to say.” The Nordic countries have long had a strong egalitarian streak, embracing progressive taxation and high levels of social spending. Perhaps less well known is that they also practice progressive punishment, when it comes to certain fines. A rich person, many citizens here believe, should pay more for the same offense if justice is to be served. The question is: How much more? On his Facebook page, quite a few of Mr. Kuisla’s friends offered their sympathy. But that did not seem to be the drift of public opinion. Elsewhere, it was easier to find Finns who were shrugging over his predicament. At the University of Helsinki, Jussi Lahti, 35, a graduate student in geography, said that he could understand why Mr. Kuisla was upset, but that he considered the principle of an equal percentage fair. And, he added, Mr. Kuisla “had a choice when he decided to speed.” The size of Mr. Kuisla’s ticket nonetheless drew considerable attention here as television shows and newspapers debated the merits of Finland’s system, which uses a complex formula based on income to calculate an individual’s fines. Some wondered whether the government should stop imposing such fines for infractions at relatively low speeds. Some suggested that a fine so big was really a form of taxation. But the idea that the rich should pay heavier fines did not seem to be much in question. “It is an old system,” said Pasi Kemppainen, chief superintendent at the National Police Board. “It may lead to high fines, but only for people who can afford it.” In fact, the Finnish “day fine” system, also in use in some other Scandinavian countries, dates to the 1920s, when fines based on income were instituted for all manner of lesser crimes, such as petty theft and assault, and helped greatly reduce the prison population. The fines are calculated based on half an offender’s daily net income, with some consideration for the number of children under his or her roof and a deduction deemed to be enough to cover basic living expenses, currently 255 euros per month. Then, that figure is multiplied by the number of days of income the offender should lose, according to the severity of the offense. Image In Vihti, a manor owned by Reima Kuisla, a millionaire fined about $58,000 for speeding, a penalty calculated by income. Credit Andrew Testa for The New York Times Mr. Kuisla, a betting man who parlayed his winnings into a real estate empire, was clocked speeding near the Seinajoki airport. Given the speed he was going, Mr. Kuisla was assessed eight days. His fine was then calculated from his 2013 income, 6,559,742 euros, or more than $7 million at current exchange rates. Someone committing a similar offense and earning about 50,000 euros a year, or $54,000, none of it capital gains, and with no young children, would get a fine of about 345 euros, or about $370. Someone earning 300,000 euros ($322,000), would have to pay about 1,480 euros ($1,590). When the “day fine system” was devised for petty crimes, Finland did not even have any speed limits on its roads. Those did not arrive until the 1970s. Back then, the police had to rely on the honor system, that is, asking drivers to declare their incomes, before calculating the fine. It seems not everyone was forthcoming. In today’s digital age, however, a few seconds is all it takes for the police, using mobile devices, to get information directly from the Finnish tax office. Police officials say that there are really very few tickets issued of this magnitude, though they do not keep track. Until he was issued the speeding ticket, Mr. Kuisla used his Facebook page largely to post pictures of his winning horses or the lobbies and bars of the hotels he owns. But the ticket seemed to focus his attention on Finnish policies that he said discouraged entrepreneurs, apparently a reference to the country’s progressive tax system and its high inheritance taxes. High earners can face an income tax rate of more than 50 percent. “Finland is now an impossible country to live in for people with a large income and wealth!” he posted on March 2. But online comments in newspapers suggested a strong showing for the other side. “This says a lot about the times when the stinkingly rich can’t even take their fines for crimes, but are immediately moving out of the country. Farewell, we won’t miss you,” said one post in The Helsingin Sanomat, a daily newspaper and website. But the ticket has tapped into a broader debate about the coherence of the Finnish justice system. Mr. Kuisla’s speeding infraction is actually classified as a crime here, which could seem severe when other parts of the system are relatively lenient. For instance, people convicted of murder could serve as little as nine years and could be released in four and a half years, said Kimmo Kiiski, a senior transport adviser at the Ministry of Transport and Communications. He said that a commission considering such issues was expected to finish a report next year, and that it would probably move speeding tickets out of the criminal justice system altogether and stop levying such large fines for lower-end speeding tickets. Mr. Kuisla, Mr. Kiiski pointed out, would have gotten a fine of about 100 euros if he had been traveling three kilometers per hour slower. “That kind of difference is too big,” Mr. Kiiski said. “There has to be some difference depending on income or there would be no justice. But not that kind of difference.” Mr. Kuisla’s $58,000 ticket is not even the most severe speeding ticket issued in recent years. According to another daily newspaper, Ilkka, Mr. Kuisla himself got an even bigger fine in 2013 when he was going about 76 m.p.h. in a 50 m.p.h. zone. That ticket was for 63,448 euros, about $83,769 at the time. Bigger yet was the ticket issued to a 44-year-old Nokia executive in 2002, when he was caught blowing through Helsinki on his Harley motorcycle and was hit with a $103,600 fine, based on a $12.5 million yearly income. Both tickets were appealed and in the end reduced. Usually, appeals are based on financial issues, such as a one-time sale of stock that year. But judges have great leeway, experts said. Mr. Kuisla ended up paying 5,346 euros for the 2013 ticket.

Helsinki
Finland
Fines
Speed Limits Speeding
Income
Traffic and Parking Violations


Scott E. Page - In Professor's Model, Diversity Equals Productivity

Abstract: In the long-running debate on affirmative action, Scott E. Page, a professor of complex systems, political science and economics at the University of Michigan , is a fresh voice. His recently published book, “The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies” (Princeton University Press), uses mathematical modeling and case studies to show how variety in staffing produces organizational strength. Rather than ponder moral questions like, “Why can’t we all get along?” Dr. Page asks practical ones like, “How can we all be more productive together?” The answer, he suggests, is in messy, creative organizations and environments with individuals from vastly different backgrounds and life experiences. “New York City is the perfect example of diversity functioning well,” he said in an interview. “It’s an exciting place that produces lots of innovation and creativity. It’s not a coincidence that New York has so much energy and also so much diversity.” An edited version of the interview and a subsequent phone conversation follow: Q. In your book you posit that organizations made up of different types of people are more productive than homogenous ones. Why do you say that? A. Because diverse groups of people bring to organizations more and different ways of seeing a problem and, thus, faster/better ways of solving it. People from different backgrounds have varying ways of looking at problems, what I call “tools.” The sum of these tools is far more powerful in organizations with diversity than in ones where everyone has gone to the same schools, been trained in the same mold and thinks in almost identical ways. The problems we face in the world are very complicated. Any one of us can get stuck. If we’re in an organization where everyone thinks in the same way, everyone will get stuck in the same place. But if we have people with diverse tools, they’ll get stuck in different places. One person can do their best, and then someone else can come in and improve on it. There’s a lot of empirical data to show that diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, the most innovative companies are diverse. Breakthroughs in science increasingly come from teams of bright, diverse people. That’s why interdisciplinary work is the biggest trend in scientific research. Q. The term “diversity” has become a code word for inclusion of racial, ethnic and sexual minorities. Is that what you’re talking about? A. I mean differences in how people think. Two people can look quite different and think similarly. Having said that, there’s certainly a lot of evidence that people’s identity groups — ethnic, racial, sexual, age — matter when it comes to diversity in thinking. Here’s the bottom line: I myself am an affirmative action child. I got into the University of Michigan in the 1980s on a program. I’m from a rural part of Michigan. No calculus in high school. So I was given bonus points toward undergraduate admissions. If the policy had been to consider mainly grades and SATs and not to make room for some geographic diversity, maybe I wouldn’t have gotten in. Q. Give us an example of where diversity has improved an organization or profession? A. I’ve seen it in my own field, economics. Before women got really involved in the 1970s, a lot of the actual labor of women wasn’t included in calculations of the gross domestic product. It was as if you had Ma Ingalls sitting around the Little House on the Prairie, eating bonbons, and only Pa Ingalls’s labor was counted in. After you got women into the profession, they started saying: “What if Ma Ingalls opened up a business and charged for the cleaning, pie making, tending of the animals. Wouldn’t there be a lot of G.D.P. in there?” When you only had men thinking about the economy, they were ignoring the productivity of half the population. By including the perspectives of females, the estimates got more accurate. This was important for looking at the American past and for understanding contemporary societies like those in Africa, where women are usually the farmers. Q. In your book, you advocate affirmative action, an unpopular social policy these days. What’s your argument? A. That it’s a flat-out good because, as I said earlier, it makes everything we do more powerful. For a while, I chaired admissions in the graduate political science department at the University of Michigan. We didn’t just look at high test scores. We looked at things like whether an applicant had worked with Teach for America. We wanted to bring in people who had experiences and modes of thinking that would improve everyone else. At a university, people learn from each other as well as their professors. Another suburban kid who was raised to score high on tests doesn’t add all that much to the mix. Q. What’s your critique of standardized testing? A. After a certain threshold, it doesn’t give you enough information. Anyone who scores above 600 on a Graduate Record Exam will probably do well in graduate school. But we were looking for future social science researchers. The ability to do innovative research requires creativity and originality, something the G.R.E. won’t predict. Q. How do you know you’re right about diversity? A. One of the things social scientists do is create math models to prove our theories. With Lu Hong — she’s an economist at Chicago’s Loyola University — I constructed a formal model that showed mathematically that diversity can trump ability, and also when it does. Our models were similar to what people are doing to predict the financial markets and voting patterns, and our paper was published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. What the model showed was that diverse groups of problem solvers outperformed the groups of the best individuals at solving problems. The reason: the diverse groups got stuck less often than the smart individuals, who tended to think similarly. The other thing we did was to show in mathematical terms how when making predictions, a group’s errors depend in equal parts on the ability of its members to predict and their diversity. This second theorem can be expressed as an equation: collective accuracy = average accuracy + diversity.

Difference The: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups Firms Schools and Societies (Book)


Kenya Presses Assault Against Militants in Mall Siege

Abstract: NAIROBI, Kenya — Seeking to end a siege that has left scores dead and shaken the nation, the Kenyan government said Sunday night that it was pressing an assault against Shabab militant attackers who had been holed up in a Nairobi shopping mall for more than a day. Late Sunday, the Kenyan military announced that it had retaken “most” of the Westgate mall — the attackers had been confined to the third floor since their initial assault on Saturday — and freed more hostages, though details could not be confirmed. Helicopters circled the mall building through the night, and occasional explosions and bursts of gunfire were heard above a rainstorm in the area. “Most areas of the building are now in the control of K.D.F.,” said Col. Cyrus Oguna, referring to the Kenya Defense Forces. He told the television station KTN that most of the hostages taken by the militants had been rescued. “We know the number cannot be more than 10 right now.” The Shabab, a militant group mostly based in neighboring Somalia, answered with Twitter messages of their own, including warning that “Kenyan forces who’ve just attempted a roof landing must know that they are jeopardizing the lives of all the hostages at #Westgate .” Later, officials said that at least four members of the security forces had been wounded. But there were no other details about additional casualties on either side. The attack on the mall deeply distressed Kenya, a nation that has grown in stature as a force against terrorism in East Africa. As the toll mounted — at least 68 were reported dead by late Sunday, with several people still unaccounted for — the potential for even greater loss of life seemed tangible. Addressing the nation, President Uhuru Kenyatta sounded a note of solidarity in loss, revealing that his nephew and the man’s fiancée were among the dead. “These are young, lovely people I personally knew and loved,” Mr. Kenyatta said. “Many of us have lost loved ones. Let us mourn them all as one nation and keep them always in remembrance and prayer.” Image Kenyan soldiers set up a cordon around the mall, where militants and civilians remained inside for a second day on Sunday. Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times He said security forces had rescued more than 1,000 people from the mall since the violence began on Saturday, calling the forces’ performance “remarkable and encouraging,” even as he asked for patience from the public as the standoff continued. The assault on Westgate was the deadliest terrorist attack in Kenya since the 1998 Qaeda truck bombing of the American Embassy in Nairobi that killed more than 200 people. President Obama called Mr. Kenyatta on Sunday to reaffirm the “strong and historic partnership between the United States and Kenya.” That relationship has been strained by the election in March of Mr. Kenyatta, who is being prosecuted at the International Criminal Court on charges of financing death squads during an outbreak of political violence in 2007. Mr. Obama skipped visiting Kenya, his father’s birthplace, on his trip to Africa in late June. The Shabab have said that they staged the mall attack as retribution for the Kenyan military presence in Somalia, where Kenyan troops have driven Shabab fighters out of much of the territory they once controlled. A confidential United Nations security report described the assault on the mall as two-pronged, with groups of gunmen attacking on different floors simultaneously. Joseph Ole Lenku, the cabinet secretary for the interior, said Sunday afternoon that from 10 to 15 attackers were inside the mall. Mr. Kenyatta said he could neither confirm nor deny reports that one or more of the attackers were women. The Shabab claimed in a Twitter post that several of the attackers were Americans; a senior law enforcement official in the United States said the Federal Bureau of Investigation had yet to establish whether that claim was true, and that it would be difficult to do so until all the attackers were captured or killed. The number of bystanders remaining in the building was not as clear, though the Kenya Red Cross , citing the police as its source, said Sunday that 49 people were unaccounted for, raising the prospect of a significantly higher death toll before the crisis ends. The American official said that the F.B.I. had offered assistance to the Kenyan authorities and that F.B.I. agents were at the Kenyan command post at the scene. There were reports that Israelis were supporting the Kenyan authorities as well; a spokeswoman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said she could not comment. The secretary general of Interpol, Ronald K. Noble, said in a statement that his agency had offered to send a response team, including forensic and counterterrorism experts. Mr. Kenyatta said that he had received “numerous offers of assistance from friendly countries; for the time being, however, this remains an operation of the Kenyan security agencies.” Among those killed in the mall were three Britons, the British Foreign Office confirmed Sunday. Five Americans were among the wounded, but none were known to have been killed. News agencies reported that other foreigners were also among the dead. Image Crowds of people gathered near the Westgate mall on Sunday. Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times As the identities of victims began to emerge on Sunday, the public mourning of a national tragedy began. One of those killed was Ruhila Adatia-Sood, a popular Kenyan radio host who was in the parking lot of the mall hosting a cooking competition, according to reports. She posted several photos on her Instagram account before the attack. Also among the dead was Kofi Awoonor, 78, a Ghanaian poet and former professor at the University of Ghana. Hundreds of relatives and friends of people who were in the mall went to hospitals around the city that were treating the wounded, trying to ascertain the fate of their loved ones. At the M P Shah Hospital a few miles away from the mall, distressed relatives milled around a tent erected for them outside the building, as volunteers worked to assist them. Ruth Nyambura, 26, whose uncle worked at the Nakumatt Supermarket in Westgate at the time of the attack, said she was terrified. “I have come along with my family just to find out how he’s doing,” Ms. Nyambura said. “He was shot in the head, suffered severe wounds on his one of his eyes and his arms. He was operated on yesterday, and we’ve come to see him again. We are being told to wait because the queue is too long.” Kenya’s political class, often starkly divided, has demonstrated unity since the attack. Raila Odinga, a former prime minister and a political opponent of Mr. Kenyatta, joined him in an appearance at the State House on Sunday. “This is a trying moment for our country,” Mr. Odinga said. “It is something that has hit at the very heart of our country’s unity. Our people must come together at times like this to help each other.”In his address on Sunday, Mr. Kenyatta, too, appealed for unity. “We have ashamed and defeated our attackers,” he said. “Let us continue to wage a relentless moral war as our forces conduct a physical battle. We shall triumph.”

Westgate Mall Shootings
Nairobi
Al Shabab
Terrorism
Hostage
Fatalities,casualties
Somalia
Kenya


News Media, Target of Trump’s Declaration of War, Expresses Alarm

Abstract: For wary Washington journalists, it seemed only a matter of time before Donald J. Trump’s presidency would lead to a high-tension standoff between his administration and the news media. But on Day 1? The news media world found itself in a state of shock on Sunday, a day after Mr. Trump declared himself in “a running war with the media” and the president’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, used his first appearance on the White House podium to deliver a fiery jeremiad against the press. Worse, many journalists said, were the falsehoods that sprang from the lips of both Mr. Trump and Mr. Spicer on Saturday. Mr. Trump accused the news media of confecting a battle between himself and the intelligence services (in fact, he had previously compared the services to Nazi Germany in a Twitter post). And among other easily debunked assertions, Mr. Spicer falsely claimed that Mr. Trump’s inauguration was the most attended in history (photographs indicated it was not). Video President Trump and his press secretary disputed estimates of attendance at his inauguration, but footage from Friday’s event, compared with those from President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, showed a different story. Credit Credit Left, Lucas Jackson, Right, Stelios Varias/Reuters “It was absolutely surprising and stunning,” the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, Jeff Mason, said on CNN on Sunday. In a phone interview later, Mr. Mason said: “People were surprised. I was surprised. It’s not what I was expecting for the first statement by the press secretary in the press room.” The tensions flared anew on Sunday when Kellyanne Conway, one of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, said in a television interview that Mr. Spicer had merely presented “alternative facts” about the inauguration, prompting an astonished response from her questioner, Chuck Todd of NBC. “Wait a minute — ‘alternative facts’?” Mr. Todd asked Ms. Conway on “Meet the Press.” “Look, alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.” When Mr. Todd pressed her about why the administration had put Mr. Spicer behind the lectern for the first time to “utter a provable falsehood,” Ms. Conway responded with a sharp threat. “If we’re going to keep referring to our press secretary in those types of terms, I think that we’re going to have to rethink our relationship here,” she said. Video of Ms. Conway’s evasion quickly spread on social media. The phrases “alternative facts” and “#alternativefacts” had been used on Twitter more than 380,000 times by midafternoon on Sunday, a Twitter spokesman said. Also by Sunday afternoon, there were scattered calls for the White House press corps to boycott Mr. Spicer’s briefings, although such a drastic response appeared unlikely. Ben Smith, the editor in chief of BuzzFeed, said on Sunday that the briefings were “a useful, if not essential, tradition” and that his outlet would keep a reporter there. Mr. Smith added that the Trump administration would “find practical reasons to be honest.” “In particular,” Mr. Smith wrote in an email, “I think they’ll find in moments of real crisis, rather than political theater, that they need to win back the credibility that they are spending now.” Mr. Mason, the correspondents’ association president, who is the chief liaison between the White House press corps and Mr. Spicer, said his goal was to maintain a constructive relationship. “It’s up to him and up to the president to decide how they want to get started,” Mr. Mason said of Mr. Spicer. “And that’s what they decided.” Some reporters and commentators noted that hostility between White House press operations and the news media was nothing new. Jack Shafer, the acerbic media critic, wrote on Twitter that “the press is supposed to be abused, disparaged, defamed, dissed.” He added, “It’s part of the job.” Lynn Sweet, a political reporter for The Chicago Sun-Times, said credibility, not civility, was what mattered. “If Sean wants to have an angry tone, frankly, I don’t care,” Ms. Sweet said on CNN. “I don’t care if you vent.” She added: “I care if he says something that’s true. I care if he gives us facts.” In an interview on Sunday, Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary under George W. Bush, said that Mr. Spicer’s statements on Saturday were somewhat typical of the spin at press briefings. But Mr. Spicer’s “eagerness and willingness” to confront the press corps so directly represented a break from tradition, Mr. Fleischer said. “Everybody complains about the press, but most people bite their tongue” in news conferences, Mr. Fleischer said. Mr. Fleischer added that Mr. Spicer’s remarks could hurt his credibility unless he backed them up — or at least addressed them — during the first official White House briefing on Monday. “Sean’s first client is the president of the United States and those around the president; his second client is the press corps,” Mr. Fleischer said. “And he has to serve both, always guided by the truth.” In reporting on the day’s events, many news organizations also called out the falsehoods that Mr. Trump and Mr. Spicer offered on Saturday, using variations of “false,” “falsehoods” and “lies” in headlines and stories. Breitbart News, the right-wing website that has embraced Mr. Trump, was more credulous in its headline: “WH Press Secretary Sean Spicer Blasts Media’s ‘Deliberately False Reporting.’” Voice of America, the government-funded news operation that broadcasts American journalism beyond the country’s borders, pointed out Mr. Spicer’s inaccuracies and ran an article from The Associated Press fact-checking his remarks. Still, that came only after the organization initially posted a string of Twitter messages that quoted Mr. Spicer without context, prompting questions about whether it was endorsing his comments. Voice of America’s director, Amanda Bennett, said that there had been no instructions or interference from the Trump administration and that Voice of America had quickly decided it needed to provide more explanation. “Internally, there was like an explosion of direct messages saying you’ve got to do something about this,” Ms. Bennett said in an interview on Sunday. That led to a course correction on Twitter, including the deletion of one tweet that appeared to support Mr. Spicer. For First Amendment advocates, the events of Mr. Trump’s first 48 hours in office were, to say the least, unsettling. In a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union denounced Mr. Spicer’s remarks as “possible government censorship” and vowed that any threats by Mr. Trump’s administration to the principles of freedom of the press would be met with a “vigorous defense” of the First Amendment. “If Trump wants to take on the First Amendment,” the group said in the statement, “we will see him in court.”

US Politics
Voice of America
Kellyanne Conway
Sean Spicer
News media,journalism
Donald Trump
Inauguration


Senate Approves Water-Projects Bill

Abstract: Congress has sent the White House a $12.3 billion water-projects bill half the size of its last one, seven years ago. The bill, which the Senate passed 91 to 7 on Thursday, authorizes 34 new projects over 10 years. The House passed it Tuesday. It includes flood-control projects for Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Fargo, N.D., and dredging and harbor expansions in Boston and Savannah, Ga.

Senate
Congress
House of Representatives
Congress
Legislation
Water
US Politics
Flood
Federal Budget


Ties With U.S. Remain Strained After Russian Election

Abstract: MOSCOW — Now that Russia ’s presidential campaign is over, the Kremlin signaled on Tuesday that it was prepared for its relationship with Washington to get back to normal, potentially including swift cooperation on containing Iran’s nuclear program amid the prospect of a military strike by Israel. But senior American officials suggested that it could take some time to get past the strident anti-American rhetoric that characterized Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin ’s politicking in recent months, including his strangely personal allegation that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to stoke political unrest in Russia. Underscoring the ambivalence in Washington, the Obama administration fiercely debated how to respond to the Russian election, with some officials favoring a strong condemnation of the results. The White House ultimately settled on a tempered statement, not directly congratulating Mr. Putin but saying “the United States looks forward to working with the president-elect.” As of late Tuesday night in Moscow, President Obama still had not called Mr. Putin to congratulate him. But at an afternoon news conference in Washington, Mr. Obama acknowledged the result, noting that a Group of 8 meeting in May at Camp David would “give me a chance to spend time with Mr. Putin, the new Russian president.” Mr. Putin, who won a six-year term on Sunday, had said Mrs. Clinton sent a “signal” to demonstrators to begin street actions in Moscow after Russian parliamentary elections in December that observers said were marred by voter fraud. More broadly, the Kremlin asserted a plot in which the United States was financing opposition groups as well as Golos, the only independent election-monitoring organization in Russia, which gathered evidence of irregularities. In the months since, there have been sharp disagreements over how to handle the violence in Syria, including Russia’s joint veto with China of a Security Council resolution calling on President Bashar al-Assad to step down. Mrs. Clinton recently called those vetoes, at a time when Syrian forces continued to shell civilian neighborhoods, “just despicable.” Mrs. Clinton spoke by phone on Tuesday with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in a call that officials said had a “get back to business” tone. A senior State Department official said they discussed Iran , Syria, the Middle East peace process and the Russian election. Russia on Tuesday also joined the United States, Britain, China, France and Germany in accepting Iran’s offer to negotiate on its nuclear program at a time and place to be determined, a step American officials said they viewed as very encouraging. The deep strain in relations between Washington and Moscow had come at a time of numerous pressing international security issues. And just as Russia seems ready to move beyond the recent tough talk, the United States has its own presidential election that could complicate things. In reacting to Mr. Putin’s victory on Monday, the State Department clearly tried to walk a tightrope. With European observers sharply criticizing the Russian election as unfairly tilted in Mr. Putin’s favor, some officials wanted to strongly condemn the outcome, according to one American official involved in the process and another who was briefed on it. But there were concerns about alienating Mr. Putin and further jeopardizing ties at a time when the United States is eager for Russia’s cooperation, especially in the Middle East. There was also some sense at the White House that little good could come from a debate over Russia policy, traditionally a divisive topic, during a presidential election year. Mitt Romney, the leading Republican presidential candidate, pounced quickly, issuing a statement criticizing the Obama administration for being too tepid in its statement on the election. “What the world witnessed in Russia yesterday was a mockery of the democratic process,” Mr. Romney said. “Instead of stating that it ‘congratulates the Russian people on the completion of the presidential elections,’ as the Obama administration has done, it should have condemned the flagrant manipulation and media restrictions that marred this election. With the dimming of democracy in Russia, a better label for President Obama’s Russia policy is ‘set back’ rather than ‘reset.’ ” In the highly coded language of diplomacy, the Obama administration’s statement was hardly a valentine. It pointedly congratulated “the Russian people on the completion of the presidential elections,” but not Mr. Putin himself. It endorsed the report by European election observers and urged the Russian government “to conduct an independent, credible investigation of all reported electoral violations.” In addition, the administration’s statement praised the new political activism by Russian citizens “exercising their constitutional right to free assembly” — a clear reference to the opposition groups that have staged antigovernment protests in Moscow. But the political situation in Moscow could prove to be a new source of tensions in the countries’ relations. On Monday night, as the police rounded up the leaders of the latest protest rally, the American ambassador, Michael A. McFaul, posted a message on Twitter: “Troubling to watch arrests of peaceful demonstrators at Pushkin Square. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are universal values.” The Russian Foreign Ministry snapped back at Mr. McFaul, in its own Twitter post: “Police on Pushkin were several times more humane than what we saw in the breakup of the Occupy Wall Street protests, the tent camps in Europe.” But there were also clear overtures from the Russian government on Tuesday. “We think a great deal of important, good and useful work has been done in Russian-American relations over the years of Dmitri Medvedev’s and Barack Obama’s presidency,” Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said at a news briefing. “All this must be saved and used as a foundation for the next step.” A senior administration official said Washington would be looking for concrete proof of Russia’s intentions. “Privately they have said to us at the highest levels that the change in president will not mean a change in their policy toward the United States,” this official said. “Now we get to test that proposition.” The official added: “It’s time to translate these diplomatic notes and communications into some policy achievements. For us, we really do need even an incremental success. We need something to show we are moving in a different direction.”

United States International Relations
Russia
Putin Vladimir V
Clinton Hillary Rodham
Politics and Government
Iran
Nuclear Weapons


Bloomberg’s Remarks on Teachers Draw Scrutiny

Abstract: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg faced tough questions for a second day Friday on comments he made about two of the most sensitive issues in New York City education: teacher quality and class sizes. Speaking on Tuesday to students at M.I.T., the mayor said that in his ideal world he would fire half the city’s teachers and pay those remaining twice as much to teach classes double the current size. “If I had the ability, which nobody does really, to just design the system and say, ex cathedra, this is what we’re going to do, you would cut the number of teachers in half, but you would double the compensation of them, and you would weed out all the bad ones and just have good teachers. And double the class size with a better teacher is a good deal for the students,” he said. Mr. Bloomberg has been battling the teachers’ union over the issue of teacher quality, pressing Albany this year for the power to promote or fire teachers based on performance reviews instead of longevity of service. But he has never gone as far as to associate half of teachers with bad performance — an assessment not supported by a recent test of a new teacher evaluation system. In that study, which used evaluations from 20 city schools, 18 percent of teachers were rated ineffective . On Friday, when he was asked about his remarks, Mr. Bloomberg said: “If you were going to start from scratch, you want to go and get the best teachers and you have to pay them more to get them, which means you’re going to have fewer teachers. Nobody’s talking about laying off anybody.” He said the city increased teacher salaries 105 percent over the last decade — a figure that apparently takes into account raises built into the existing contract, like one for teachers who earn an advanced degree, on top of the 43 percent in pay increases the union says it received. The mayor also said that while some studies had shown that class size affected performance, that had not been the case in his life. “I went to school in a class, five rows of eight,” he said. “Everybody I know in my generation went to classes of 40 or more. And education by some people’s argument was as good then as it is today. Whether it’s better or worse, I don’t know. But I got through it.” Michael Mulgrew, the president of the teachers union, called the mayor’s estimate of salary increases of 105 percent “the silliest comments I’ve ever heard.” “But the disappointing fact here is a complete lack of any understanding of what’s required for education,” he said, pointing out that members of the United Federation of Teachers had seen four years of school budget cuts and get “no support” from the Education Department other than “more directives.” “Now the mayor comes up and says — not, ‘Thank you for dealing with all this craziness.’ It’s — ‘I can make education better by getting rid of half of you,’ ” he said. “It’s pretty disgusting at this point.” Two likely candidates for the 2013 mayoral race — the Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer, and the public advocate, Bill de Blasio — also denounced Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks. Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, an advocacy group, said the mayor once ran on a platform of reducing class size. “He’s already eliminated thousands of teaching positions, we have the largest class sizes in 11 years, and he tried merit pay,” she said. “There’s been no positive results, so as far as I’m concerned. We’ve had the experiment, we’ve tried and it’s failed."

Bloomberg Michael R
Education (K-12)
Teachers and School Employees
New York City


Justices Hear Arguments on Missed Deadline in Murder Case

Abstract: WASHINGTON — Floyd Perkins, a Michigan man serving a life sentence for murder, says he has evidence proving his innocence and should be allowed to present it long after a one-year filing deadline has passed. The Supreme Court has never resolved whether such deadlines may be waived when prisoners file federal habeas corpus challenges to state-court convictions based on evidence of innocence. Judging from the justices’ questions on Monday in Mr. Perkins’s case, their eventual decision is not likely to bring much additional clarity to the situation. There was some support from the bench for the abstract proposition that deadlines ought not be too rigid. But there was less sympathy for Mr. Perkins himself. Mr. Perkins was convicted based largely on the testimony of Damarr Jones, who said he saw Mr. Perkins stab a third man in the head in 1993 after the three of them left a house party in Flint, Mich. The third man, Rodney Henderson, was found dead on a wooded trail. Mr. Perkins testified that he had parted from the other two men before the killing and later saw his accuser under a streetlight, bloody and agitated. The jury believed Mr. Jones. Over the years, from behind bars, Mr. Perkins collected three sworn statements from people who said they had evidence that Mr. Jones was the actual killer. Their basic contention was that Mr. Jones had taken a bloody pair of orange pants to a dry cleaner the day after the killing. Though Mr. Perkins obtained the last statement in 2002, he did not ask a federal judge to throw out his conviction until 2008. The judge refused, saying it had been filed too late and that, in any event, the statements were just an elaboration of a claim the jury had rejected — that Mr. Perkins “was being framed by the prosecution’s lead witness, who himself was responsible for the murder.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, reversed the part of the ruling concerning the deadline and ordered the trial judge to take another look at the evidence. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he had “some difficulty understanding what the Sixth Circuit was doing.” “The most that is suggested by the affidavits is that Jones was a participant in this murder, not that Perkins was not responsible for the murder,” he said. He added that Mr. Perkins should lose for two reasons. “First, you don’t really have evidence of actual innocence,” Justice Alito said. “Second, you weren’t diligent.” John J. Bursch, Michigan’s solicitor general, said it was unfair to make prosecutors respond to the new evidence after so much time had elapsed. Image The Supreme Court has never resolved whether filing deadlines may be waived when prisoners file federal habeus corpus challenges to state convictions based on evidence of innocence. Credit Alex Wong/Getty Images “We all know that as time passes evidence deteriorates, whether it’s because of death or illness or simply forgetfulness,” he said. “I certainly can’t remember what I was doing 10 years ago today.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked why Mr. Perkins had waited so long to go to court. Chad A. Readler, Mr. Perkins’s lawyer, listed several reasons. “One, he was looking for counsel to assist him,” Mr. Readler said of his client. “Two, he continued to look for evidence. Three, he didn’t have access to his legal papers. Many of his legal papers were lost in a prison riot.” Mr. Bursch urged the justices not to credit that last reason. “Defendant Perkins incited the prison riot,” he said. Justice Alito said there were practical reasons not to relax the deadline in the case, McQuiggin v. Perkins, No. 12-126. “If you took a poll of all of the prisoners in Michigan, how many of them do you think would say they are actually innocent?” he asked. He answered his own question: “A lot.” He added he thought it unlikely that Congress would have “intended to create an exemption that broad, so that anybody who claims to be actually innocent” could take advantage of it. The court on Monday also declined to hear a case concerning racially charged remarks at trial by a federal prosecutor in Texas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in an opinion joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, wrote that the decision not to hear the case, Calhoun v. United States , No. 12-6142, had been correct, as the defendant’s lawyer had not objected to the remarks. She wrote separately, she said, to dispel any doubt about the Supreme Court’s tolerance of such comments. A question in the case was whether the defendant, Bongani C. Calhoun, had been aware that his companions were planning to buy drugs. The prosecutor said the circumstances should have made that plain to Mr. Calhoun. “You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money,” he said. “Doesn’t that tell you — a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say, ‘This is a drug deal’?” Justice Sotomayor wrote that this statement “was pernicious in its attempt to substitute racial stereotype for evidence, and racial prejudice for reason.” “I hope,” she wrote, “never to see a case like this again.”

Supreme Court
Floyd Perkins
Decisions and Verdicts
Prison
Murders
Michigan
Habeas corpus


Indians Beat Mariners on Yan Gomes’s Homer in 10th

Abstract: Yan Gomes hit a three-run homer in the 10th inning as the Cleveland Indians, revived by Seattle’s errors in the last two innings, beat the Mariners, 10-8, on Monday to complete a four-game home sweep and continue a season that is shaping up as one to remember in Cleveland. “Best game I’ve ever been a part of,” Indians reliever Chris Perez said. “It was the craziest, most fun.” Gomes, who also homered in the second, drove a 3-2 pitch from Charlie Furbush (0-3) over the wall in left, giving the Indians their fifth straight win and their third walk-off victory over the Mariners in four days. Cleveland, which has won 18 of its last 22 games, rallied to win despite giving up homers in the 8th, 9th and 10th innings. The Indians were an out away from losing in the ninth when Seattle closer Tom Wilhelmsen dropped an underhanded toss while covering first, allowing the Indians to tie the score, 7-7. Justin Smoak’s homer in the 10th gave the Mariners the lead again. In Cleveland’s half of the inning, Michael Brantley singled and Drew Stubbs bunted. Furbush’s throw beat Stubbs to first, but Smoak dropped the ball. Gomes then delivered his game-winning homer. BLUE JAYS 7, RAYS 5 R. A. Dickey (4-5) won his second straight start; Edwin Encarnacion hit a tiebreaking, bases-loaded double in the seventh; and Toronto beat Tampa Bay at home. Dickey allowed two earned runs and four hits in a season-high eight innings. Image The Indians welcomed Yan Gomes, second from right, after his game-winning homer. Cleveland has won 18 of its last 22 games. Credit Jason Miller/Getty Images WHITE SOX 6, RED SOX 4 Adam Dunn hit a three-run homer in the first inning and host Chicago handed Boston’s Jon Lester his first loss of the season. Alejandro De Aza and Alexei Ramirez added consecutive run-scoring doubles in the second off Lester (6-1). ATHLETICS 9, RANGERS 2 Seth Smith homered and scored three times, Bartolo Colon pitched seven strong innings for his first win in nearly a month, and Oakland won at Texas. ASTROS 6, ROYALS 5 Matt Dominguez hit a three-run homer and Jason Castro had a solo shot to lift host Houston over Kansas City. BRAVES 5, TWINS 1 Julio Teheran pitched eight and a third strong innings and Dan Uggla hit a three-run homer as host Atlanta won its fourth straight by beating Minnesota, which has lost six in a row. DODGERS 3, BREWERS 1 Los Angeles has one way of avoiding its beleaguered bullpen: sending Clayton Kershaw to the mound. Kershaw (5-2) pitched a three-hitter, and the visiting Dodgers had home runs from Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp in their win over Milwaukee. MARLINS 5, PHILLIES 1 Alex Sanabia (3-6) outpitched Cole Hamels (1-7) in a matchup of struggling starters, leading Miami over Philadelphia in front of an announced season-low crowd of 13,231 at Marlins Park. DIAMONDBACKS 5, ROCKIES 1 Patrick Corbin pitched a three-hitter for his seventh win without a loss and Eric Chavez had three hits and a run batted in as visiting Arizona defeated Colorado.

Baseball
Cleveland Indians
Blue Jays
Tampa Bay Rays
Don Mattingly
R A Dickey