孟晚舟引渡案: 2018年12月1日被拘捕；2019年3月1日，加正式启动引渡程序；BC最高法院引渡听证2021年8月18日结束，法官未作出裁决；9月24日孟晚舟与美国政府达成协议，美国撤销引渡请求，BC法院终止引渡程序; 2022年12月1日美国撤销指控

[ccc]

John McCallum had two big jobs in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government. First, as immigration minister from 2015 to early 2017, he managed the influx of Syrian refugees to this country; then, for the last two years, McCallum was Canada’s man in China.

On a day that both of those issues collided spectacularly in the news, McCallum lost his job as Canada’s ambassador to China — asked by Trudeau to step down after some extremely ill-advised remarks on Friday to a StarMetro reporter in Vancouver.

Even as attention was riveted on Kingston, Ont., and the questioning of a Syrian refugee in a terrorism take-down on Friday, McCallum was musing aloud in Vancouver about how it would be “great for Canada” if the U.S. dropped an extradition request that has entangled Canada in a massive, high-stakes dispute with China.

It was McCallum’s second verbal misstep in a week, and Trudeau phoned him late on Friday night to say that this latest outburst was one too many.

The firing throws a bucket of cold water over speculation all last week that McCallum was saying what the Trudeau government could not say publicly in what has been an escalating, high-stakes feud with China, kicked off by the December arrest and detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou as part of the U.S. extradition request.

Since then, two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, have been detained and another, David Schellenberg, has been sentenced to death.

This is, in short, not a situation that can tolerate freelancing, even by a man with a long history with this Prime Minister. (McCallum was dean of arts at McGill University when Trudeau and his principal advisor, Gerald Butts, were students there.)

McCallum, on two separate occasions in the past week, appeared to be saying that politics — not the rule of law — would get this whole mess sorted. That’s “completely offside” with what the Trudeau government has been saying, a PMO source said, about the need to keep the rule of law at the forefront.

“You can walk those comments back once,” the PMO source said on Saturday. “Not twice.”

Trudeau’s reluctance to jettison the ambassador was evident earlier in the week, when reporters asked him on Thursday about the outcry over McCallum’s remarks and demands — especially from Conservatives — that he fire him.

The Prime Minister, obviously annoyed, made clear that McCallum’s job had been saved for practical, not sentimental reasons: “Making a change would not help release those Canadians a day sooner,” he said.

The question now is whether McCallum’s missteps have prolonged the misery of those Canadians. This will be the top question in the coming days, as Trudeau wrestles with the question of who will replace the ambassador to China at a moment when every step seems perilous.

One thing is clear — the next appointee will not be offering political opinions to journalists. It will be a surprise, in fact, if the next ambassador is allowed to speak to the media at all.

It is almost ironic that McCallum would lose his job for being too political. When he first came to elected politics in 2000, fresh from the Royal Bank of Canada where he served as economist, many thought McCallum was too academic for the rough and tumble of political life.

But he seemed to relish the job, and was repeatedly a good sport when Stephen Harper, then in opposition, did his annual impersonations of McCallum at the press gallery dinner. Once the Liberals were relegated to the opposition benches, McCallum was one of the happier warriors, appearing to enjoy the chance to pillory the Harper government at any opportunity.

So McCallum became one of the few, trusted “old hands” when Trudeau swore in his first cabinet, with all its emphasis on youth, women and diversity. Similarly, his appointment as ambassador was meant to send a signal to China that the Trudeau government was putting someone serious, political and trusted into the job of ambassador.

“Nobody is feeling good about this,” the PMO source said of the decision to axe McCallum. That is undoubtedly true — many times over — for the Canadians whose future hangs in the balance in China.

The questions over McCallum’s future have been settled this weekend. But the futures of Kovrig, Spavor and Schellenberg — as well as Meng in Vancouver — are as unsettled as they were last week, and perhaps more so.

 

[ashvalley]

how many days ?

 

[ccc]

 

[ccc]

When John McCallum, Canada’s ambassador to China, said this week that Chinese business executive Meng Wanzhou has “quite good arguments on her side” in her fight against extradition to the United States, he ignited a political storm. The Globe and Mail’s Sean Fine set out to explore the overlap between law and politics in a case that has set China and Canada on a collision course.

Is extradition essentially a legal process, as the Government of Canada says, or a political one, as China asserts?

While the process has elements of both, the Supreme Court of Canada has described extradition court hearings as preliminary: The purpose is to “determine a condition precedent to the executive’s power to surrender.” “Extradition is ultimately a decision made by a politician – by the member of cabinet assigned to it,” University of Alberta law professor Joanna Harrington says. “It’s linked to extradition being part of our international relations and the decision of a state to surrender up, to give over, someone who is in their territory to another state. The Europeans have an arrest warrant that goes judge to judge, but that’s based on the sense of mutual trust within the European Union.”

What did Ms. Meng allegedly do that got her in trouble with the United States?

As chief financial officer of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., a Chinese telecommunications company, she allegedly lied to multinational financial institutions with branches in the United States about business dealings in countries such as Iran, Syria and Sudan, according to an RCMP affidavit filed last month in the B.C. Supreme Court. These alleged lies began as early as 2009. The motive, the United States says, was to move money out of these countries. Banks with offices in the United States face criminal liability, under U.S. law, for handling certain transactions involving countries facing sanctions.

What punishment does she face in the United States if found guilty?

The crime of bank fraud carries a maximum penalty of 30 years.

Why didn’t the United States make the arrest at home and spare Canada the headache with China?

Ms. Meng and other Huawei executives travelled to the United States between 2013 and 2016, but they stopped travelling there when the United States began a criminal investigation of Huawei in 2017, the RCMP affidavit said.

Was Mr. McCallum right that comments from U.S. President Donald Trump give Ms. Meng a good argument to make in court against extradition?

It’s a low bar in court for an extradition request to be upheld by a judge. All Canada’s Justice Department, acting for the United States, has to show is evidence of a crime that, had it been committed in Canada, would justify committal for trial. The data back that up: From 2008-09 until this year, 1,269 requests were made and 395 were not surrendered. But “conduct by the requesting state that amounts to an abuse of process is a basis for the extradition court to refuse extradition,” Edmonton lawyer Nathan Whitling says. One form of abuse would be to impose charges that were politically motivated (Mr. Trump said he would drop the prosecution of Ms. Meng if doing so would assist in the U.S. trade dispute with China). “I think the Trump comments open the door for the motive of the Department of Justice [of the U.S.] to be explored,” Toronto lawyer Frank Addario says.

Have the courts ever called a halt to an extradition sought by the United States over an abuse of process?

Yes. In a 2001 case, United States v. Shulman, a U.S. prosecutor hinted in a TV interview that a Canadian citizen would be subjected to rape in jail for fighting extradition and a U.S. judge said he would give him the maximum sentence. The Supreme Court halted the extradition. More recently, Canadian Abdullah Khadr was suspected of supplying weapons to al-Qaeda terrorists; the United States paid an intelligence agency in Pakistan a half-million dollars to abduct him in that country, and he was subjected to beatings and secret detention before being repatriated to Canada. Ontario courts would not allow his surrender.

Could Attorney-General (and Minister of Justice) David Lametti stop the process before it reaches a hearing?

Vancouver extradition lawyer Gary Botting says the Attorney-General has unfettered discretion to refuse to grant an “authority to proceed.” “It’s a question of expediency. Is this going to create more problems than it’s worth?” But the Attorney-General delegates this early stage of the process to lawyers in the Justice Department’s International Assistance Group. “The only decision that must be made by the Minister of Justice personally is the ultimate decision on whether to surrender an individual in the event a judge has ordered committal for extradition,” Justice spokeswoman Célia Canon says. Mr. Addario says he wouldn’t be surprised if Canada asks for more information from the United States before issuing the authority to proceed. “This is a case that just cries out for transparency.”

When the Justice Minister makes his ultimate decision on surrender, what guides the decision?


Section 44 of the Extradition Act says the minister “shall refuse” to turn over an individual for extradition when the surrender would be “unjust and oppressive” in all the circumstances. Lawyers for Ms. Meng “can raise almost any issue,” Mr. Addario says, “including the fact that the alleged crime had negligible effects on the requesting state and appears to be the product of a trade dispute.”

Can the minister’s ruling be reviewed by the courts?

Not if the minister says no to the extradition. But if he says yes, Ms. Meng can apply for judicial review to a provincial court of appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada says courts should generally defer in extradition cases because the executive, not the courts, has expertise in international relations: “The courts must be extremely circumspect so as to avoid interfering unduly in decisions that involve the good faith and honour of this country in its relations with other states.” Ultimately, in extradition cases, good faith and honour cannot be contracted out to the courts.

 

[ccc]

So the government has decided to throw Ambassador John McCallum under the bus. He should be happy to be released from this leg trap. Thank you for your service, John. Really. I served in various senior federal positions in China and Hong Kong since the early 1970s and feel obliged to deliver some self-criticism, as the Red Guards used to say during the Cultural Revolution.

Under the administration of the first Prime Minister Trudeau, Canada decided to recognize the People’s Republic of China in 1970 to draw the country into the community of nations, as well as to demonstrate Canada’s independence from the United States.

At the time, China was a very poor and ideologically conflicted Maoist country. Canada and other Western countries supported Deng Xiaoping’s (and Zhou Enlai’s) openness and economic reform agenda.

There was real progress in China’s evolution during the 1980s from a rogue, revolutionary regime facing Soviet invasion to a far more developed and – in some important ways – liberal and market-driven society.

But there were warning signs from the very beginning about China’s unique approach to international economic relations, but not enough to blunt the momentum of Canada’s opening.

I failed to highlight these risks, as have almost all other so-called China experts working.

It all started for me at an unprecedented Canadian Trade Exhibition in Shanghai during the Cultural Revolution in the early 1970s. Officials found Chinese experts disassembling the exhibits and photographing them after midnight. Canada complained mildly.

Our Canadian organizers understood then that the moderate faction had bought off the local Maoists in Shanghai with the argument that reverse engineering the products and systems of the outside world while closing subsidized strategic industries to Western involvement would eventually make China great again. Making a fuss would create lack of confidence in the Canadian business community.

Under-weighting China’s history, Canada trusted China would indeed abandon its totalitarian politics for enlightened democracy and recognize that its deeply self-reliant economic development strategy was a dead end.

We now know that China has been hijacking technology from Canadian and Western companies in more and ever-increasing sophisticated ways since the 1970s. Some believe the collapse of Nortel and RIM can be partly attributed to Chinese intellectual poaching.

The Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 shocked Canadians and created the first real crisis in Canada-China relations, including a lengthy diplomatic boycott of China.

Unfortunately, as Canada rebuilt its China policy, trade became all important, with politically popular Team Canada pageants uncritically encouraging private-sector linkages with Chinese entities more interested in technological transfer than importing goods.

Since then, despite many worthy efforts, Canada has run bigger and bigger trade deficits with China with modest export and investment growth in comparison with our competitors. Our China political debate has deteriorated into scoreboards of trade agreements signed, not results achieved.

Over the decades, China has fine-tuned its core Autarkic model of national economic development into a sophisticated engine of licit and illicit scientific and technology acquisition, under a veneer of middle-class consumerism and modernity.

Meanwhile, Canada has kept a very low profile on the need for tighter, unified Western ground rules on strategic intellectual-property exports to China. We have enjoyed a free ride on American efforts to influence China on its growing predatory intellectual property, exchange rate and trade agreement actions.

So don’t blame John McCallum. Making a couple of Chinese diplomats persona non grata, joining forces with the United States on its new China policy and banning Huawei now would have been smarter.

Our current China crisis is systemic as well as accidental. Canada’s vulnerabilities to Chinese and American pressures are deeply embedded and largely self-created. Over the long term, strengthened self-reliant economic development policies (à la Pierre Trudeau’s Third Option) and serious security policies should underpin a new Canadian China narrative, as globalist visions dissolve in the acid of the new geopolitics.

 

[ccc]

Huawei arrest: What's happening between Canada and China?
U.S. facing a deadline to make formal extradition request for Meng Wanzhou
CBC News · Posted: Jan 26, 2019 5:28 PM ET | Last Updated: January 26

Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou was arrested by RCMP on Dec. 1. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

On Dec. 1, the RCMP, acting at the request of U.S. justice officials, arrested one of China's top business executives while she was waiting for a flight at Vancouver International Airport.

U.S authorities allege that Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou committed fraud by lying to American banks about her company's ties to a telecommunications firm that did business in Iran. That business was a breach of sanctions on Iran, U.S. officials will argue, as they seek to extradite the 46-year-old.

The arrest of the high-profile tech exec sparked immediate reaction from China, where officials have vocally criticized her apprehension — and the role Canada played in facilitating it.

With the U.S. preparing to make a formal extradition request before a Jan. 30 deadline, the Huawei case is about to enter a new stage. But it's still unclear how the tangled situation will unfold.

Here's a look back at how it all began.

Dec. 1, 2018: Meng is arrested at Vancouver airport by Canadian police. The arrest was set in motion by a request from American officials, who learned the telecom executive would soon be passing through B.C while travelling from Hong Kong to Mexico.

U.S. officials are expected to soon file an official request to extradite Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, who is out on bail after being arrested in B.C. Here's a look at what sparked the arrest, and the fallout that followed.

Dec. 5, 2018: CBC News confirms reports that Meng had been arrested in B.C. Huawei issues a statement saying it is not aware of any wrongdoing by Meng and has been provided "very little information" about the charges. "The company believes the Canadian and U.S. legal systems will ultimately reach a just conclusion," the statement says.

The Chinese embassy in Ottawa has a sharper take, saying it had "lodged stern representations with the U.S. and Canadian side, and urged them to immediately correct the wrongdoing and restore the personal freedom of Ms. Meng Wanzhou."

Dec. 6, 2018: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau weighs in, saying: "The appropriate authorities took the decisions in this case without any political involvement or interference ... we were advised by them with a few days' notice that this was in the works."

Dec. 8, 2018: China summons Canada's ambassador, John McCallum, to lodge a protest — and warn that Canada could face consequences over the arrest.

Dec. 11, 2018: Canada confirms that Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat working with International Crisis Group, has been detained in China. That same day, Meng is released on $10 million bail with several conditions, including a requirement that she surrender her passport and pay for 24/7 monitoring.

U.S. President Donald Trump wades into the debate, telling Reuters that he'd be willing to intervene in the case if it was in the best interest of Americans. "Whatever's good for this country, I would do," he says.

Dec. 12, 2018: Chinese media report that another Canadian, businessman Michael Spavor, has been detained on suspicion of endangering national security. Spavor is founder of an organization that arranges travel to North Korea.

Dec. 16, 2018: Canada is granted consular access to Spavor, Global Affairs Canada says.

Dec. 19, 2018: Trudeau says that the detention of teacher Sarah McIver, another Canadian who was taken into custody in China, doesn't appear to be linked to the detention of Kovrig or Spavor. (She is later returned to Canada.)

Dec. 21, 2018: Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland calls for the immediate release of Spavor and Kovrig, and accuses China of detaining the men without cause — a position soon echoed by U.S. officials.

Michael Spavor, left, and former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig were taken into custody in China in mid-December. (Associated Press/International Crisis Group/Canadian Press)

Dec. 24, 2018: China again takes aim at Canada and its allies, saying Meng's arrest is "illegal" and countries expressing concern about Spavor and Kovrig have different standards on human rights for citizens of different countries.

Dec. 29, 2018: The case of another Canadian detained in China makes headlines when a court orders a retrial for Robert Schellenberg, who had appealed after receiving a 15-year sentence for a conviction in a drug smuggling case.

Robert Schellenberg is seen at his retrial at the Dalian Intermediate People's Court in northeastern China earlier this month. He's now facing a death sentence. (CCTV/Associated Press)

Jan. 3, 2019: A group of MPs and senators say they will proceed with a planned trip to China, despite mounting tensions. The trip, hosted by the Canada-China Legislative Association, had been in the works for months.

Jan. 6, 2019: Just days after one member of the Canadian delegation said that discussion of the detainees was not on the agenda for the China trip, there's a change in message. Senators and MPs say they are raising the case as they meet with Chinese counterparts.

Jan. 8, 2019: Reuters publishes a report saying documents link Huawei to equipment seller Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. and Canicula Holdings Ltd., suspected front companies in Iran and Syria. That same day, Trudeau's office puts out a statement saying that in a call with the prime minister, Trump affirmed the need to respect judicial independence.

Jan. 9, 2019: China's ambassador to Canada pens a scathing op-ed in the Hill Times, in which he says "Western egotism and white supremacy" have played a role in the conflict over detainees.

Jan. 10, 2019: Consular officials say they've had a second meeting with Kovrig.

Jan. 11, 2019: Trudeau accuses China of violating diplomatic immunity in the case of Kovrig, who is on leave from Global Affairs Canada. "It is unfortunate that China has arbitrarily and unfairly detained two Canadian citizens, and indeed, in one of the cases, is not respecting the principles of diplomatic immunity."

Jan. 14, 2019: A spokesperson for China's foreign ministry says Kovrig doesn't have diplomatic immunity. Asked about Trudeau's comments, Hua Chunying says that the "relevant Canadian person" should "earnestly study" the Vienna Convention before speaking, so as to "not become a laughing stock."

That same day, Schellenberg is sentenced to death for drug smuggling. Trudeau accuses China of arbitrarily applying the death sentence.

Jan. 15, 2019: Canada issues an updated advisory for travellers to China, saying there's a risk of "arbitrary enforcement of local laws." China immediately responds, issuing its own advisory urging its citizens to "fully evaluate risks" ahead of travel to Canada, citing the recent "arbitrary detention" of a Chinese citizen.

Jan. 16, 2019: Freeland says the government has spoken with China's ambassador to Canada to ask for clemency for Schellenberg. Ambassador to China John McCallum, meanwhile, says Spavor and Kovrig don't have access to legal counsel and face up to four hours a day of interrogation.

Jan. 17, 2019: The tensions between Canada and China aren't limited to the issue of detainees. There's also a question of whether Canada will allow Huawei equipment in next generation 5G mobile networks. The federal government is still studying the issue, but China's ambassador to Canada says, "I believe there will be repercussions" if Huawei is banned.

Jan. 18, 2019: Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says Canada won't compromise national security as it weighs its options for a 5G network.

Jan. 21, 2019: A group of 140 former diplomats, scholars and others pen a letter urging China to release Kovrig and Spavor. Trudeau and Freeland. meanwhile, have been reaching out to leaders around the world to try and increase pressure on China.

Jan. 22, 2019: China accuses Canada and the U.S. of abusing the extradition system ahead of a Jan. 30 deadline for American officials to file an official extradition request.

Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum said publicly that Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou has good arguments to fight extradition to the U.S. He has since been fired. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

There's another twist when Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum, speaks to Chinese-language media on Jan. 22 in Markham, Ont. McCallum says he thinks Meng has "strong arguments" to make before the courts as her extradition case moves forward.

"I know this has angered China, but we have a system of extradition treaty, a system of rules of law, which are above the government," the ambassador says. "The government cannot change these things, and as I said, I think Ms. Meng has quite a strong case."

Jan. 24, 2019: After facing criticism for his remarks — including a call for his resignation from Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer — McCallum says he misspoke and regrets his comments.

Jan. 26, 2019: John McCallum is fired after reportedly telling StarMetro Vancouver it would be "great for Canada" if the United States dropped their extradition request against Meng.

What's next?
The U.S. has to file a formal extradition request in Meng's case by Jan. 30, but that deadline is just the starting point for what's expected to be another round of legal wrangling.

There's no sense of what will happen next with Spavor and Kovrig, or Schellenberg's case — though Canadian officials have made it clear they plan to keep up the pressure.

 

[茶马盐铁]

妈了个BZ的， 华为价格便宜， 技术高超， 而且送货上门， 这你都特么不要， 想东想西的不敢下手， 憋啥犊子呢？
你再说一句不要华为试试？

接受华为的好意， 拿合同来换， 华为就带你装逼带你飞！
你丫敢拒绝华为， 回头直接弄死你！别以为华为就是好惹的！

 

[urus]

妈了个BZ的， 华为价格便宜， 技术高超， 而且送货上门， 这你都特么不要， 想东想西的不敢下手， 憋啥犊子呢？
你再说一句不要华为试试？

接受华为的好意， 拿合同来换， 华为就带你装逼带你飞！
你丫敢拒绝华为， 回头直接弄死你！别以为华为就是好惹的！

靠， 你这是要强买强卖嘛？

 

[9981]

妈了个BZ的， 华为价格便宜， 技术高超， 而且送货上门， 这你都特么不要， 想东想西的不敢下手， 憋啥犊子呢？
你再说一句不要华为试试？

接受华为的好意， 拿合同来换， 华为就带你装逼带你飞！
你丫敢拒绝华为， 回头直接弄死你！别以为华为就是好惹的！

华为就带你装逼带你飞 好霸气的口号

 

[阿土仔]

妈了个BZ的， 华为价格便宜， 技术高超， 而且送货上门， 这你都特么不要， 想东想西的不敢下手， 憋啥犊子呢？
你再说一句不要华为试试？

接受华为的好意， 拿合同来换， 华为就带你装逼带你飞！
你丫敢拒绝华为， 回头直接弄死你！别以为华为就是好惹的！

这才符合厉害国的身份！

 

[ccc]

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced 13 criminal charges against the Chinese telecom giant Huawei, its CFO Meng Wangzhou, and its affiliates in the U.S. and Hong Kong.

Meng is currently free on bail in Vancouver as the U.S. seeks her extradition.

Acting U.S. attorney general Matthew Whitaker said Monday that a grand jury in New York had recommended the charges.

He said the 13 counts of bank and wire fraud relate to Huawei's claim that its affiliate operating in Iran, Skycom, was a separate, unrelated company. As a result of that claim, it was able to borrow money from U.S. banks.

Skycom, which is based in Hong Kong did business in Iran on behalf of Huawei, he alleged.

"Huawei claimed Skycom was a separate company and not an affiliate and asserted all its business was in compliance with U.S. sanctions," Whitaker said.

The U.S. reimposed sanctions against Iran in August 2018.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced criminal charges against Meng and other Huawei executives. (Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press)

He reaffirmed that the U.S. is seeking extradition of Meng and would formally file for the extradition by Tuesday, Canada's deadline.

Whitaker and FBI director Christopher Wray both thanked Canadian officials for their help.

Cleared money through U.S. banks
Meng faces charges of bank fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit both bank fraud and wire fraud.

Huawei and its Hong Kong-based affiliate Skycom Tech are charged with several counts of bank fraud and wire fraud, as well as violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Huawei USA and its parent company are also charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice.

According to the indictment, Huawei relied on its global banking relationships to process U.S.-dollar transactions through the U.S. One bank cleared more than $100 million between 2010 and 2014, according to the indictment.

The Department of Justice also announced 10 additional charges of wire fraud, trade theft and obstruction of justice against two other Huawei executives who it alleged tried to steal trade secrets.

It alleged the two executives tried to steal robotic technology from U.S. carrier T-Mobile to test smartphones' durability.

Whitaker said these were not "rogue employees" acting on their own, but that stealing intellectual property was a "way of doing business" encouraged by Huawei itself.

Washington has said it wants to try Meng on the allegations because, in her position as chief financial officer, she spoke directly to U.S. banks that loaned money.

She was arrested in Vancouver Dec. 1 while en route from Hong Kong to Mexico.

A B.C. court will determine whether she will be extradited.

Meng's arrest has touched off an ongoing diplomatic furor that resulted Sunday in the firing of John McCallum as Canada's ambassador to China after he publicly expressed confidence in her ability to fight extradition to the United States.

News of the charges comes just as the White House is making plans for a team of high-level economic advisers to meet a delegation from China later this week to talk trade between the two countries.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross will take part in the two days of talks beginning Wednesday, along with the president's economic adviser Larry Kudlow and trade adviser Peter Navarro.

 

[ccc]

 

[ccc]

 

[ccc]

刘鹤率领中方代表团抵达美国磋商
2019-01-29 11:51:51 来源： 新华网

　　新华社华盛顿1月28日电（记者高攀　韩洁）中共中央政治局委员、国务院副总理、中美全面经济对话中方牵头人刘鹤率领中方代表团于当地时间28日下午抵达华盛顿，将同美方就中美经贸问题举行高级别磋商。中方代表团成员包括中国人民银行行长易纲，国家发展和改革委员会副主任宁吉喆，中央财经委员会办公室副主任、财政部副部长廖岷，外交部副部长郑泽光，工业和信息化部副部长罗文，农业农村部副部长韩俊，商务部副部长兼国际贸易谈判副代表王受文等。

 

[ccc]

华为回应美司法部指控：否认罪名，对指控非常失望
2019-01-29 12:24 环球网

　　【环球网报道】北京时间1月29日凌晨，美国司法部宣布了对华为公司、有关子公司及其副董事长、首席财务官孟晚舟的指控，并声称即将向加拿大提出对孟晚舟女士的引渡请求。对此，华为回应如下：

　　我们对美国政府今天针对华为提出的指控感到非常失望。孟女士被捕之后，华为试图与司法部就纽约东区的调查进行讨论，但被拒绝且没有给出任何理由。华盛顿西区法院关于华为商业秘密案件的相关民事诉讼早已和解，和解前西雅图陪审团也对商业秘密相关诉请做出了没有赔偿、华为不存在主观恶意的裁决。

　　华为否认关于华为公司、其子公司或附属机构犯有起诉书中指控的违反美国法律的各项罪名，也不知晓孟女士有任何不当行为。华为相信美国法院最终会得出相同的结论。