There is no more slavishly liberal editorial board than that of the New York Times, so when it tells Hillary Clinton to shape up, that is rather extraordinary. The board writes:

“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly-paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.
A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release the transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.” . . . .
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.

This raises a few key points.
First, if the board is sincere, it should henceforth declare that it will no longer endorse candidates who are not transparent about their finances. It’s simple, easy to apply and, in this case, might have some impact on the Clinton team’s cost-benefit analysis.
Second, Democrats should be nervous. Do they imagine none of these speeches were ever recorded or that there are no attendees with good memories? Surely bits and pieces of Clinton’s remarks to Wall Street execs will come out. And, hey, if she ever sent her scripts by email — well, we know what happens to unsecured emails.
Third, the exact same principle is at work with regard to Donald Trump and his taxes. And here the Republican National Committee can actually play a constructive role in reclaiming its manhood. It should call on all candidates to disclose ample financial material, including past tax returns. How else are Republicans to make the case against Clinton’s secrecy and hypocrisy if their own potential nominees do not do so? If need be, try adding it to the convention rules as a condition of having one’s name entered in consideration for the nomination. Simply put, Trump can keep his tax records secret, or he can pursue the nomination, but not both.
Oh, I can hear the mice squeaking right now. Trump will be mad! He’ll run as a third-party candidate. Listen, anyone who does not think he will do so anyway if he loses the GOP nomination is kidding themselves. It’s time for the party to show some leadership and defend the party from a hostile takeover.
Fourth, Trump’s GOP opponents and their super PACs should make this a key issue. Run ads on the topic, asking what there is to hide. Remind voters that he has been accused of inflating his wealth in the past and is now selling himself on his phenomenal success as a businessman.
Disclosure is no small matter, especially when the candidates at issue have a long history of dissembling and of financial intrigue. If they are not willing to turn speeches or tax returns over for inspection, they shouldn’t be running for president. And neither party should let them get away with it.

There's new heat on Donald Trump over a rather dry topic: his tax returns. Mitt Romney, who has been making the TV news rounds, claimed this week that he expects a "bombshell" in Trump's tax returns, if only the candidate would release them.
Trump, in turn, raised eyebrows at the Republican presidential debate on Thursday when he said that he can't release his tax returns yet because he is in the midst of an audit. He also added this claim, a different sort of bombshell: "I’ve been audited every year. Twelve years or something like that.”
Is that plausible? And, if Trump isn't exaggerating: Why would he get audited 12 years in a row? We consulted four tax experts to dissect the claim.
Possible, but a stretch
The odds of getting audited 12 years in a row are slim, but not impossible, experts say.
Less than 1% of Americans get audited every year, and that number shrinks each year as the IRS workforce and budget has slimmed down. But among "high net-worth individuals," the rate is higher: Nearly 7% get audited. And Trump is certainly a high net-worth individual.
"As your income increases, your chances of being audited go up significantly," says John Petosa, a CPA and professor at Syracuse University's Whitman School of Management. "If you think about it, it makes sense—is the IRS going to spend time and money and resources auditing somebody who makes $30,000 a year? Or are they going to spend their time auditing someone who makes billions of dollars? There is probably more tax revenue to collect from a guy like Donald Trump, especially if he's being aggressive in his deductions." (As the campaign cycle has proven, there are few areas in which Trump is not aggressive.)
The IRS actually has a rule, in its agent manual, that if a person is audited and receives an assessment of zero (that is, does not owe additional money), the IRS cannot audit them again for two years. That means if Trump is telling the truth, then the IRS has repeatedly found discrepancies in his returns.
Until recently, it was typical for big corporations to get audited every year. This was called the Coordinated Examination Program. Many big public corporations even had rooms specifically designated for use by visiting IRS agents. But as the IRS's budget has been slashed, it has shrunk the program.
It's worth noting that for wealthy individuals, the stigma once associated with an audit has faded. As Steven Burke, a partner at McLane Middleton and a tax professor at the University of New Hampshire Law School, explains, "Many wealthy people welcome an audit, because once an audit occurs, your return is done, you don’t have to worry about it. If you take an aggressive position in something, for example, once the IRS has audited it, it is highly unlikely they will ever come back and give you trouble about it again." For regular, non-mogul folks, too, an audit is less unpleasant these days. "It used to be an agent would come to your house and it was an embarrassing thing. Many audits now are done just electronically by correspondence; you get an email, you send back a check," Burke says. "That said, the IRS does still do some in-person audits, and it is still a scary, nerve-wracking experience for the average person."
Investments abroad
Although Trump is more prone to tax audits because of his wealth, experts say it's the geographical breadth of his business interests, more than his wealth, that makes him a target. When Trump says he has been audited, he is likely referring to both himself, as an individual, and to his companies, or companies in which he has a stake. Audits can occur on an individual basis or a corporate basis, and some companies Trump has a hand in may be considered "passthrough entities," which do not pay federal taxes, just report it to the IRS, and the individual owners or investors have to report and pay it.
"With all of his real estate abroad, he must have foreign income coming in, and that's what I imagine they're checking," says Vincent Cervone, who runs VRC Associates, a tax shop in Brooklyn, N.Y. "His regular income is kind of straightforward, but the foreign income is what they would be investigating. Right now the IRS has a pet peeve with foreign accounts because a lot of people are taking their money overseas to get certain benefits."
Trump owns golf courses and resorts in places like Scotland, Ireland and Dubai. "The IRS is definitely paying closer attention to people who have money abroad," says Petosa. "There used to be a question that said, 'Do you have money overseas?' And you could simply check a box: 'Yes.' Now there's actually a reporting element where you have to tell them your funds and how they're invested."
It isn't just about his money abroad, either, but the complexity of his business empire. Trump has partnerships, trusts, subsidiaries, and all manner of entities in which he has full or partial ownership. That means his return isn't as simple as just earnings from a single corporation. As one tax agent, who did not want to be named, put it: "I gotta believe his tax return is just unbelievable. If you look at the face of his 1040, I'd be surprised if there's a single line that's blank. Well, maybe unemployment benefits."
How long will it take?
What about Trump's excuse that he can't yet release his tax returns because he is in the midst of an audit? Mitt Romney didn't buy it, and tweeted during the debate: "No legit reason [Trump] can't release returns while being audited, but if scared, release earlier returns no longer under audit."

Trump indicated that he would release the returns as soon as the audit is complete, but that he can't be sure it will be complete by November. Whether this is a good excuse or not, could it really take that long? The experts say yes. "With the IRS, it takes forever," says Cervone. "And because the IRS had its workforce cut, a lot of things are taking a lot of time right now. Anything that is not for this year, they are putting on the back burner because they need to get all the refund checks out. Will it be done by November? I'm thinking yes, but there's no guarantee."
Whether or not his current active audits are complete, Trump won't get to hold out forever: If he makes it to the general election, he must release his returns by law.

Napoli striker Gonzalo Higuain could reportedly depart the Serie A club this summer with Paris Saint-Germain, Chelsea and Arsenal all linked with the Argentinian.
Continue for updates.

---

Higuain 'Could Decide Against' Contract Extension

Wednesday, Feb. 24

"Gazzetta dello Sport reports today that there is no renewal [of Higuain's contract] on the horizon, as the arrival of Higuain’s father Jorge in Naples last weekend hasn’t led to a meeting with president Aurelio De Laurentiis to discuss a new deal," revealed Football Italia.
The report relays the "mechanical" way Higuain's representatives responded to talk of a new deal, with PSG and Chelsea both rumoured to be interested in the 28-year-old: "Gonzalo is focused on the Scudetto, it’s not the time to talk about a contract."
Arsenal have also long been linked with Higuain, as noted by James Whaling  and would likely jump at the chance to sign him.
His current contract with Napoli runs until 2018, but the Partenopei would clearly like to tie him to an extended deal.
Higuain is currently enjoying one of the best seasons of his career and has scored 24 times in 26 matches in Serie A,
Napoli are still very much in with a chance of winning the Scudetto as they sit just a point behind leaders Juventus.
But Higuain has unsurprisingly drawn interest from some of the biggest clubs in Europe and could likely be tempted by the financial rewards offered by the likes of PSG and Chelsea.
He also undoubtedly has ambitions of winning the UEFA Champions League, which are more likely to be fulfilled at the Parc des Princes than at the San Paolo.
Napoli will still be able to demand a significant fee for Higuain—they slapped a €94.7 million (£67 million) price tag on him last summer—but they will be loath to sell him for any price given his importance to the side.

Pre-vote surveys showed the billionaire businessman with a big lead over five Republican rivals in the Palmetto State.

Rick Tyler, former communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, in Storm Lake, Iowa, in January. (Photo: Scott Bauer/AP) Cruz’s decision to fire Tyler, who was one of his earliest hires, was widely seen by the media as an effort to turn the page on the narrative that his campaign has been engaging in dirty tricks. In the wake of Iowa, where Cruz staffers misleadingly suggested that Ben Carson was about to drop out of the race, the Rubio campaign has repeatedly claimed that Cruz is “willing to do or say anything to get elected,” and GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has been even more direct, calling Cruz a “liar” at nearly every campaign stop. The charges seem to have resonated with evangelicals in South Carolina, where Cruz delivered a disappointing third-place finish despite the state’s conservative reputation and favorable demographics.Trump immediately took to Twitter to crow that the Tyler incident reinforced what he’s been saying about Cruz all along. “Ted Cruz has now apologized to Marco Rubio and Ben Carson for fraud and dirty tricks,” Trump tweeted. “No wonder he has lost Evangelical support!”The Rubio campaign soon piled on, with spokesman Alex Conant insisting that it was actually Cruz, not Tyler, who was at fault and using the fracas as an opportunity to repeat his team’s favorite line about Cruz.“Rick is a really good spokesman who had the unenviable task of working for a candidate who is willing to do or say anything to get elected,” Conant said in a statement, adding that “there is a culture in the Cruz campaign, from top to bottom, that no lie is too big and no trick too dirty.”The Cruz campaign disputed Conant’s accusation. “Marco Rubio’s attacks have been misleading from the beginning, and we’ll continue talking about that,” said Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “We believe voters are smart enough to recognize the difference.”What isn’t clear is whether Tyler’s firing will change anyone’s impression of Cruz — or whether, in fact, Nevadans will care at all. In the Durango YMCA gymnasium, television reporters from NBC and Fox News rushed in front of their cameras to do standup reports about Cruz’s decision, speculating on the air about how it will impact the race. But most voters interviewed by Yahoo News had no idea who Tyler was.

In the midst of Apple’s legal battle with the FBI, there has been no shortage of tech leaders who have come out and applauded Apple’s position on user privacy and its refusal to help the FBI bypass the iPhone’s security measures. From Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, it almost seems as if Tim Cook’s public letter last week has unified large segments of the tech community behind a common cause.But not every tech leader and luminary necessarily sees things from Apple’s point of view. So while Tim Cook maintains helping the FBI would set a dangerous precedent, Microsoft founder Bill Gates begs to differ.DON’T MISS: Galaxy S7 vs. iPhone 6s: The 5 most important ways Samsung outshines AppleDuring a recent interview with the Financial Times, Gates challenged Tim Cook’s assessment that helping the FBI access the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone would be akin to establishing a backdoor that would wreak havoc on user privacy.“This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information,” Gates explained. “They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case. It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said ‘don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’.”In a similar vein, FBI director James Comey recently emphasized that the software solution the FBI is seeking is narrow in scope and that the agency doesn’t “want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land.”Apple of course doesn’t quite see things that way. In an FAQ published on Apple’s website on Monday, the company specifically addressed the argument raised by Gates, Comey and others who believe Apple should accommodate the FBI’s demands.In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks. Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked by hackers and cybercriminals.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio addresses a town hall event in Fairfax, Va., on Monday. (Photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols tried to downplay the governor’s comments.“John Kasich’s campaigns have always been homegrown affairs,” Nichols said in a statement to NBC News. “They’ve literally been run out of his friends’ kitchens, and many of his early campaign teams were made up of stay-at-home moms who believed deeply in the changes he wanted to bring to them and their families. That’s real grassroots campaigning, and he’s proud of that authentic support. To try and twist his comments into anything else is just desperate politics.”Kasich himself later apologized.“Sure, I’m sorry,” Kasich told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Anybody who’s offended, of course. I’m not — look. Of course, I’m more than happy to say I’m sorry if I offended somebody out there, but it wasn’t intended to be offensive.“"Sometimes when you operate on the high wire without a net, you’ll fall off and not say things exactly the way you want to,” he said. “But let me be clear: The beginning of my campaign for public office, I did town halls. Except they were in people’s homes. They were at breakfast tables, they were during — at evening when we had coffee, and I recruited people. And I want to be clear: We had a lot of women that played a major role in my political campaign.”On this point, Kasich appears to be right.  In 1978, when Kasich mounted his state senate run, just 33 percent of women aged 16 to 64 worked full-time in the United States, according to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2013, that figure was over 53 percent.And women continue to volunteer at a higher rate than men “across all age groups, educational levels and other major demographic characteristics,” according to a BLS report released last year. About 28 percent of women volunteered in 2014, the survey found, compared to 22 percent of men.Still, it’s not the first time the Ohio Republican’s tongue has gotten him into trouble this cycle.

(Photo Illustration: Yahoo News, photos: AP, Robert F. Bukaty/AP)In the latest sign that hedge fund gurus have little influence over the political marketplace, Wall Street billionaire Steven Cohen and his wife pumped another $2 million into a super-PAC backing Chris Christie’s presidential candidacy less than three weeks before the New Jersey governor flamed out in the New Hampshire primary, according to newly filed campaign finance reports.The Jan. 22 contributions by Cohen and his wife, Alexandra Cohen, to the pro-Christie super-PAC, America Leads, amounted to 55 percent of the $3.6 million raised by the group last month, the reports show. The fresh contributions brought to $6 million the amount the Cohens had invested in America Leads over the past year in an effort to elect Christie president, making the couple by far the largest bankrollers of his failed candidacy.The role of Cohen was highlighted in a recent Yahoo News article disclosing that the hedge fund kingpin had principally financed an America Leads TV ad during the New Hampshire primary deriding rival John Kasich as a one-time “Wall Street banker.” This would seem an ironic line of attack, given that Cohen was long one of the most well-known and controversial figures on Wall Street and, in recent years, the focus of an insider trading investigation by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney in New York, Preet Bharara.The investigation resulted in Cohen’s now defunct firm, SAC Capital, paying a $1.8 billion fine and, just last month, shortly before his latest six-figure contribution, reaching a final settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that bans him from investing money for others until 2018.

Cohen’s financial largesse did Christie little good: He finished in sixth place in the New Hampshire primary, with 7.4 percent of the vote, and suspended his candidacy the next day.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz campaigns Feb. 21 in Pahrump, Nevada (Photo: John Locher/AP)LAS VEGAS — Donald Trump has led the GOP field in every single poll taken in Nevada since he entered the race last June , often by as many as 20 percentage points. And after his resounding victory in South Carolina, the tinsel-haired mogul is the heavy favorite to win yet again when Nevada Republicans come out to caucus on Tuesday.But as recent back-to-back visits to the neighboring Las Vegas headquarters of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz made clear, neither campaign seems particularly concerned about Trump — or any of the other Republican candidates — in the final days of the Silver State contest. They’re far more focused on each other.That’s because both camps believe that with Trump coasting on his celebrity, as usual, they can reshape the results and beat expectations on Caucus Night by quietly, methodically mastering the unglamorous work of getting out the vote. Their thinking is that in a state where the polling is particularly unreliable, the process is particularly chaotic, and the turnout is particularly low, the ground game could have bigger effect than anywhere else.“Oh, you have to see this,” a gray-haired Rubio volunteer with a thick Southern accent told Yahoo News, gesturing toward her laptop. On the screen was a picture of Cruz’s louche, smirking face superimposed on the body of a naked man lounging in a rubber-duck-filled bathtub — a cheeky response, posted online by a Rubio fan, to the Cruz campaign’s poorly photoshopped image of Rubio shaking hands with President Obama.“He has all his ducks in order!” the volunteer chirped. “Isn’t that hilarious?”An hour later at Cruz HQ, which is tucked into somewhat seedy strip mall a few doors down from a shop selling vaporizers and bongs, staffers could barely contain themselves when a reporter mentioned that he had just visited Rubio’s command post in the fancier office complex one block west on Tropicana Avenue.“How many people were there?” snapped Matthew Bell, a field representative for Cruz. “As many as we have here?” Told that the number of Rubio volunteers — about a dozen — matched the number of Cruz volunteers, Bell looked deflated.The mutual obsession makes perfect sense. Early on, Jeb Bush, who suspended his campaign Saturday after a distant fourth place finish in South Carolina, built what was widely considered the best operation here; the consultant who was running his campaign, Ryan Erwin, led Mitt Romney to caucus victories in both 2008 and 2012. As Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison, Rubio’s Nevada campaign chairman, told Yahoo News, “Technically, Bush did everything right.” And yet the latest polls, taken before Bush dropped out, showed him in last place locally, behind even Ben Carson and John Kasich.Carson and Kasich remain in the race, but neither is poised to make much of an impact. Like Bush, Carson was on the ground early, but he’s been losing steam for months, and his last-place showing in the Palmetto State won’t help. And Kasich isn’t even visiting Nevada between now and Caucus Day.That leaves Cruz and Rubio. With Trump appearing to hold a sizable lead — and with the two young senators from Florida and Texas having just finished neck-and-neck in South Carolina — the battle for second place will likely be the marquee event Tuesday night.

 

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse more stories

Costa scoring his seventh goal in nine matches in such dramatic circumstances wasn't the story, though. It's Chelsea's failure to once again pick up three points that remains the talking point around this team.
Interim boss Guus Hiddink has seen his side draw six times in the 10 games he has been officially in charge. Just two of his four victories have come in the Premier League, meaning the Blues have picked up a mere 12 points from an available 24.
Compared to the last eight league games of Jose Mourinho's reign, it's an increase of five points—the former manager's Chelsea won two, lost five and drew once, against Tottenham Hotspur.
It's an improvement, but it's still not great. It's still not enough to get Chelsea into the top 10 and comfortably away from being dragged into a potential battle at the foot of the table.
A big reason for the changes we've seen has been the John Obi Mikel-Nemanja Matic combination in midfield.
Hiddink's intentions have been clear in the early weeks of his second spell in charge at Stamford Bridge; he needed to stop that losing habit, which he has.
He hasn’t transformed those defeats into victories, however. All these draws Chelsea are recording aren’t enough to save their season.
The Dutchman needs to take the next step on the road to recover; his challenge is to get this team firing properly and winning games consistently.
To do that, Hiddink must turn his back on the one thing that has made Chelsea hard to beat again—Matic and Mikel's partnership.
We saw why when United visited Stamford Bridge; Chelsea were back to playing with the handbrake firmly on.
That tactic worked against Arsenal at the Emirates Stadium a few weeks back as the Blues were able to set up in a way that stemmed Arsene Wenger's men. By controlling those central areas, the Gunners couldn't get through, and it led to Chelsea dominating the game, even when it was 11 versus 11.
When they're at home facing a struggling United side, though, Chelsea have to get at them and make the most of their advantage. They can no longer play so restricted as games are running out in the league.
Chelsea need points to climb the table and draws aren’t delivering them at the required rate.
Louis van Gaal had the laborious Michael Carrick and Marouane Fellaini anchoring his own midfield on Sunday. A lack of dynamism from Chelsea meant the pair looked comfortable, rarely pulled out of position by the players opposite them who were performing the exact same role.
It was similar at Vicarage Road in midweek when Chelsea endured a goalless draw with Watford. The Hornets had lost four of their five league games since the Boxing Day draw with the Blues, but Hiddink still erred on the side of caution.
Regardless of league positions, it was a game of Premier League champions against the Championship runners-up, yet you wouldn’t have known it. The caution hints at confidence remaining fragile, although it’s only by instilling belief in his players that Hiddink will get the best out of them in an attacking sense.
He can give them long speeches to that effect, or the interim boss can alternatively field a team that shows he’s confident in the players’ abilities.
Like United on Sunday, Watford were there to be got at. As remained the case in both games, it was only until the final 20 minutes or so that that Chelsea upped the ante and played with anything resembling ambition.
Dropping four points within the same number of days, the coin has flipped. From being about damage limitation, Matic and Mikel playing together is damaging Chelsea's season further.
It helps that Eden Hazard is back from injury. Hiddink’s hand has partly been forced while the Belgian hasn’t been fully fit.
Chelsea’s squad lacks the same depth of those teams we considered their rivals for honours at the start of the season. Whereas Manchester City have players in reserve to combat the loss of their own dynamic Belgian in Kevin De Bruyne, for instance, Chelsea don’t.
A big part of their dramatic fall from grace this season has been Hazard’s lack of form. He was their talisman as they cruised to the Premier League title. It’s been much different this season and they have suffered.
Hazard is speaking a different language now. From being relatively silent while the chaos ensued around him before Mourinho eventually lost his job, the Belgian is saying all the right things in the present.
In a recent interview with the Guardian, Hazard said:

For a team of champions to go through what we have this year even I can’t explain.
Things have been better recently, but we’re still not winning games quite as we used to. No one can put his finger on what’s happened at Chelsea.
[…] I’ve never been one to deliver speeches in the dressing room, like a John Terry, Frank Lampard or [Didier] Drogba, but I’ve always tried to lead in my own way on the field: demanding the ball, trying to make a difference. The day I’m 100 per cent again, I’m convinced Chelsea will perform better too.

Those improved performances will only come with a less rigid midfield pairing. Either Mikel or Matic has to be sacrificed in the name of Chelsea’s season.
Averaging two points a game under Hiddink, Chelsea’s current form suggests they’ll finish the campaign on 50 points. That’s enough to avoid a relegation dogfight—which, like it or not, will remain at the back of Chelsea’s minds until they pass the magical 40-points mark—but it will mean they just about scrape into the top 10.
A club of Chelsea’s size and stature has to have bigger ambitions than that. The responsibility lies with Hiddink to implement it.

February 20, 2016 Winners at the Berlinale, the first of the year's major European film festivals, are notoriously hard to predict. This year's jury, led by Meryl Streep, is choosing between 18 entries from across the globe.
They include "Genius," a literary drama starring Colin Firth and Jude Law; two documentaries, among them "Zero Days" from Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney; and an eight-hour historical drama from the Philippines, "A Lullaby to the Sorrowful Mystery."
Entries come from the U.S., Britain, France, Tunisia, China, Denmark and Iran, among others. Last year's Golden Bear went to Iranian dissident filmmaker Jafar Panahi's "Taxi."

The grammys are supposed to be one of the biggest, craziest and most entertaining award shows of the year, so we’re a bit confused as to why we feel super awkward after watching it.
Like the moment when you get left hanging for high-five, even Taylor Swift had an ‘oops’ moment with Selena Gomez that set the tone for the entire show.
Whether or not you caught the show last night, we’ve compiled all of the awkward moments from the 2016 Grammys so you can get at least some amusement from the show.

Taylor Swift called bestie Selena Gomez over for a photo, who was too busy enjoying her individual attention

February 20, 2016 The historic agreement brought about the lifting of international sanctions last month after the U.N. certified that Iran has met all its commitments to curb its nuclear activities under last summer's accord.
Iran expects an economic breakthrough after the lifting of sanctions, which has allowed it to access overseas assets and sell crude oil more freely. Iran already has access to more than $100 billion worth of frozen overseas assets and Iranian banks earlier this month were reconnected to SWIFT, a Belgian-based cooperative that handles wire transfers between financial institutions.
Tayebnia said Iran's strategic location, political stability and population of 80 million has made the energy-rich Persian state into an attractive place for foreign investment. "All these factors have led to a capacity to attract more than $45 billion in foreign financial resources for next year, with about $15 billion in direct foreign investment," he told a press conference.
Tayebnia said Iran signed an agreement with Japan earlier this month for $10 billion in investments and is seeking similar deals with other nations. Iran is now seeking to reduce reliance on oil revenues and move towards an economy that depends on taxation, tourism, agriculture and other sources of revenue. Attracting foreign investment is seen as a necessary must-do step towards that goal.
Tayebnia, however, said Iran welcomes foreign investment only if it leads to strengthening Iran's economy. "We won't welcome any proposal that doesn't lead to transfer of technology and capital (to Iran) or doesn't boost production and exports," he said.