The White House is trying to distract from Trump's wiretap claims with a dubious new talking point The White House is trying to distract from Trump's wiretap claims with a dubious new talking point

Spicer holds his daily press briefing at the White House in Washington Thomson Reuters

A former Obama administration official responsible for the Defense Department's Russia policy has come in the White House's crosshairs for what they have characterized as her admission that Obama-era officials were collecting intelligence on President Donald Trump and his transition team.

In a March 2 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Evelyn Farkas, the former deputy assistant secretary of defense, was asked to respond to a New York Times report claiming the Obama administration had scrambled to preserve intelligence related to Trump's possible ties to Russia in the waning days of Barack Obama's presidency.

"American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump," the Times reported. "Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates."

Farkas told "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski that it would not surprise her if that were the case. She said she had been "urging" her former colleagues "to get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration."

"I had a fear that  the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about ... the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence," Farkas said.

She added that the fear Trump might try to bury the relevant intelligence may have been why sources felt the need to publicize the FBI's investigation into Trump's Russia ties by leaking aspects of it to the press.

This week, her comments have resurfaced as the White House has been swept up in a controversy involving whether it improperly gave House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes access to classified intelligence reports. Fox News host Sean Hannity appears to have first floated the idea that Farkas was "admitting" that Trump's transition team members had been under surveillance by Obama, something Nunes said last week had been revealed by the intelligence he viewed.

"She’s admitting that they [Obama officials] unmasked them because they’re Trump transition members," Hannity said on Wednesday.  

By Friday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer invoked Farkas' comments. He said Farkas had essentially acknowledged that the Obama administration was "engaged in an effort to spread information about Trump officials that had come up in intelligence." 

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with then-President-elect Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington November 10, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

However, as Nunes has acknowledged, such intelligence collection — if it was picked up during the intelligence community's routine surveillance of foreign agents on US soil — would have been legal. And  Farkas left the Obama administration in October 2015, when Trump was only months into his presidential candidacy.

The dominoes did not begin to fall on Trump's and his associates' ties with Russian officials until mid-2016. That was when a mysterious change in the GOP's platform on Ukraine, WikiLeaks' release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, and conversations between top Trump surrogates Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn with Russia's ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, began to raise questions.

By that point, Farkas had already been out of government for nine months and likely wouldn't have had any insight into what intelligence the administration actually had about Trump's ties to Russia, or what they were doing with it.

The White House has tried repeatedly with varying degrees of evidence to attempt to validate Trump's explosive  claim earlier this month that  Obama "tapped" his phones at Trump Tower during the election — a claim both Trump and Spicer have been steadily walking back for nearly a month.

"Don't forget, when I say wiretapping, those words were in quotes," Trump told Fox's Tucker Carlson on March 16.

"That really covers — because wiretapping is pretty old-fashioned stuff, but that really covers surveillance and many other things. And nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that's a very important thing. But wiretap covers a lot of different things. I think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks."

About a week later Nunes told reporters that he had obtained documents related to possible surveillance of Trump's associates during the transition.

Asked about those documents later, Spicer scolded reports for being obsessed with the "process" over the "substance" of Nunes' findings, which he claimed Nunes had obtained legally — and, it was revealed later, with the help of the White House.

Trump is facing new questions about political interference in the Russia investigations Trump is facing new questions about political interference in the Russia investigations

President Donald Trump awaits the arrival of Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen at the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 30, 2017. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is facing new questions about political interference in the investigations into Russian election meddling following reports that White House officials secretly funneled material to the chairman of the House intelligence committee.

Trying to fend off the growing criticism, Trump's top lawyer invited lawmakers from both parties to view classified information at the White House. Thursday's invitation came as The New York Times reported that two White House officials — including an aide whose job was recently saved by President Donald Trump — secretly helped House intelligence committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes examine intelligence information there last week.

Nunes is leading one of three investigations into Russia's attempt to influence the campaign and Trump associates' possible involvement. The Senate intelligence committee, which has thus far taken a strikingly more measured and bipartisan approach to its own Russia probe, tried to keep its distance from the White House and asked that the documents uncovered by Trump aides be given to lawmakers via the appropriate agencies.

The cloud of investigation has hung over Trump's White House since the day he took office. On Thursday, an attorney for Michael Flynn, Trump's ex-national security adviser, said Flynn is in discussions with the congressional committees about speaking to them in exchange for immunity. The talks are preliminary, and no official offers have been made.

"General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit," Flynn's attorney, Robert Kelner, said in a statement.

Other Trump associates have volunteered to speak with investigators, but have not publicly raised the issue of immunity.

Flynn, a member of the Trump campaign and transition, was fired as national security adviser after it was publicly disclosed that he misled the vice president about a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. Flynn's ties to Russia have been scrutinized by the FBI and are under investigation by the House and Senate intelligence panels.

The House committee's work has been deeply, and perhaps irreparably, undermined by Nunes' apparent coordination with the White House. He told reporters last week that he had seen troubling information about the improper distribution of Trump associates' intercepted communications, and he briefed the president on the material, all before informing Rep. Adam Schiff, the committee's top Democrat.

Speaking on Capitol Hill Thursday, Schiff said he was "more than willing" to accept the White House offer to view new information. But he raised concerns that Trump officials may have used Nunes to "launder information to our committee to avoid the true source."

"The White House has a lot of questions to answer," he declared.

Instead, the White House continued to sidestep queries about its role in showing Nunes classified information that appears to have included transcripts of foreign officials discussing Trump's transition to the presidency, according to current and former U.S. officials. Intelligence agencies routinely monitor the communications of foreign officials living in the U.S., though the identities of Americans swept up in that collection is supposed to be protected.

House Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) speak with the media about the ongoing Russia investigation on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S. March 15, 2017. Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters

In Washington early last week, White House officials privately encouraged reporters to look into whether information about Trump associates had been improperly revealed in the intelligence gathering process. Days later, Nunes announced that he had evidence, via an unnamed source, showing that Trump and his aides' communications had been collected through legal means but then "widely disseminated" throughout government agencies. He said the collections were not related to the Russia investigation.

Trump spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday the material the White House wants the House and Senate intelligence leaders to view was discovered by the National Security Council through the course of regular business. He would not say whether it was the same material Nunes had already seen.

A congressional aide said Schiff did not receive the White House letter until after Spicer announced it from the White House briefing room.

Spicer had previously dismissed the notion that the White House had fed information to Nunes, saying the idea that the congressman would come and brief Trump on material the president's team already had "doesn't pass the smell test." The White House quickly embraced Nunes' revelations, saying they vindicated Trump's explosive and unverified claim that President Barack Obama wiretapped his New York skyscraper.

Nunes has said the information he received did not support that allegation, which has also been disputed by Obama and top intelligence officials.

The Times reported that Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the White House National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a White House lawyer who previously worked on the House intelligence committee, played roles in helping Nunes view the materials.

Cohen-Watnick is among about a dozen White House officials who would have access to the types of classified information Nunes says he viewed, according to current and former U.S. officials. He's become a controversial figure in intelligence circles, but Trump decided to keep him on over the objections of the CIA and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, according to the officials. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly by name.

Cohen-Watnick and Nunes both served on the Trump transition team.

Stephen Slick, a former CIA and NSC official, said it would be "highly unusual and likely unprecedented" for a member of Congress to travel to the White House to view intelligence reports "without prior authorization."

Nunes has repeatedly sidestepped questions about who provided him the intelligence reports, though he pointedly has not denied that his sources were in the White House. House Speaker Paul Ryan, in an interview with "CBS This Morning" that aired Thursday, said Nunes told him a "whistleblower-type person" provided the information.

A spokesman for Ryan later said the speaker was not aware of Nunes' source and continues to have "full confidence" in the congressman's ability to run the Russia investigation.

___

Associated Press writers Chad Day and Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

More from Associated Press:

• Rescuers search collapsed buildings in Italy after another powerful earthquake hits region near Perugia
• Texas Longhorns jump all the way up to No. 11 in latest AP poll after beating Notre Dame
• A college professor has promised to consume only water and sports drinks after the university's president overrode a nearly unanimous decision to grant him tenure
• Craig Sager is hoping to return to NBA sidelines by November after receiving a rare third bone-marrow transplant
• David Ortiz honored with a corn maze cut in his likeness

Senate Intel leaders just sent a loud message to Devin Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee Senate Intel leaders just sent a loud message to Devin Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee

Richard Burr. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee spoke at length on Wednesday, conveying one major point during a press conference about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election: Their committee was not descending into the chaos that enveloped their House counterpart for the past week.

Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee's ranking member, were forceful in playing up the bipartisan nature of their investigation during the press conference.

When Burr, who called the investigation"one of the biggest" Congress has seen in his 20-plus-year tenure on Capitol Hill, was asked about his past support for Trump, including his past role as an adviser to his campaign, the North Carolina senator joked that he would "do something I've never done."

"I'll admit that I voted for him," he said. "But I've got a job in the United States Senate. And I take that job extremely seriously."

"It overrides any personal beliefs that I have or loyalties I might have," he continued. "Mark and I might look at politics differently — we don't look at the responsibilities we have on the committee differently. And that's to earn the trust and respect of the intelligence community so they feel open and good about sharing information with us, because that enables us to do our oversight ... that much better."

Warner jumped in, adding that he has "confidence" that the Burr-led committee will "get to the bottom of this."

"And ... if you get nothing else from today, take that statement to the bank," he said.

Devin Nunes. AP Photo / Manuel Balce Ceneta

As Burr and Warner stood next to each other answering questions about their committee's investigation, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes continued his defense of meeting on the White House grounds with a source to get information pertaining to potential surveillance of President Trump and his team, a move that many said delegitimized the integrity of the House investigation into Russia.

Nunes and committee Democrats spent the day disputing assertions made by the other side regarding their investigation's process. Prominent Democrats, and now even a Republican congressman, have called for Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation, which he has insisted he would not do.

Before last week, Nunes and Ranking Democrat Adam Schiff did press conferences in the style of Burr and Warner, standing alongside each other. But that veneer of bipartisanship vanished after Nunes first went to the press alone to disclose the Trump-related information last week, without presenting it to the rest of his committee.

For the two senators, Wednesday's press conference could not have stood in starker contrast to the investigation taking place in the House.

"We will get to the bottom of this," Warner said. "Richard and I have known each other a long time. And the chairman and I have serious concern about what the Russians have done and continue to do around the world."

Burr said the leaders "can't say enough what the mission of the Senate committee is."

Mark Warner and Burr. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

"Which is to look at all activities that Russia might have taken to alter or influence the 2016 elections in the United States," Burr continued. "In addition to that, the mission of the committee is to look at any contacts [either campaign had] with Russian government, Russian government officials, that might have influenced in any way shape or form the election process."

"We take that very seriously," he added. "It's not something that can be done quickly."

The North Carolina Republican promised his committee would look "anywhere intelligence suggest there might have been any type of relationship or effort to influence US elections."

Asked about whether he could definitively rule out any collusion between the Trump team and Russian officials, Burr said it was "crazy to try to draw conclusions" at this stage of the investigation, adding that it is unwise to share updates on a "minute-by-minute" basis because those bits and pieces are "not always accurate" once further intelligence is uncovered.

The House investigation, for the past week, has seemingly been operating in a way where such "minute-by-minute" revelations are being made, starting with Nunes' first briefing with reporters last week. Burr said his committee would not be asking the House to play "any role in our investigation" and "we don't plan to play any role in their investigation."

Warner insisted that a bipartisan approach is a must for an investigation that has, in many respects, become infected with partisanship elsewhere.

"If we don't come to some joint conclusion ... I think we will not have fulfilled our duty," he said, later adding, "We're going to get it right."

Here's how Trump's plan to dismantle Obama's climate legacy could fall apart Here's how Trump's plan to dismantle Obama's climate legacy could fall apart

President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. AP

It was not a very good day for environmentalists.

On March 28, President Trump signed an executive order designed to reverse many elements of Barack Obama's environmental legacy.

The order seeks to scale back federal limits on greenhouse gases, eliminate regulations of the coal industry, and take climate change out of federal agencies' decision-making processes.

There is a chance the actions Trump has ordered could cause enough of a spike in US greenhouse gas emissions to undo any mitigation efforts from the Obama era.

But that's not the only possible outcome.

As the Trump administration has already seen, presidents' ability to follow through on their agendas is limited by federal bureaucracy, the courts, Congress, and economic forces in the real world.

As federal agencies gear up to put Trump's new order into action, many of those efforts could — and probably will — meet a wave resistance from many angles (though Congress, which is controlled by a Republican majority, will probably be on board).

Here are the battles Trump's order now likely faces.

Federal bureaucracy

Just by signing his name, Trump did away with a number of hallmark climate efforts of the Obama era. The most significant of these were the Climate Action Plan, the Obama administration's blueprint for mitigating the impact of climate change, and a moratorium on leases for coal companies to mine on federal land.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt AP Photo/Susan Walsh

But many of the most consequential targets of Trump's order — like the Clean Power Plan, which limits greenhouse gas emissions from power plants — are regulations that have already been written into the Federal Register. That means Trump can't kill them on his own.

Instead, Trump's order instructs his agencies to begin the complicated rule-making processes of repealing or replacing the existing rules.

Those processes can often take years and involve a number of contentious decisions for federal agencies.

For example, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt will lead the effort to do away with the Clean Power Plan. As Vox's Brad Plumer points out, Pruitt and the EPA have two options: to scrap states' greenhouse gas limits entirely, or rewrite them to be much weaker.

Choices like that will likely depend on how confident policymakers are about the second hurdle for Trump's executive order: the courts.

The court system

Every rule the EPA, Department of the Interior, or any other sector of the executive branch puts on the books has to be justified by laws written by Congress, and lay out their mandate and authority.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Paul Morigi/Getty

When agencies run up against the limits of those laws, citizens can fight them in court.

Environmental groups like the National Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club are already up in arms about Trump's new order, and are ready to deploy teams of environmental lawyers to fight these rules in court at every opportunity. (Opponents of environmental regulations, like Pruitt, used the same tactic when they thought the Obama administration overstepped its authority.)

Environmental lawyers will likely argue that the Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA safeguard the atmosphere. So by failing to limit greenhouse gases, they'll say, Pruitt's EPA wouldn't be upholding that responsibility.

If federal judges agree with that line of reasoning, whole sections of Trump's executive order might begin to collapse.

Congress

Of all the potential roadblocks Trump's order could face, Congress is the most significant.

A law passed in the legislature has more power than any executive order, so a motivated Congress could choose to double down on the initiatives the order outlines, or even write new laws limiting greenhouse gas emissions, thereby making much of the order obsolete.

Because both houses of Congress are currently controlled by Republican majorities, however, they are unlikely to impede the implementation of Trump's order — at least before the new Congress is seated in 2019.

Economic forces

Reuters/Amit Dave

Even if Trump's executive order is implemented in full, there's still a question about how it will fare given the whims of the US energy economy.

Standing next to several coal miners before signing the bill, Trump said, "I made [the miners] this promise: We will put our miners back to work."

But many analysts doubt that the coal industry has much of a future in the US, no matter how many environmental regulations the federal government rolls back.

Robert Murray, founder and chief executive of Murray Energy — America's largest privately held coal company — was in the front row for Trump's signing of the order. But he has admitted that lost coal mining jobs aren't coming back.

That's because increasing natural gas production (which is relatively cleaner and cheaper) has made coal less economically advantageous for energy producers, and rising automation in the coal industry now means that a future coal boom likely won't create many new jobs for workers.

In many states, coal production is likely to continue declining with or without the Clean Power Plan. Michigan's biggest electric utility, for example, has already said it will phase out coal no matter what moves Trump makes. (The company, like many across the country, is giving up on aging coal plants in favor of cheaper natural gas and some renewables.)

That last point is the biggest obstacle to any effort to shift the balance of the American energy economy back toward fossil fuels. Around the world, renewables are growing faster than any other energy source, with solar outpacing every other source of energy. Solar jobs in the US have been growing 12 times faster than the rest of the economy.

Trump's executive order does threaten environmental interests, and could increase greenhouse gases at a moment when scientists are cautioning that even the most ambitious climate plans may not go far enough.

But there's also a possible scenario where many parts of the order get stalled in the courts or made obsolete by larger economic forces that Trump cannot reverse with the stroke of a pen.

Putting bigger brains down to our social nature is half-baked Log in or create a free account

Decent food gave you brains

Phil Yeomans/REX/Shutterstock

In the past two million years, humans have experienced a massive increase in brain size, one not seen in any other species. This rapid evolution gave us brains roughly triple the volume of those of our pre-human ancestors.

But the intelligence we enjoy as a result would seem to be advantageous for all sorts of species, not just us. So why was ours the only line to go down this route?

The social brain hypothesis was a popular answer. It claims that bigger brains and advanced cognitive abilities are primarily an

To continue reading this premium article, register or login for free for unlimited access. Existing users, please log in.

House Intel Committee implodes amid Trump-Russia investigation: Democrats call on Devin Nunes to recuse himself House Intel Committee implodes amid Trump-Russia investigation: Democrats call on Devin Nunes to recuse himself

(L to R) House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) and ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The House Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, called on the Republican chair Rep. Devin Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's investigation into President Donald Trump's connections with Russia on Monday.

Schiff's statement followed news reports that Nunes, the committee's chairman, was on White House grounds with a source who showed him secret intelligence reports. The day after that meeting, Nunes briefed Trump that he and his advisers may have had their communications picked up "incidentally" as part of intelligence-community surveillance of foreign targets.

"After much consideration, and in light of the Chairman's admission that he met with his source of information at the White House, I believe that the Chairman should recuse himself from any further involvement in the Russia investigation, as well as any involvement in oversight of matters pertaining to any incidental collection of the Trump transition, as he was also a key member of the transition team," Schiff said in a statement.

Schiff said he worried the public is losing faith in Nunes's ability to conduct an unbiased investigation.

"I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the President's campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the Chairman," Schiff said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi echoed Schiff's sentiments and those of other Democrats who are increasingly urging Nunes to step aside.

"The Chair of the House Intelligence has a serious responsibility to the Congress and to the Country. Chairman Nunes' discredited behavior has tarnished that office," she said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (C) is joined by (L-R) Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) for a news conference in the House Vistiors Center in the U.S. Capitol March 24, 2017 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

"Speaker Ryan must insist that Chairman Nunes at least recuse himself from the Trump-Russia investigation immediately. That leadership is long overdue," Pelosi said.

Nunes defended his White House visit by saying he wanted "to have proximity to a secure location where he could view the information provided by the source." The Trump administration was not aware of his visit, he said.

Democrats have seized on Nunes's announcement, accusing the Republican of attempting to give political cover for Trump, who claimed in a series of shocking tweets this month that his predecessor, President Barack Obama, had wiretapped Trump Tower phones during the 2016 election.

Last week, Schiff said Nunes’s actions had thrown "great doubt" on the committee’s ability to conduct a fair investigation.

Numerous lawmakers have called for a select committee to carry out the investigation, and the effort received bipartisan support when Republican Sen. John McCain questioned Nunes's credibility in an interview on Wednesday.

Trump appeared to complain about controversy surrounding Nunes on Monday night. In a series of tweets, the president said, "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech ... money to Bill," referring to former President Bill Clinton and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The Washington Post reported in October last year that there was no evidence Clinton was personally involved in the uranium deal.

Trump called the Russia investigation a "hoax" and has denied his team had any untoward interactions with the Kremlin. The FBI — along with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee — are conducting investigations on the matter.

Read Schiff's entire statement below:

After much consideration I believe Chairman should recuse himself from involvement in investigation/oversight of Trump campaign & transition pic.twitter.com/jpfA1x80Si

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) March 27, 2017

Jared Kushner had a previously undisclosed meeting with the CEO of 'the bank that financed Vladimir Putin’s grandest ambitions' Jared Kushner had a previously undisclosed meeting with the CEO of 'the bank that financed Vladimir Putin’s grandest ambitions'

Donald Trump with his daughter Tiffany, left, and son-in-law Jared Kushner, June 7, 2016, in Briarcliff Manor, New York. Mary Altaffer/AP

President Donald Trump's son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, met with the CEO of Russia's state-owned Vnesheconombank in December 2016, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The meeting — which had not previously been disclosed and came on the heels of Kushner's meeting with Russia's ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, at Trump Tower — recently caught the eye of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether any members of Trump's campaign were complicit.

Kislyak reportedly orchestrated the meeting between Kushner and Vnesheconombank CEO Sergey N. Gorkov, who was appointed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in January 2016 as part of a restructuring of the bank's management team, Bloomberg reported last year.

Gorkov, who graduated from the Federal Security Service (FSB) Academy of Russia in 1994, was the vice-president of Russia's state-controlled Sberbank before joining Vnesheconombank.

Putin first revamped Vnesheconombank, known as Russia's bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs, in 2007. The Russian leader turned it into "a pillar of his Kremlin-driven economy at the height of the oil boom" and took "personal control over key lending decisions," according to Bloomberg, which characterized it as "the bank that financed Vladimir Putin’s grandest ambitions."

"When oil prices were high, VEB lent huge sums to politically expedient but financially questionable initiatives such as infrastructure projects for the 2014 Winter Sochi Olympics," Reuters reported last year.

Chairman of Russian state development bank VEB Sergei Gorkov in Moscow, March 16, 2017. Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters

Between 2012 and 2014, Vnesheconombank was used as cover for Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov as he attempted to recruit New York City residents as intelligence sources for Moscow, according to the Department of Justice. Before that, Buryakov used Vnesheconombank as a cover to spy and recruit assets in South Africa.

The bank had huge success between 2007 and 2014, but it all came crashing down when oil prices tanked and President Barack Obama levied sanctions on Kremlin officials and entities over Russia's annexation of Crimea.

By February 2016, the bank — whose stated official mission is to "take efforts to make the Russian economy more competitive, diversify it, and foster investment" — was struggling to find enough cash to stay afloat. Its bailout needs had increased to $16 billion between 2016 and 2020, Reuters reported.

Kushner's meeting with Gorkov, the struggling bank's CEO, came as Kushner was trying to find investors for a Fifth Avenue office building in Manhattan that is set to be heavily financed by Anbang Insurance Group, a firm with ties to the Chinese government.

White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks told The Times on Monday that the "Kushner Tower" project wasn't discussed during his meeting with Gorkov, and a White House official said in a statement that Kushner took the meetings as part of his role as "the official primary point of contact with foreign governments and officials."

"Given this role, he has volunteered to speak with Chairman Burr's Committee but has not yet received confirmation," the official said, referring to Republican Sen. Richard Burr.

The meeting did not appear to break any rules, and Hicks said it was "not much of a conversation" so didn't warrant a disclosure to the rest of the Trump transition team.

News of the meeting comes less than two months after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was asked to resign after "misleading" Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Kislyak. It also comes as the FBI and Congress are trying to determine whether any favors were exchanged between Trump associates and Russia during the 2016 campaign.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has asked to interview Kushner about his meeting with Gorkov, has also requested the cooperation of Carter Page — an early foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign. In a dossier presented to Trump by top intelligence officials in January, Page was accused of traveling to Moscow in July 2016 to discuss a deal with the CEO of Russia's state oil company to lift US sanctions on Russia.

Kushner is the closest person to Trump to be swept up in either the Senate or the House Intelligence Committees' investigation so far.

The FBI is investigating the Russian interference separately from Congress, FBI Director James Comey confirmed last week. The investigation has been examining whether members of Trump's campaign team colluded with Russian officials to undermine Hillary Clinton.

Trump will look to recover from his worst week yet as president Trump will look to recover from his worst week yet as president

Donald Trump. Getty Images

President Donald Trump will head into the final third of his first 100 days in office attempting to recover from perhaps the most tumultuous week of his still-nascent presidency, one that has forced him to grapple with the limitations of a system he vowed to overhaul.

The week began with FBI Director James Comey making the extraordinary public announcement that the bureau was investigating potential collusion between Trumpworld and the Russian government to swing the election in the billionaire's favor.

It ended with the American Health Care Act, the Republican bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, being pulled from the House floor after it became clear it would not have enough votes to pass. It virtually guaranteed that Trump will not have a single major legislative achievement in his crucial first 100 days in office.

"You got played," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote following the healthcare failure.

It took President George W. Bush "years to smash everything," she added. "You're way ahead of schedule."

'This story is FAKE NEWS'

The week kicked off with Monday's much anticipated hearing before the House Intelligence Committee on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It featured Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers.

Hours ahead of the testimony, Trump sought to preemptively delegitimize the Russia-related cloud hanging over his administration that was almost certain to be advanced with the testimony of the two directors.

"James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia," Trump tweeted. "This story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!"

The story was undoubtedly furthered in the hearing.

James Comey. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

From the get-go, Comey dropped a pair of bombshells. First, he revealed that, since late July, the FBI's been investigating potential connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government officials who worked to manipulate the election.

The FBI director, who prefaced his announcement by reminding the panel that it's bureau practice not to "confirm the existence of ongoing investigations," particularly those that involve classified information, said this was an "unusual circumstance" in which it was in the public interest to do so.

"I've been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government," Comey said, "and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed."

Comey also asserted that the entirety of the DOJ was unable to find any evidence to back up Trump's explosive allegations that President Barack Obama illegally wiretapped him ahead of the November election.

Also last week, a days-long drama followed House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes' decision to brief the president on intelligence he claimed showed that information on members of Trump's transition team was "incidentally collected" by the intelligence community during the transition period on "numerous occasions." The intelligence showed, in his mind, that Trump was "monitored."

He said the collection was not related to the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in last year's presidential election — which, he said, made it fair to share with the president. Nunes, a member of Trump's transition team, also said he believed the information was obtained legally through under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

It sparked a riff on the committee just two days after Comey delivered his bombshell testimony to the body. The ranking Democrat on the committee, Adam Schiff, slammed the decision to brief Trump on the information, which had not been presented to the rest of the committee. Schiff so far as saying the investigation was now compromised.

Asked by reporters at the White House after he was briefed by Nunes, Trump said he felt "somewhat" vindicated by the news, which came after his wiretapping claim — a charge many on the right and left later asserted was not true, including Nunes. Trump has backed away from the claim to an extent, saying his wiretapping reference meant more broad surveillance.

Devin Nunes. Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A former top lawyer for the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Defense told Business Insider Thursday that the revelation was "far from a vindication."

"In some ways it's almost the reverse," said Robert Deitz, who held those posts in the administrations of President Bill Clinton and of President George W. Bush. "That is, if, and let's assume for a moment that someone getting [intelligence] collection from overseas [and] is getting a Trump person on the other line. It can be totally innocent. On the other hand, it could completely validate the notion that Trump people are talking to Russians."

"So I don't get the partial vindication argument at all," he continued. "To me, it raises more questions than it resolves. ... And so why it's somehow 'good news' for Mr. Trump that some of his people have been captured in collection — I don't see how that is ever good news." 

Supreme Court uncertainty and Obamacare stays

Wednesday brought another bit of bad news for Trump: His approval rating hit a new low. According to a Quinnipiac University national poll, the president's performance rating dipped to 37%. It had dropped among Republicans, men, and white voters, three key elements of the coalition that led him to victory last November.

And on Thursday, it became virtually assured that Trump's nominee to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat, 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch, will face a Democratic filibuster. It will create a showdown wherein Republicans will look to one of two options: peel off eight Senate Democrats or independents, or invoke the "nuclear" option, rewriting the Senate rules to end the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court picks.

It seemed to have about as much to do with Trump, if not more, than it was to do with Gorsuch, who was grilled by senators on Capitol Hill this week as a part of a more than 20-hour questioning during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested it would be "unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment" due to the FBI investigation that Comey had revealed Monday.

"You can bet that if the shoe was on the other foot – and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI – that Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances," Schumer said. "After all, they stopped a president who wasn’t under investigation from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his presidency."

Neil Gorsuch. Associated Press/Susan Walsh

But the week's biggest debacle came on healthcare. Congressional Republicans had promised for the better part of seven years that they would repeal and replace Obamacare. Now with majorities in both branches of Congress, as well as a president to sign the bill, they could not pass their alternative.

The reason: infighting among the same various factions of the party that has long prevented a united front for the GOP.

On Thursday, with it becoming clear that the American Health Care Act did not yet have enough votes to pass, the House vote was postponed. Given a second attempt on Friday, the votes still were not there. After an ultimatum the night before, Trump told House Speaker Paul Ryan on Friday to pull the bill.

In the grand total of just 18 days from when Republicans first introduced the legislation, it had gone down in flames after facing a groundswell of grassroots opposition and staggeringly low popularity. And both Trump and congressional leaders were on the hook for failing to deliver on one of their biggest promises.

Trump, in a crucial meeting with conservative House leaders earlier in the week, had implored the Republican holdouts to "forget about the little s---" in the bill, according to Politico.

"Let's focus on the big picture here," he said.

But the members of the House Freedom Caucus did not, focusing in on the policy details over the political ramifications of potentially derailing the Trump agenda with the bill's defeat.

Trump. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

As news of the bill's withdrawal echoed around Washington, Democrats were quick to pile on. Schumer, in a statement that followed shortly after, said, "So much for the 'Art of the Deal,'" a jab at the president's best-selling book.

Speaking to the media from the Oval Office late Friday afternoon, Trump blamed Democrats for the failure, and said "the best thing we can do is let Obamacare explode."

But in doing so, he seemed to signal that he doesn't believe he will be able to implement his agenda without cooperation from the Democrats, who hold the minority in both the House and Senate.

"We had no Democrat support," Trump said, later adding, "With no Democratic support we couldn't quite get there."

Of the bill's failure, he said, "I'm disappointed."

"I'm a little surprised to be honest with you," he said. "We really had it, it was pretty much there within grasp."

Trump, as a candidate and as president, had a number of weeks that did not go his way. During the campaign, he always seemed to find a way to recover. And he did so enough times that he scored a stunning upset to become the 45th president. But it remains to be seen if President Trump — not candidate Trump — with a series of shortcomings and setbacks piling up, will be able to dig himself out of his latest hole.

How 'Trumpcare' went up in flames — and why it should worry the GOP about the future How 'Trumpcare' went up in flames — and why it should worry the GOP about the future

President Donald Trump Carlos Barria/Reuters

Paul Ryan strode to the lectern, looking solemn. It was hard to imagine in November, after Donald Trump shocked the world to win the presidency and Republicans gained control of the legislature and the White House.

"Obamacare is the law of the land. It will remain the law of the land until it is replaced," Ryan said. "We will be living with Obamacare for the foreseeable future."

Just 64 days into his presidency, the first major legislative item on the Republican agenda was dead.

Ryan called Trump around 3 p.m. Friday to say what Republican leaders knew all week — they didn't have the votes to pass the American Health Care Act. Trump told him to pull the bill.

The collapse of the AHCA, which became colloquially known as "Trumpcare" and "Ryancare" through the process, capped off a wild 18 days in which the bill was introduced, went through four committees, was amended multiple times, and ultimately failed to garner enough support from House Republicans.

The defeat of the legislation represents not only a short-term failure for one of the biggest parts of Trump's legislative agenda, but also an ominous sign for Republican efforts going forward.

'We came up short'

Ultimately, the AHCA fell flat because Republicans were not able to unite the two disparate wings of the party.

On the one hand, the conservative wing — primarily the House Freedom Caucus a 35-member, more conservative-leaning group — felt the AHCA did not go far enough in its repeal of Obamacare.

The Freedom Caucus had enough ammunition to hold out for a variety of reasons. The caucus was just big enough to block the GOP from obtaining a majority to pass the legislation. They are mostly safe in their districts. And conservative action groups like Heritage Action and Club for Growth were on their side.

Part of the problem came from the GOP leadership, which gave the caucus the ammunition to hold out nearly two years ago.

Then, Republicans passed a "clean" Obamacare repeal bill in 2015, through both the House and Senate. The bill stripped all of Obamacare' taxes, like the AHCA, but also its protections for patients and popular regulations like the ability for a child to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

Freedom Caucus members who turned against the AHCA repeatedly brought up the 2015 bill as an example of what repeal could look like. And since every member voted to pass that bill, for the Freedom Caucus, it became a question of why they would not simply do that again.

"There's one thing that has united Republicans in when we won the House, in 2014 when we won the Senate, and in 2016 when we won the White House. This doesn't divide Republicans, this brings us together, and that is complete repeal, clean repeal," Sen. Rand Paul said on March 7.

On the other end, moderate Republicans like the so-called Tuesday Group thought the bill went too far in its changes to the healthcare system.

Facing the prospect of thousands of voters in their district losing their healthcare and seeing backlash from constituents at a variety of town-hall meetings, the AHCA was not palatable to this group.

The issue was exacerbated as the White House and GOP leaders gave concessions to the conservative wing of the party in the final days. Tweaks like the repeal of the ACA's essential health benefits — which compel insurers to provide basic coverage for things like prenatal care and preventive screenings — made moderate Republicans reject the bill.

Additionally, the changes to Medicaid funding in the AHCA — including ending the Medicaid expansion that allowed 11 million Americans to get coverage since the ACA — made moderates move off of the plan.

Republican Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, cited those tweaks when he made a stunning decision to oppose the bill Friday. 

"In addition to the loss of Medicaid coverage for so many people in my Medicaid-dependent state, the denial of essential health benefits in the individual market raise serious coverage and cost issues," Frelinghuysen said. "I remain hopeful that the American Health Care Act will be further modified. We need to get this right for all Americans."

The further the bill moved to the conservative edge, the more moderates the GOP would lose — and vice versa. The dynamic made it near impossible for Ryan and the House leadership to find enough votes to pass the AHCA.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

High-speed crash and a failed sell

Another factor that contributed to the demise of the AHCA was the speed at which the bill was pushed through the House.

While Ryan and Republican leaders said the bill was going through "regular order," there were few opportunities for debate of the bill and little knowledge of its effects.

The Congressional Budget Office did not issue a score on the bill until it had already moved through two committees — and the full text of the updated bill only became available on Friday, the same day it was supposed to be voted on. The CBO did not issue a score for the final iteration of the legislation.

This speed gave cover for some Republicans who were skeptical of the AHCA. Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a Freedom Caucus member who wavered between undecided and "no" on the AHCA, even said during the debate on the House Floor on Friday that he questioned the speed at which the bill was being passed.

Trump, who initially left the sales pitch to GOP leaders, ended up mounting a furious push in the last few days, meeting with members of the Freedom Caucus a handful of times in the days leading up to the planned vote.

But even at large rallies in Tennessee and Kentucky, where Trump was supposed to drum up support for the healthcare bill, he instead focused on other issues for the bulk of his speech. In fact, in Kentucky, Trump said that the bill has to pass "in some form" so that Republicans could "move on" to other issues like tax reform.

Conservative media latched on to the seeming lack of support from Trump, as well, with conservative outlets like Breitbart opting to call the bill "Ryancare" and pin its shortcomings on the House speaker rather than the president.

Ultimately, Trump decided Thursday night to issue an ultimatum to wavering House Republicans: Pass this bill, or Obamacare stays. It ended up staying, for now.

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan Alex Wong/Getty Images

What it means for the future

The inability to pass the AHCA is only one legislative misstep. But it indicates that Trump's desire to pass sweeping overhauls of taxes, immigration, and trade deals — even must-pass legislation like a debt-ceiling increase — is newly in doubt.

Ryan and Trump both said on Friday that the GOP would move on from healthcare and focus on other legislative priorities.

"Now we are going to move on with the rest of our agenda because we have big, ambitious plan," Ryan said at a press conference.

The AHCA drama proved, however, that the rest of the agenda may not be as easy as that. The struggles proved the Republican conference is diverse, with competing interests and goals.

A push for something controversial like a border adjustment tax, a policy that is favored by House GOP leaders but has drawn fierce resistance from some GOP lawmakers and outside groups, may end up similarly dividing the party. Additionally, Trump has expressed misgivings about the border adjustment tax, similar to his half-hearted approach to the AHCA.

"The differences between dealmaking in New York City and dealmaking in Washington, DC, have never been more apparent; Trump is like a fish out of water," said Greg Valliere, the chief global strategist at Horizon Investments. "He will have to change the subject, quickly, but soon he will face bruising budget battles."

Whole Foods is losing at its own game Whole Foods is losing at its own game

Yelp/Jane W

It wasn't too long ago that John Mackey was considered a pioneer.

The Whole Foods CEO was at the forefront of a new movement in organic produce when he opened his first store in 1980 and went on to create the largest organic supermarket chain in the US.

But today it's a very different story for Whole Foods. 

"While Whole Foods has done so much to inspire, create, and revolutionize the market for natural and organic products, we now see it being the victim of its own success," UBS wrote in a research note published on Wednesday.

Though demand is still there – sales of organic food has more than tripled from 2005 to 2015, from $13.8 billion to $43.3 billion, according to the Organic Trade Association – same-store sales at Whole Foods have decelerated for four straight years. That's mainly due to increased competition.

Today, the store is in direct competition with grocery rivals that have moved into the organic food space. According to the UBS note, almost 42% of Whole Foods' stores are within a 5-minute drive of a Trader Joe's (up 3% from four years ago). Thirty-four percent have a Kroger store nearby.

Many of Whole Foods' competitors offer similar goods but at cheaper prices. UBS found that prices at Whole Foods stores in the Los Angeles area were on average 13% higher than prices at Kroger and Sprouts Farmers Market. 

To compete with the ongoing pricing pressure, Whole Foods launched a new chain of stores called 365 by Whole Foods Market. But these stores face an impending threat from overseas retailers. German supermarket chain Lidl recently announced that it will open 100 stores along the East Coast by mid-2018. Aldi, another discount retailer, said it will be spending $1.6 billion to redesign 1,300 of its US stores and improve its selection of goods. 

À Marche-en-Famenne, ce jeudi après-midi, pour l'inauguration du Centre de distribution de Lidl #lidl @lidlbelgium #marcheenfamenne

A post shared by Willy Borsus (@wborsus) on Mar 23, 2017 at 7:14am PDT on Mar 23, 2017 at 7:14am PDT

Trump starts healthcare judgment day by attacking the conservative Freedom Caucus in Twitter tirade Trump starts healthcare judgment day by attacking the conservative Freedom Caucus in Twitter tirade

President Donald Trump. Getty Images/Pool

President Donald Trump started Friday off with a Twitter tirade aimed at the conservative House Freedom Caucus as Republicans prepare for an uncertain vote on their healthcare legislation.

"The irony is that the Freedom Caucus, which is very pro-life and against Planned Parenthood, allows P.P. to continue if they stop this plan!" Trump tweeted.

Republicans delayed a vote on the GOP leadership's plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, the healthcare law officially called the Affordable Care Act, because the party did not have enough votes to pass the bill.

Members of the House Freedom Caucus have argued that the new bill, the American Health Care Act, does not go far enough in its repeal of Obamacare. The holdouts from the Freedom Caucus appeared to have enough votes to block the passage of the bill on Thursday.

The AHCA does pull funding from Planned Parenthood, but the Freedom Caucus' main issue is that other regulations from Obamacare would stay in place under the AHCA.

GOP leadership spent much of Thursday attempting to compromise on the bill to get the Freedom Caucus and others on board. Trump, whom House Speaker Paul Ryan called the "closer," met multiple times with the Freedom Caucus over the past two days but has been unable to sway their votes.

Trump also appeared to appeal directly to the American public Friday, arguing that the AHCA was the best chance the US had to overhaul its healthcare system.

"After seven horrible years of Obamacare (skyrocketing premiums & deductibles, bad healthcare), this is finally your chance for a great plan!" Trump tweeted.

Health-policy analysts have predicted that deductibles would rise under the AHCA while plans would generally cover fewer health issues.

Additionally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that premiums would increase for two years after the AHCA's passage and then come in lower than the baseline thereafter. The CBO also projected that 24 million more people would be without health insurance after 10 years if the AHCA is passed than if the existing system were to be left in place.

Trump issued an ultimatum to GOP lawmakers on Thursday night, saying they needed to pass the AHCA on Friday or Obamacare would stay in place. A vote is expected later Friday.

UPDATE: Following the president's tweet, Planned Parenthood provided a statement to Business Insider pushing back on the assertions made by Trump. The statement reads:

"It’s crystal clear: They will sacrifice the health of every woman in this country to pass this disastrous bill. This was already the worst bill for women’s health in our lifetime – and it’s getting worse every day. Yesterday Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and Republican leadership eliminated maternity care from health coverage. Today, the President is using Planned Parenthood, and the millions of women who depend on us for care, as part of a dangerous political game. The president knows what it means to take away care at Planned Parenthood. As he himself has said, millions of women depend on us for cancer screenings, birth control, and other essential health care.

You cannot call yourself pro-family and slash maternity care. You cannot claim you want to invest in women’s health and block access to Planned Parenthood and essential women’s health care. Negotiating away access to cancer screenings, birth control and maternity care is not ‘pro-life,’ it’s cruel.

While the President tweets and plays politics, we're busy fighting to save health care that 1 in 5 women rely on."

First dinosaurs may have been omnivores in the north hemisphere

New anatomy lesson

Chameleons Eye/REX/Shutterstock

By Chelsea Whyte

Hips really can lie. In 1888, H. G. Seeley split the dinosaur family tree into two branches based on pelvic bones, but a new analysis suggests a complete rejig of early dinosaur types and challenges assumptions about where the first dinosaurs lived and what they ate.

“Maybe we shouldn’t just blindly accept this 130-year-old idea,” says Matthew Baron at the University of Cambridge. “Seeley’s idea, while it was brilliant for his time, it’s arguably archaic. It’s based on very few specimens.”

Seeley divided dinosaurs into “bird-hipped” animals, like the herbivorous Stegosaurus and Triceratops, and “reptile-hipped” ones, including carnivores like Tyrannosaurus rex and long-necked herbivores like Apatosaurus.

Advertisement

Instead of focusing on the pelvic bone, Baron and his team analysed 457 characteristics of 74 species
and found that 21 other anatomical features divide the dinosaurs differently.  Some of the common features shared between dinosaurs that were previously thought unrelated include straight thigh bones instead of the S-shaped ones found in some later dinosaurs, shoulder bones three times the length of the forelimb, and the first metatarsal – a long foot bone – not reaching the ankle joint.

“It sounds like trivial little features, very picayune things, but when you get that big a pile of bits of information just accumulating, you really do come up with a picture, a rearrangement,” says Kevin Padian, a palaeontologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Based on these inherited features, the new tree puts T. rex and other theropods on one side with the old “bird-hipped” creatures, and leaves the sauropods like Apatosaurus grouped with those related to Herrerasaurus, a bipedal carnivore found in South America.

This tree structure hasn’t been suggested before, says Susannah Maidment, a palaeontologist at the University of Brighton, UK. However, people have long recognised that there are a striking number of similarities in how the different dinosaur lines evolved. “Those have always been considered to be convergent evolution. Perhaps they’re not,” she says.

Omnivorous ancestor

Because both new branches include carnivores and herbivores, Baron’s team concludes that the common ancestor of all dinosaurs may have been omnivorous.

The results also suggest that the cradle of dinosaur evolution may not have been South America, as has long been accepted. It could instead have been in the northern hemisphere since fossils of the oldest members of the new branches are found there.

“It’s as if somebody suddenly said, ‘Actually chickens are mammals, not birds’,” says Mike Benton, a palaeontologist at the University of Bristol, UK. “But we have a lot of knowledge of chickens, so we can say that’s ridiculous. In this case, we don’t have complete specimens for them all, so we can’t say with certainty it’s ridiculous.”

A few of the 21 features that link the new branches could be questioned, but if they hold up under scrutiny, the team’s case is “undeniable”, says Benton.

Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature21700

Read more: Giant flying reptile was top predator like a winged T. rex

Female fish with bigger brains choose better mates

You’re my favourite

gerdtromm/Getty

By Sam Wong

It takes brains to choose a good partner. In one of the first experiments to look at the cognitive demands of choosing a mate, female guppies with big brains showed a preference for more colourful males, while those with smaller brains showed no preference.

In guppies, like most animals, females are choosy about who to mate with, since they invest more in their offspring than males, which don’t help care for them. They tend to prefer males with striking colour patterns and big tails, traits that have been linked to good foraging ability and health. By choosing a male with these qualities, female guppies give their offspring a good chance of inheriting the same useful traits.

Despite this, females often go on to make different choices. Alberto Corral López and colleagues at Stockholm University wanted to find out if brain size could account for this.

Colourful males

Corral López and his team tested 36 females bred to have large brains, 36 bred to have small brains, and 16 females similar to guppies found in the wild. Previous studies have shown that large-brained guppies perform better in cognitive tests, suggesting that they are smarter.

Each female was given the opportunity to associate with two males, one more colourful than the other. Females are known to spend more time close to males they would prefer to mate with, so the team timed how long they spent with each male.

The wild-type and large-brained females both showed strong preferences for more colourful males, while small-brained females showed no preference. This couldn’t be explained by differences in colour perception, as tests showed that small-brained and large-brained females could perceive colour equally as well.

This suggests that more complex cognitive abilities are involved in deciding which males to associate with, says Corral López. “It’s not sensory input but how they process the information that they receive from the different males.”

Memory of mates

In the test, the females could swim around to spend time with either male, but they weren’t next to each other. This meant that the females couldn’t directly compare the males, instead having to use their memory to decide which one they preferred.

The test took place over a short period of time, but females may need to remember what the males they have met look like for much longer in the wild, to help them decide how attractive they find new individuals.

It’s not clear what cognitive abilities are required to choose a good mate, but if females need to pay attention to several different factors, it makes sense that large brains would be helpful, says Amanda Ridley, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Western Australia. “I would imagine that where some complicated processing of multimodal information is required, females might benefit from having bigger brains to allow them to make better mate choice decisions.”

But Neeltje Boogert at the University of Exeter, UK, says breeding for different brain sizes in the females might have affected their appearance or behaviour in ways that in turn changed the males’ behaviour. “I think the role of such a behavioural feedback loop cannot be excluded,” she says.

She also points out that nature tends to select for behaviours, such as making accurate decisions, rather than brain size itself. “I think it would be very interesting to perform these selection experiments in the opposite direction: if you select on females that strongly prefer ‘more attractive’ males, how does their associated neuronal structure change as a result?”

While plenty of studies have found that brainpower can make animals, including humans, more attractive to potential partners, few have looked at the cognitive demands for those doing the choosing. Brain tissue takes a lot of energy to run, so growing a large brain has considerable costs for animals.

“What we suggest is that being able to choose a better male and the fitness benefits you acquire compensates for the energy required to grow a larger brain, from an evolutionary point of view,” says Corral López.

Journal reference: Science Advances, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601990

Read more: Longer ‘penis’ drives evolution of bigger brains in female fish; First evidence that wild mammals benefit from bigger brains

Maria Sharapova says suspicion will remain on her return from doping ban in April

Maria Sharapova returns to competitive action in April

Maria Sharapova accepts she will have a cloud of suspicion hanging over her when she returns to tennis next month.

The five-time grand slam champion is serving a 15-month doping ban after testing positive for the cardiac drug meldonium at the Australian Open in 2016.

Sharapova's suspension ends on April 26, and she will play her first match the same day having been given a wildcard into the Porsche Grand Prix in Stuttgart.

The Russian's impending return is the hottest topic in tennis, with the reaction from her fellow players largely lukewarm.

The awarding of a wildcard for a tournament that begins while she is still banned has been particularly controversial, with Caroline Wozniacki branding it "disrespectful".

Caroline Wozniacki (right) is unhappy Sharapova will play at a tournament that begins before her ban ends

The French Open and Wimbledon, meanwhile, are under pressure over whether to award entry to their former champion.

Sharapova admitted taking meldonium at an extraordinary press conference last March, insisting her only mistake was not realising the drug had been added to the banned list at the start of 2016.

An initial two-year ban was reduced to 15 months on appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which concluded she had not intended to cheat.

But, asked if she expected the suspicion to linger for the rest of her career, Sharapova told Vogue: "I think if I was trying to hide something, I don't think I would come out to the world and say I was taking a drug for 10 years.

"If I was really trying to take the easy way out, that's not a very smart thing to do. But the answer to your question is, absolutely."

Sharapova is more confident of the reception she will receive from the public.

The 29-year-old, one of tennis' biggest stars and the world's highest-earning female athlete, got a taste of life after the ban at exhibition matches in Las Vegas and Puerto Rico late last year.

"I received really nice receptions when I walked out to play my exhibition matches," she added.

"Ever since all this happened, I've had so many strangers actually come up to me. Like chefs coming out of the kitchen, or pilots come out of the cockpit to say something. It is so heartening.

"I've had tunnel vision about my career, and I don't think I ever realised the effect I've had on people. That has blown my mind."

As well as Stuttgart, Sharapova has also been given wild cards into Madrid and Rome, the two biggest warm-up events for the French Open.

There will be no easing herself back in, therefore, and Sharapova appears determined to hit the ground running.

The former world No 1, who is now unranked, said: "I have expectations of myself because I know what I'm capable of. Will I have those standards? Of course. Will I have to be patient? It's not my greatest strength."

Sky Customers __can now upgrade to Sky Sports and get 12 months for just £18 per month. Upgrade now!

Roger Federer and Stan Wawrinka headline Miami Open, live on Sky Sports from Wednesday

Roger Federer beat his coach Ivan Ljubicic to claim his last Miami title but he heads to Florida favourite to claim the trophy

Roger Federer heads to Miami chasing back-to-back Masters titles for the first time since 2014, while Stan Wawrinka tops the seedings.

The 35-year-old __can rarely have headed into a tournament in better spirits, having won the Paribas Open at Indian Wells for Masters title number 25 just six weeks after Grand Slam number 18 came in Melbourne at the Australian Open.

Federer, a two-time champion in South Florida, is back up to number six in the world rankings but it is more than 10 years since he claimed the title.

The Swiss beat the man who now sits in his box as his coach, Ivan Ljubicic 7-6 7-6 for his second Miami title, having beaten Rafael Nadal in 2005 and the Spaniard also lines up in a field that includes seven of the world's top 10 players.

The Bionic Man?

Federer's return is defying all the odds

World No 1 and two-time Miami champion Andy Murray was the first high-profile name to withdraw, citing an elbow injury after his defeat to Vasek Pospisil in California and he was soon followed by Novak Djokovic who has the same issue, although the Serb's elbow has been a problem for some time.

The pair have won seven of the last eight Miami titles (Djokovic 5, Murray 2) - Andy Roddick's 2010 success the only break - with the Serb winning the last three, but with injury ruling him out he will see another 1000 points drop off his ranking tally.

The world's top two, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic are absent from a tournament they have dominated in recent years

Despite the absence of the top two players in the world, a high-quality field makes the 2,617 mile trip across America to contest the second of the season's Masters 1000 events and it is Wawrinka who claims the No 1 seed for the first time in a Masters event.

Wawrinka was beaten by Federer in Sunday's final but he will be looking to build on his best-ever Indian Wells display with a similar showing in Miami, where he has never been beyond the fourth round and suffered a shock second-round defeat last year.

Kei Nishikori, last year's runner-up in Miami and an Indian Wells quarter-finalist last week, is seeded second while Milos Raonic and Federer complete the top four.

If the seedings are followed, Federer and Wawrinka will meet in the top half semi-final, with Nishikori and Raonic contesting the bottom half, but there are plenty of other players who arrive with designs on a run in the Florida sun.

As ever Juan Martin del Potro poses a formidable threat from his lowly seeding of 29 and he is a potential third-round opponent for Federer, who leads the Argentine 15-5 in the head-to-head stakes but Del Potro has significant wins over the Swiss to draw on for inspiration, including the 2009 US Open at Flushing Meadows.

Despite his top ranking, Wawrinka could face German sensation Alexander Zverev and Australia's Nick Kyrgios before the semi-final, with Kyrgios in particular a threat if he is over the food poisoning that forced him to withdraw from a quarter-final meeting with Federer last week.

The Aussie made his Masters breakthrough in Miami last year to reach the last four where he was beaten by Nishikori, and Japan's world No 4 has a favourable draw as he chases a first 1000 series title having lost in three finals.

Rafael Nadal is chasing his first title of 2017 and a first tournament win in Miami

Nadal is the favourite to come through alongside Nishikori, he is seeded fifth and could face Raonic in his quarter but the Canadian has struggled with injury, withdrawing last week in California and it remains to be seen how his body holds up.

Remarkably, Nadal has never won in Miami, having lost in four finals, but he looked in good touch until coming up against an inspired Federer in their fourth round match last week.

Grigor Dimitrov and Jack Sock boast four titles between them already this season and provide in-form competition in Nadal's quarter while Philipp Kohlschreiber is his likely third-round opponent.

Grigor Dimitrov has two titles already this year but a win in Miami would represent the biggest tournament win of his career

With Murray absent, Britain will be represented in the men's draw by Dan Evans and Kyle Edmund, both of whom will look to progress further than Indian Wells where the draw did them no favours.

Evans beat Dustin Brown in the first round before a defeat to Nishikori and the bad news for the world No 43 is that the Japanese is a possible third-round opponent if he __can come past Ernesto Escobedo in round one and Fernando Verdasco in the second round.

Edmund's Californian hopes ended at the hands of Djokovic in the second round and if he can overcome a qualifier Jared Donaldson at Crandon Park this week he will face Mischa Zverev before a possible third-round date with Raonic.

British number four Aljaz Bedene is also through to the main draw, having come through qualifying he faces Germany's Jan-Lennard Struff before a possible second round meeting with Gilles Simon.

Sky Sports Pass

Watch Sky Sports for just £6.99!

For those on the move, we will have the Miami Open covered on Sky Sports News HQ and via our website skysports.com/tennis, our app for mobile devices and iPad or our Twitter account @skysportstennis for news, reports, live blogs and expert analysis.

Sky customers can now upgrade to Sky Sports and get 12 months for just £18 per month. Upgrade now!

Watch Roger Federer at the 2017 Miami Open Masters 1000, live on Sky Sports

We'll bring you the very best action from Crandon Park Tennis Center in Miami

Join us for a bumper 11 days of action from Miami, where Roger Federer will be out to win back-to-back Masters titles, and you __can watch it live on Sky Sports.

We'll bring you the very best action from Crandon Park Tennis Center on Key Biscayne, live across our platforms, with all the big-name stars in action from Wednesday.

Fresh from winning his second big title of 2017, Federer heads to Miami aiming to win his second Masters 1000 tournament in succession. But the new world No 6 will expect stiff competition from the very best players on the planet, despite the absence of Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic.

Federer wins Indian Wells

Roger Federer claims Indian Wells title by defeating Stan Wawrinka

Two-time Miami Open champion, Federer, will be making his first appearance at the tournament since 2014 and will be joined by Nadal, a four-time Miami Open finalist, Stan Wawrinka and former US Open champion Juan Martin del Potro, who are all scheduled to take part at the hard-court tournament from March 22-April 2, live on Sky Sports.

Qualifying rounds will be played March 20-21 and will determine 12 additional slots in each singles draw.

WATCH: One Direction of tennis

Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Tommy Haas and Grigor Dimitrov singing!

The Miami Open will also award wildcards to five men and eight women. The main draw begins on Tuesday, March 21 as the women take the court, followed by the first round of the men's main draw on Wednesday, March 22.

Catch the tennis on either Sky Sports 1, 2, 3 and 5 for 12 days and there's even more tennis behind the red button.

For those on the move, we will have the Miami Open covered on Sky Sports News HQ and via our website skysports.com/tennis, our app for mobile devices and iPad or our Twitter account @skysportstennis for news, reports, live blogs and expert analysis.

Sky customers __can now upgrade to Sky Sports and get 12 months for just £18 per month. Upgrade now!

Non-subscribers can grab a NOW TV Sky Sports Day Pass for just £6.99 or Sky Sports Week Pass for £10.99. No contract. You can enjoy access to all seven Sky Sports channels and watch on a TV with a NOW TV Box or on a range of devices.

Sky Sports Pass

Watch the Australian GP for just £6.99!