Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

itf7Y5YOcQB6rIPU

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/24/pence-important-work-lies-ahead/

Pence Labels Trump Administration Cabinet ‘The A-Team’

2017-02-24

Michelle Moons

Vice President Mike Pence delivered a fiery speech Thursday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference ( CPAC ) where he reassured that the Trump Administration will fight for Americans “ every single day . ” He then called out the establishment and media elites , all while charging conservatives to , “ march forward as if it ’ s the most important time in the history of our movement , because it is . ” “ I ’ m here today because of all of you and because of this conservative movement , and on behalf of the President , from the bottom of my heart , let me say thank you , ” said Pence . Speaking of the presidential election , Pence said , “ the establishment never saw it coming. ” He continued , “ The media elites , the insiders , everybody else who profits off preserving the status quo , they just dismissed our President every step of the way. ” He said that in doing so they also , “ dismissed millions of the hard working forgotten men and women who make this country great ” and that worse they are still dismissing those people . “ This is still government of the people , by the people and for the people , ” he proclaimed . “ But our fight didn ’ t end on November the 8th , we won the day , make no mistake about it , the harder work , the most important work now lies ahead . The fight goes on . Let me make you a promise , President Trump will fight for you every single day . ” “ President Trump is a man of his word and we ’ re keeping the promises he made to the American people . ” Pence recalled President Trump charging him as head of the transition team , with getting him “ the best ” for the cabinet . The Vice President then said the Trump Administration cabinet , “ folks , this is the A-Team ” and “ the strongest conservative in [ his ] lifetime . ” “ My friends , this is our time , ” the Vice President continued . “ This is the chance we ’ ve worked so hard for so long to see . This is a time to prove again , that our answers are the right answers for America . A strong military , more jobs , less taxes , respect for the Constitution and the values that have made America great and a deep and abiding faith in the goodness of the American people . ” “ Despite the best efforts of liberal activists in town halls across the country . The American people know that Obamacare has failed and Obamacare has got to go , ” said Pence who then spoke of the high cost of healthcare . He spoke of premiums rising 25 percent under Obamacare in 2016 . The Vice President vowed that Obamacare would be replaced with “ something that actually works. ” A plan based on “ freedom and individual responsibility ” and that the Trump administration would deliver an orderly transition out of Obamacare and to a plan that puts the American people first . He promised that the Trump Administration would go on to rebuild the American military and that “ under president Donald Trump no state will ever be forced to adopt the common core . ” Pence talked of being proud to stand with a President that stands with Israel , “ Israels ’ fight is our fight , her cause is our cause , her values are our values and under President Trump America will stand with Israel . ” He emphasized that President Trump ’ s position on life is one of the reasons he is most proud to stand with the President . He stated that their Administration would make the Hyde amendment permanent . Pence reminded the audience of Trump ’ s promise to nominated a Supreme Court Justice in the same tradition as the former Justice Antonin Scalia . With mid-term elections out there on the horizon , Pence said , “ The success of our movement and more importantly the success of our country , depends as much on all of you as it does on us . We must all of us rise to the challenge before us tomorrow and every day thereafter . The other side is not sitting idle and their allies in the media are more than willing to amplify their defense in the failed status quo every single day . ” “ We got ta do what we did before . We got ta mobilize , we got ta march forward as if it ’ s the most important time in the history of our movement , because it is , ” the Vice President told the audience . The Vice President closed , “ The best days for America are yet to come . Let ’ s get to work . ”

Vice President Mike Pence delivered a fiery speech Thursday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) where he reassured that the Trump Administration will fight for Americans “every single day.” He then called out the establishment and media elites, all while charging conservatives to, “march forward as if it’s the most important time in the history of our movement, because it is.” “I’m here today because of all of you and because of this conservative movement, and on behalf of the President, from the bottom of my heart, let me say thank you,” said Pence. Speaking of the presidential election, Pence said, “the establishment never saw it coming.” He continued, “The media elites, the insiders, everybody else who profits off preserving the status quo, they just dismissed our President every step of the way.” He said that in doing so they also, “dismissed millions of the hard working forgotten men and women who make this country great” and that worse they are still dismissing those people. “This is still government of the people, by the people and for the people,” he proclaimed. “But our fight didn’t end on November the 8th, we won the day, make no mistake about it, the harder work, the most important work now lies ahead. The fight goes on. Let me make you a promise, President Trump will fight for you every single day.” “President Trump is a man of his word and we’re keeping the promises he made to the American people.” Pence recalled President Trump charging him as head of the transition team, with getting him “the best” for the cabinet. The Vice President then said the Trump Administration cabinet, “folks, this is the A-Team” and “the strongest conservative in [his] lifetime.” “My friends, this is our time,” the Vice President continued. “This is the chance we’ve worked so hard for so long to see. This is a time to prove again, that our answers are the right answers for America. A strong military, more jobs, less taxes, respect for the Constitution and the values that have made America great and a deep and abiding faith in the goodness of the American people.” “Despite the best efforts of liberal activists in town halls across the country. The American people know that Obamacare has failed and Obamacare has got to go,” said Pence who then spoke of the high cost of healthcare. He spoke of premiums rising 25 percent under Obamacare in 2016. The Vice President vowed that Obamacare would be replaced with “something that actually works.” A plan based on “freedom and individual responsibility” and that the Trump administration would deliver an orderly transition out of Obamacare and to a plan that puts the American people first. He promised that the Trump Administration would go on to rebuild the American military and that “under president Donald Trump no state will ever be forced to adopt the common core.” Pence talked of being proud to stand with a President that stands with Israel, “Israels’ fight is our fight, her cause is our cause, her values are our values and under President Trump America will stand with Israel.” He emphasized that President Trump’s position on life is one of the reasons he is most proud to stand with the President. He stated that their Administration would make the Hyde amendment permanent. Pence reminded the audience of Trump’s promise to nominated a Supreme Court Justice in the same tradition as the former Justice Antonin Scalia. With mid-term elections out there on the horizon, Pence said, “The success of our movement and more importantly the success of our country, depends as much on all of you as it does on us. We must all of us rise to the challenge before us tomorrow and every day thereafter. The other side is not sitting idle and their allies in the media are more than willing to amplify their defense in the failed status quo every single day.” “We gotta do what we did before. We gotta mobilize, we gotta march forward as if it’s the most important time in the history of our movement, because it is,” the Vice President told the audience. The Vice President closed, “The best days for America are yet to come. Let’s get to work.” Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana

www.breitbart.com

right

itf7Y5YOcQB6rIPU

test

joKOtY79nEPNSmKy

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48454682

More Democrats call for impeachment after Mueller makes statement

Three more prominent US Democrats have called for the impeachment of President Trump , after Special Counsel Robert Mueller made his first public remarks . Speaking on Wednesday , Mr Mueller said his investigation had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice , contradicting the president 's claims . Mr Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election . He said charging a sitting president with a crime was not an option . The issue of impeachment has divided the Democratic Party , pitting a growing number of lawmakers against Nancy Pelosi , the speaker of the house and the most senior Democrat . Ms Pelosi has so far resisted the idea , arguing that it would be counter-productive . But Mr Mueller 's remarks prompted three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls to join the chorus calling for impeachment , bringing the total to 10 of 23 declared candidates . At the White House on Thursday morning , Mr Trump said Mr Mueller was `` a totally conflicted person '' and a `` true Never Trumper '' , referring to his Republican critics in the 2016 White House race . He also said impeachment was a `` dirty , filthy disgusting word '' and the inquiry was `` a giant presidential harassment '' . In response to Mr Mueller 's remarks , Democratic candidates Cory Booker , Kirsten Gillibrand and Pete Buttigieg publicly advocated for the first time for impeachment . `` Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately , '' said Mr Booker , a senator from New Jersey . New York Senator Ms Gillibrand said it was `` time for Republicans and Democrats to begin impeachment hearings and follow the facts wherever they may lead '' . Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg tweeted : `` This is as close to an impeachment referral as it gets . '' Other senators reiterated earlier calls for impeachment . `` It is up to Congress to hold this president accountable . We need to start impeachment proceedings , '' said California senator Kamala Harris . Vermont senator Bernie Sanders stopped short of endorsing proceedings , but said in an Instagram post : `` If the House Judiciary Committee deems it necessary , I will support their decision to open an impeachment inquiry . '' Responding to Mr Mueller 's statement , House Speaker Ms Pelosi said : `` The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power . '' Mr Trump said on Twitter there was `` insufficient evidence '' against him , `` and therefore , in our Country , a person is innocent '' . Representative Doug Collins , the most senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee , said that `` reinvestigating the special counsel 's findings '' would `` only further divide our country '' . The first Republican congressman to call for Mr Trump 's impeachment , Representative Justin Amash , said : `` The ball is in our court , Congress . '' Meanwhile , White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said : `` After two years , the Special Counsel is moving on with his life , and everyone else should do the same . '' Mr Mueller largely reaffirmed what was in his report , which was released last month to the public , with substantial redactions . He detailed 10 instances where Mr Trump had possibly attempted to impede the investigation , but said that charging the president with a crime was not an option for the special counsel . `` The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing , '' he said , in what was seen as a reference to the ability of Congress to start an impeachment process . He said that if his team had had confidence that Mr Trump `` clearly did not commit a crime , we would have said so '' . Mr Mueller said he did not believe it was `` appropriate to speak further '' about the investigation and that he would not provide any information that was not in his team 's report . With Democratic lawmakers seeking to have him testify in Congress , Mr Mueller said : `` The report is my testimony . '' He also announced the formal closure of the special counsel office and his resignation from the justice department to return to private life . Robert Mueller did n't break much new ground in his eight-minute statement announcing the official end of the special counsel investigation . Instead , he highlighted in bold what he views as the key points of nearly two years of work . Mr Mueller started and ended by emphasising that America during the 2016 election was under attack by malign foreign actors . He said those allegations deserve the attention of every American . In the portion of his investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign , Mr Mueller said there was `` insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy '' - hardly the complete vindication the president asserts . When it comes to obstruction of justice , he chipped away further at the president 's defences . Mr Trump was n't exonerated , `` charging the president '' was n't an option . If Mr Mueller has his way , his role in this drama is at an end . His report speaks for itself , he said , and he would n't engage in `` conclusions or hypotheticals about the president '' . That may not be enough for Democrats in Congress , who still want to question Mr Mueller in person . If Mr Mueller is to be believed , however , all they need to know - all he will offer them - is written in the pages of his report .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Robert Mueller: No confidence that there was no crime Three more prominent US Democrats have called for the impeachment of President Trump, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller made his first public remarks. Speaking on Wednesday, Mr Mueller said his investigation had not exonerated Mr Trump of obstruction of justice, contradicting the president's claims. Mr Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He said charging a sitting president with a crime was not an option. The issue of impeachment has divided the Democratic Party, pitting a growing number of lawmakers against Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house and the most senior Democrat. Ms Pelosi has so far resisted the idea, arguing that it would be counter-productive. But Mr Mueller's remarks prompted three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls to join the chorus calling for impeachment, bringing the total to 10 of 23 declared candidates. At the White House on Thursday morning, Mr Trump said Mr Mueller was "a totally conflicted person" and a "true Never Trumper", referring to his Republican critics in the 2016 White House race. He also said impeachment was a "dirty, filthy disgusting word" and the inquiry was "a giant presidential harassment". Who is calling for impeachment? In response to Mr Mueller's remarks, Democratic candidates Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Pete Buttigieg publicly advocated for the first time for impeachment. "Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately," said Mr Booker, a senator from New Jersey. New York Senator Ms Gillibrand said it was "time for Republicans and Democrats to begin impeachment hearings and follow the facts wherever they may lead". Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg tweeted: "This is as close to an impeachment referral as it gets." Other senators reiterated earlier calls for impeachment. "It is up to Congress to hold this president accountable. We need to start impeachment proceedings," said California senator Kamala Harris. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders stopped short of endorsing proceedings, but said in an Instagram post: "If the House Judiciary Committee deems it necessary, I will support their decision to open an impeachment inquiry." Responding to Mr Mueller's statement, House Speaker Ms Pelosi said: "The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power." How did Republicans react? Mr Trump said on Twitter there was "insufficient evidence" against him, "and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent". Representative Doug Collins, the most senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said that "reinvestigating the special counsel's findings" would "only further divide our country". The first Republican congressman to call for Mr Trump's impeachment, Representative Justin Amash, said: "The ball is in our court, Congress." Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said: "After two years, the Special Counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same." What did Mueller say? Mr Mueller largely reaffirmed what was in his report, which was released last month to the public, with substantial redactions. He detailed 10 instances where Mr Trump had possibly attempted to impede the investigation, but said that charging the president with a crime was not an option for the special counsel. "The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing," he said, in what was seen as a reference to the ability of Congress to start an impeachment process. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why no charge of obstruction of justice? A law professor breaks down the legal questions He said that if his team had had confidence that Mr Trump "clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so". Mr Mueller said he did not believe it was "appropriate to speak further" about the investigation and that he would not provide any information that was not in his team's report. With Democratic lawmakers seeking to have him testify in Congress, Mr Mueller said: "The report is my testimony." He also announced the formal closure of the special counsel office and his resignation from the justice department to return to private life. Robert Mueller didn't break much new ground in his eight-minute statement announcing the official end of the special counsel investigation. Instead, he highlighted in bold what he views as the key points of nearly two years of work. Mr Mueller started and ended by emphasising that America during the 2016 election was under attack by malign foreign actors. He said those allegations deserve the attention of every American. In the portion of his investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, Mr Mueller said there was "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy" - hardly the complete vindication the president asserts. When it comes to obstruction of justice, he chipped away further at the president's defences. Mr Trump wasn't exonerated, "charging the president" wasn't an option. If Mr Mueller has his way, his role in this drama is at an end. His report speaks for itself, he said, and he wouldn't engage in "conclusions or hypotheticals about the president". That may not be enough for Democrats in Congress, who still want to question Mr Mueller in person. If Mr Mueller is to be believed, however, all they need to know - all he will offer them - is written in the pages of his report.

www.bbc.com

center

joKOtY79nEPNSmKy

test

b2buJpu1KpVJ5fgP

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50350011

Trump placing whistleblower in 'physical danger', lawyer says

US President Donald Trump has called for the whistleblower who triggered the impeachment inquiry to be unmasked , ignoring a cease-and-desist warning . On Thursday a lawyer for a whistleblower told the White House that Mr Trump 's rhetoric was placing his client and family in physical danger . Undeterred by the letter , Mr Trump renewed his attacks on the whistleblower and lawyer on Friday . The individual 's identity has so far been fiercely guarded by Democrats . In August the whistleblower filed a report that eventually triggered impeachment proceeding against Mr Trump . The report expressed concern over a phone call a month earlier in which Mr Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden , a Democratic front-runner for the 2020 US presidential election . In Thursday 's letter , sent to White House counsel Pat Cipollone , the whistleblower 's lawyer Andrew Bakaj cites many examples of the president 's `` fixation '' on the identity of his client in his comments to the media , at rallies and on Twitter . `` Such statements seek to intimidate my client - and they have , '' Mr Bakaj writes . He continued : `` Should any harm befall any suspected named whistleblower or their family , the blame will rest squarely with your client . '' But the next day , Mr Trump launched a fresh attack at the White House . `` The whistleblower is a disgrace to our country ... and the whistleblower because of that should be revealed , '' he told reporters . `` And his lawyer who said the worst things possible two years ago , he should be sued , and maybe for treason . '' Mr Trump may have been referring to the whistleblower 's other lawyer , Mark Zaid , who has been under fire from the president 's allies over tweet posted in 2017 in which he vowed - among other things - to `` get rid of him [ Mr Trump ] '' . Meanwhile , the president 's daughter , Ivanka Trump , said in an interview with the Associated Press news agency that she did not believe the whistleblower 's identity was `` particularly relevant '' . `` The whistleblower should n't be a substantive part of the conversation , '' she said , adding that the person `` did not have firsthand information '' . She echoed her father 's view that the impeachment investigation was about `` overturning the results of the 2016 election '' . Democrats have said the whistleblower 's identity is immaterial . They argue that the complaint , which alleges abuse of power by Mr Trump , has been substantiated by witness testimony to the impeachment committees . The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives will next week hold televised hearings for the first time in this inquiry . If the House eventually votes to impeach Mr Trump , the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a trial of the president . If Mr Trump is convicted - which is widely viewed at present as unlikely - he would be removed from office . But Senator Josh Hawley , a Republican , said on Thursday that he wanted to know the identity of the whistleblower if there was an impeachment trial . He also said the president 's team should be able to question the anonymous official . `` How else are we going to evaluate the content and the truthfulness of these people if we do n't know who they are ? '' Mr Hawley told Missouri radio station KFTK . Also on Friday , transcripts of testimony from White House National Security Council ( NSC ) experts Fiona Hill and Lt Col Alexander Vindman revealed new claims about acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney . The closed-door depositions last month showed that both officials said Mr Mulvaney had played a key role in co-ordinating a reported exchange of favours , under which Ukraine would announce an inquiry into the Bidens in exchange for the release of congressionally approved military aid . Ms Hill , the White House 's top Russia expert , quoted her former boss on the NSC John Bolton as saying that he wanted no part of the `` drug deal '' being arranged by Mr Mulvaney and other Trump appointees . Lt Col Vindman , the NSC 's top Ukraine expert and Army veteran told the House committees that Mr Mulvaney had `` co-ordinated '' a plan to condition a White House meeting with Mr Trump in exchange for an investigation into the Biden family . Mr Mulvaney was ordered by Congress to testify behind closed doors on Friday , but refused , citing an `` absolute immunity '' .

Image copyright Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images US President Donald Trump has called for the whistleblower who triggered the impeachment inquiry to be unmasked, ignoring a cease-and-desist warning. On Thursday a lawyer for a whistleblower told the White House that Mr Trump's rhetoric was placing his client and family in physical danger. Undeterred by the letter, Mr Trump renewed his attacks on the whistleblower and lawyer on Friday. The individual's identity has so far been fiercely guarded by Democrats. In August the whistleblower filed a report that eventually triggered impeachment proceeding against Mr Trump. The report expressed concern over a phone call a month earlier in which Mr Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, a Democratic front-runner for the 2020 US presidential election. In Thursday's letter, sent to White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the whistleblower's lawyer Andrew Bakaj cites many examples of the president's "fixation" on the identity of his client in his comments to the media, at rallies and on Twitter. "Such statements seek to intimidate my client - and they have," Mr Bakaj writes. He continued: "Should any harm befall any suspected named whistleblower or their family, the blame will rest squarely with your client." Whistleblower 'a disgrace' - Trump But the next day, Mr Trump launched a fresh attack at the White House. "The whistleblower is a disgrace to our country... and the whistleblower because of that should be revealed," he told reporters. "And his lawyer who said the worst things possible two years ago, he should be sued, and maybe for treason." Mr Trump may have been referring to the whistleblower's other lawyer, Mark Zaid, who has been under fire from the president's allies over tweet posted in 2017 in which he vowed - among other things - to "get rid of him [Mr Trump]". Meanwhile, the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, said in an interview with the Associated Press news agency that she did not believe the whistleblower's identity was "particularly relevant". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump impeachment: What you might have missed "The whistleblower shouldn't be a substantive part of the conversation," she said, adding that the person "did not have firsthand information". She echoed her father's view that the impeachment investigation was about "overturning the results of the 2016 election". What's the background to this? Democrats have said the whistleblower's identity is immaterial. They argue that the complaint, which alleges abuse of power by Mr Trump, has been substantiated by witness testimony to the impeachment committees. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives will next week hold televised hearings for the first time in this inquiry. If the House eventually votes to impeach Mr Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a trial of the president. If Mr Trump is convicted - which is widely viewed at present as unlikely - he would be removed from office. But Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican, said on Thursday that he wanted to know the identity of the whistleblower if there was an impeachment trial. He also said the president's team should be able to question the anonymous official. "How else are we going to evaluate the content and the truthfulness of these people if we don't know who they are?" Mr Hawley told Missouri radio station KFTK. What is the latest on the impeachment front? Also on Friday, transcripts of testimony from White House National Security Council (NSC) experts Fiona Hill and Lt Col Alexander Vindman revealed new claims about acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. The closed-door depositions last month showed that both officials said Mr Mulvaney had played a key role in co-ordinating a reported exchange of favours, under which Ukraine would announce an inquiry into the Bidens in exchange for the release of congressionally approved military aid. Ms Hill, the White House's top Russia expert, quoted her former boss on the NSC John Bolton as saying that he wanted no part of the "drug deal" being arranged by Mr Mulvaney and other Trump appointees. Lt Col Vindman, the NSC's top Ukraine expert and Army veteran told the House committees that Mr Mulvaney had "co-ordinated" a plan to condition a White House meeting with Mr Trump in exchange for an investigation into the Biden family. Mr Mulvaney was ordered by Congress to testify behind closed doors on Friday, but refused, citing an "absolute immunity".

www.bbc.com

center

b2buJpu1KpVJ5fgP

test

AGUzlUmY0kRygS43

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/02/rubio-in-iowa-on-eve-of-key-primar/

Rubio in Iowa on eve of key primary

2014-06-02

The first-term Republican senator from Florida 's in the Hawkeye State to campaign for state senator Joni Ernst , the frontrunner in Tuesday 's GOP Senate primary . But anytime a potential White House contender visits Iowa - the state that kicks off the presidential caucus and primary calendar – the political world definitely takes notice . And Rubio 's trip to Iowa comes a month after he traveled to New Hampshire , the state that holds the first primary in the race for the White House . On the eve of the primary , Rubio joins Ernst at a early evening barbecue at her campaign HQ . And the two team up to talk to local reporters and join WHO 's Simon Conway , a popular afternoon/early evening drive time talk radio host . And Rubio 's Reclaim America PAC went up last week with a TV ad in support of Ernst , spending nearly $ 200,000 to run the spot statewide on cable TV , digital and radio . `` Excited to join @ joniernst tomorrow at 5:00pm at her campaign HQ – final push ! '' Rubio tweeted Sunday . Ernst , who 's also a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard and who grabbed national attention earlier this year by touting her hog castrating skills in a campaign commercial , has the backing of some top names and groups among both the tea party movement and establishment Republicans . Last week , the political wing of the Senate Conservatives Fund , which often backs conservative candidates that launch primary challenges against incumbent Republican senators , and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , which mainly endorses mainstream Republicans , both went up with statewide ad buys in support of Ernst . Friday 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney campaigned with Ernst at two events in eastern Iowa . The state 's lieutenant governor , Kim Reynolds , teamed up with Romney and Ernst at those events . And while not officially endorsing her , longtime Gov . Terry Branstad is a supporter . And she 's also backed by the National Rife Association , which like the Chamber tends to support more traditional Republicans . But she also enjoys the support of the political wing of Tea Party Express , a leading national tea party group , and former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin , still influential with many on the right , also recently campaigned with her . Ernst is facing off against three other major candidates in next Tuesday 's primary – businessman Mark Jacobs , former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker , and conservative radio talk show host Sam Clovis . If no candidate cracks 35 % of the GOP primary vote , the nomination will be decided by around 2,000 delegates at a state party convention . A Des Moines Register poll released over the weekend put Ernst at 36 % , 18-percentage points ahead of Jacobs , who was in second place . The GOP nominee will face off in the midterm elections against Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley , who faces token opposition in his party 's primary . The winner of November 's general election will succeed longtime Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin , who is retiring at the end of the year . If Republicans flip Harkin 's seat , and five other Democratic held seats , they will control the Senate . When it comes to the next race for the White House , it looks like Marco Rubio is n't laying low anymore . Last month he was in New Hampshire , sounding like a presidential candidate , as headlined the Rockingham County , Republican Committee 's annual `` Freedom Founders '' dinner , held at the historic Wentworth-By-The-Sea hotel just outside of Portsmouth . The senator slammed Democrats and in particular former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , who 's seriously considering a second White House bid , and if she runs would instantly become the overwhelming frontrunner for the Democratic nomination . `` Their ideas never worked in the 20th century , much less the 21st , and they 're threatening to nominate someone now who wants to take us to the past , to an era that is gone and is never coming back , '' Rubio told the audience . The dinner was just one stop during a busy day for Rubio in the Granite State . Earlier , he headlined a fundraiser for the state GOP , held private meetings with some influential Republicans , and sat down for interviews with local media . Rubio quickly followed his New Hampshire swing with an appearance on ABC 's `` This Week , '' where said that he 's ready to be commander in chief , `` but I think that 's true for multiple other people that would want to run . '' Rubio added that should he decide to launch a 2016 presidential campaign , he wo n't run simultaneously for re-election for his seat in the U.S. Senate . `` It 's a completely wide open GOP field . None of our fruit is ripe : To move from long shot to frontrunner , every potential GOP candidate has to grow , develop , or overcome a debility and Marco Rubio has as good a shot at doing that as anybody at this point , '' said Alex Castellanos , a veteran Republican strategist and CNN contributor who last year founded NewRepublican.org . The recent moves by Rubio put the first-term senator back in the 2016 spotlight , which he 's avoided for much of the past year . Early last year Rubio 's name was near or at the top of public opinion polls of Republicans ' choice for their party 's 2016 presidential nomination . But Rubio 's numbers slipped after his high-profile support for a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last June . The measure , which stalled in the House , included an eventual pathway to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants , which is strongly opposed by many conservatives . Rubio 's numbers in 2016 polls quickly faded , and have remained in the single digits in surveys asking Republicans their choice for the party 's presidential nomination . Rubio stood in ninth place , at 6 % , in the most recent CNN/ORC International poll , which was conducted a month ago . Many of the other potential Republican White House hopefuls , such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky , Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , 2012 GOP presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania , Texas Gov . Rick Perry , and Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal , have made numerous trips to New Hampshire , Iowa and South Carolina , which holds the first southern primary , over the past year and a half .

5 years ago (CNN) - Marco Rubio's in Iowa Monday. The first-term Republican senator from Florida's in the Hawkeye State to campaign for state senator Joni Ernst, the frontrunner in Tuesday's GOP Senate primary. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @psteinhausercnn But anytime a potential White House contender visits Iowa - the state that kicks off the presidential caucus and primary calendar – the political world definitely takes notice. And Rubio's trip to Iowa comes a month after he traveled to New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary in the race for the White House. On the eve of the primary, Rubio joins Ernst at a early evening barbecue at her campaign HQ. And the two team up to talk to local reporters and join WHO's Simon Conway, a popular afternoon/early evening drive time talk radio host. And Rubio's Reclaim America PAC went up last week with a TV ad in support of Ernst, spending nearly $200,000 to run the spot statewide on cable TV, digital and radio. "Excited to join @joniernst tomorrow at 5:00pm at her campaign HQ – final push!" Rubio tweeted Sunday. Ernst, who's also a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard and who grabbed national attention earlier this year by touting her hog castrating skills in a campaign commercial, has the backing of some top names and groups among both the tea party movement and establishment Republicans. Last week, the political wing of the Senate Conservatives Fund, which often backs conservative candidates that launch primary challenges against incumbent Republican senators, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which mainly endorses mainstream Republicans, both went up with statewide ad buys in support of Ernst. Complete Coverage: 2014 Midterm Elections Friday 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney campaigned with Ernst at two events in eastern Iowa. The state's lieutenant governor, Kim Reynolds, teamed up with Romney and Ernst at those events. And while not officially endorsing her, longtime Gov. Terry Branstad is a supporter. And she's also backed by the National Rife Association, which like the Chamber tends to support more traditional Republicans. But she also enjoys the support of the political wing of Tea Party Express, a leading national tea party group, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, still influential with many on the right, also recently campaigned with her. Ernst is facing off against three other major candidates in next Tuesday's primary – businessman Mark Jacobs, former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker, and conservative radio talk show host Sam Clovis. If no candidate cracks 35% of the GOP primary vote, the nomination will be decided by around 2,000 delegates at a state party convention. A Des Moines Register poll released over the weekend put Ernst at 36%, 18-percentage points ahead of Jacobs, who was in second place. The GOP nominee will face off in the midterm elections against Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley, who faces token opposition in his party's primary. The winner of November's general election will succeed longtime Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, who is retiring at the end of the year. If Republicans flip Harkin's seat, and five other Democratic held seats, they will control the Senate. Rubio and 2016 When it comes to the next race for the White House, it looks like Marco Rubio isn't laying low anymore. Last month he was in New Hampshire, sounding like a presidential candidate, as headlined the Rockingham County, Republican Committee's annual "Freedom Founders" dinner, held at the historic Wentworth-By-The-Sea hotel just outside of Portsmouth. The senator slammed Democrats and in particular former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who's seriously considering a second White House bid, and if she runs would instantly become the overwhelming frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Rubio puts himself back in 2016 conversation "Their ideas never worked in the 20th century, much less the 21st, and they're threatening to nominate someone now who wants to take us to the past, to an era that is gone and is never coming back," Rubio told the audience. The dinner was just one stop during a busy day for Rubio in the Granite State. Earlier, he headlined a fundraiser for the state GOP, held private meetings with some influential Republicans, and sat down for interviews with local media. Rubio quickly followed his New Hampshire swing with an appearance on ABC's "This Week," where said that he's ready to be commander in chief, "but I think that's true for multiple other people that would want to run." Rubio added that should he decide to launch a 2016 presidential campaign, he won't run simultaneously for re-election for his seat in the U.S. Senate. "It's a completely wide open GOP field. None of our fruit is ripe: To move from long shot to frontrunner, every potential GOP candidate has to grow, develop, or overcome a debility and Marco Rubio has as good a shot at doing that as anybody at this point," said Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican strategist and CNN contributor who last year founded NewRepublican.org. The recent moves by Rubio put the first-term senator back in the 2016 spotlight, which he's avoided for much of the past year. Early last year Rubio's name was near or at the top of public opinion polls of Republicans' choice for their party's 2016 presidential nomination. But Rubio's numbers slipped after his high-profile support for a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last June. The measure, which stalled in the House, included an eventual pathway to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants, which is strongly opposed by many conservatives. Rubio's numbers in 2016 polls quickly faded, and have remained in the single digits in surveys asking Republicans their choice for the party's presidential nomination. Rubio stood in ninth place, at 6%, in the most recent CNN/ORC International poll, which was conducted a month ago. Many of the other potential Republican White House hopefuls, such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, 2012 GOP presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, have made numerous trips to New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, which holds the first southern primary, over the past year and a half. Rubio did not, until now.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

AGUzlUmY0kRygS43

test

JhuKLTjnseZVLwd2

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/05/clintons-accused-of-nepotism-in-book-on-us-ireland-relations

Clintons accused of nepotism in book on US-Ireland relations

2019-03-05

Rory Carroll, Mukoma Wa Ngugi, Nesrine Malik

A veteran Democratic foreign policy adviser has accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of nepotism , dishonesty and vindictiveness in an assault on a previously untouched part of the Clinton political legacy – Ireland . Trina Vargo , who was a behind-the-scenes Washington player in Northern Ireland ’ s peace process , claims the couple tried to obtain a scholarship to Ireland for a boyfriend of their daughter , Chelsea , and later cut funding for the scholarship to punish Vargo for backing Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race . Vargo makes the allegations in a book , Shenanigans : the US-Ireland Relationship in Uncertain Times , published this week in the run-up to St Patrick ’ s Day celebrations . It lifts the lid on what Vargo sees as inept , deluded and , at times , farcical efforts by Irish politicians and officials to tap the Irish diaspora and potential allies in Washington and Hollywood . Vargo , who founded the US-Ireland Alliance , a Washington-based non-profit organisation , shuttled between the US capital , Dublin and Belfast for two decades while advising Sen Ted Kennedy and the Clinton and Obama administrations on Northern Ireland . Her portrait of the Clintons casts a shadow on a jewel of their foreign policy legacy , alleging pettiness and vengefulness after the historic peace-making of the 1998 Good Friday agreement . Angel Urena and Nick Merrill , spokespersons for the Clintons , defended the couple and rejected the book ’ s claims . “ Their legacy there is something they are incredibly proud of and one that is well documented . These accusations are baseless and patently false . ” Vargo set up a scholarship named after George Mitchell , a former US senator who helped broker the agreement , in 1999 . It sends 12 US students to study in Ireland and Northern Ireland each year . Vargo writes that in November 2000 Mitchell told her “ with some uneasiness ” that Bill Clinton , then nearing the end of his time in the White House , had phoned him to say he was “ very unhappy ” that Chelsea ’ s boyfriend had not been shortlisted from about 200 candidates despite a recommendation letter from the president . Mitchell made clear he was not asking for the boyfriend ’ s inclusion , just seeking clarification . “ It would be hard to believe that the timing of the president ’ s call wasn ’ t aimed at influencing us to make him a finalist , ” writes Vargo . The boyfriend remained off the shortlist , which Vargo believes put her on a path to joining the Clintons ’ “ enemies list ” . In 2007 , Vargo advised Obama ’ s campaign on Ireland policy during his battle against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination . Clinton challenged her rival ’ s lack of experience and promoted her role in the peace process as first lady . Clinton and her supporters grossly exaggerated her influence , says Vargo . “ The tall tales just kept growing … disregard for the truth was not invented , merely taken to new heights , by Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign . ” Vargo helped Obama ’ s campaign to challenge the former first lady ’ s version , leading , she believes , to “ payback ” months later when Bill Clinton cancelled his attendance at a US-Ireland Alliance event in Belfast to celebrate the Good Friday agreement ’ s 10th anniversary . There is no proof to back up the claim . An aide told Vargo a scheduling change was behind the decision and declined to elaborate . In 2012 , the state department , then under Hillary Clinton , cut its annual $ 500,000 contribution to the Mitchell scholarship , citing budgetary measures . “ The elimination of funding … was not about the money , ” Vargo writes . The Clintons ’ spokespersons said Clinton ’ s successor , John Kerry , also cut funding . “ Both [ were ] the product of a constant battle with a Republican Congress to fight for diplomatic and development dollars , there is nothing more to it than that . ” Since 2015 , Vargo has filed freedom of information requests to clarify the reason for the funding cut , supplying a list of names to the state department , but has only received documents with other , lower-level names . The book also levels accusations at Irish politicians and officials . Successive Irish governments brought a “ begging bowl ” mentality to Washington by seeking funding for peace process initiatives long past their sell-by date , she says . They also made clumsy efforts to tap the diaspora , such as creating the “ certificate of Irishness ” , a scheme scrapped for lack of interest in 2015 , and annoyed Latinos and other groups in the US by unsuccessfully seeking special deals for Irish immigrants .

This article is more than 8 months old This article is more than 8 months old A veteran Democratic foreign policy adviser has accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of nepotism, dishonesty and vindictiveness in an assault on a previously untouched part of the Clinton political legacy – Ireland. Trina Vargo, who was a behind-the-scenes Washington player in Northern Ireland’s peace process, claims the couple tried to obtain a scholarship to Ireland for a boyfriend of their daughter, Chelsea, and later cut funding for the scholarship to punish Vargo for backing Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race. Vargo makes the allegations in a book, Shenanigans: the US-Ireland Relationship in Uncertain Times, published this week in the run-up to St Patrick’s Day celebrations. It lifts the lid on what Vargo sees as inept, deluded and, at times, farcical efforts by Irish politicians and officials to tap the Irish diaspora and potential allies in Washington and Hollywood. Vargo, who founded the US-Ireland Alliance, a Washington-based non-profit organisation, shuttled between the US capital, Dublin and Belfast for two decades while advising Sen Ted Kennedy and the Clinton and Obama administrations on Northern Ireland. Her portrait of the Clintons casts a shadow on a jewel of their foreign policy legacy, alleging pettiness and vengefulness after the historic peace-making of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Angel Urena and Nick Merrill, spokespersons for the Clintons, defended the couple and rejected the book’s claims. “Their legacy there is something they are incredibly proud of and one that is well documented. These accusations are baseless and patently false.” Vargo set up a scholarship named after George Mitchell, a former US senator who helped broker the agreement, in 1999. It sends 12 US students to study in Ireland and Northern Ireland each year. Vargo writes that in November 2000 Mitchell told her “with some uneasiness” that Bill Clinton, then nearing the end of his time in the White House, had phoned him to say he was “very unhappy” that Chelsea’s boyfriend had not been shortlisted from about 200 candidates despite a recommendation letter from the president. Mitchell made clear he was not asking for the boyfriend’s inclusion, just seeking clarification. “It would be hard to believe that the timing of the president’s call wasn’t aimed at influencing us to make him a finalist,” writes Vargo. The boyfriend remained off the shortlist, which Vargo believes put her on a path to joining the Clintons’ “enemies list”. In 2007, Vargo advised Obama’s campaign on Ireland policy during his battle against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Clinton challenged her rival’s lack of experience and promoted her role in the peace process as first lady. Clinton and her supporters grossly exaggerated her influence, says Vargo. “The tall tales just kept growing … disregard for the truth was not invented, merely taken to new heights, by Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign.” Vargo helped Obama’s campaign to challenge the former first lady’s version, leading, she believes, to “payback” months later when Bill Clinton cancelled his attendance at a US-Ireland Alliance event in Belfast to celebrate the Good Friday agreement’s 10th anniversary. There is no proof to back up the claim. An aide told Vargo a scheduling change was behind the decision and declined to elaborate. In 2012, the state department, then under Hillary Clinton, cut its annual $500,000 contribution to the Mitchell scholarship, citing budgetary measures. “The elimination of funding … was not about the money,” Vargo writes. The Clintons’ spokespersons said Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, also cut funding. “Both [were] the product of a constant battle with a Republican Congress to fight for diplomatic and development dollars, there is nothing more to it than that.” Since 2015, Vargo has filed freedom of information requests to clarify the reason for the funding cut, supplying a list of names to the state department, but has only received documents with other, lower-level names. The book also levels accusations at Irish politicians and officials. Successive Irish governments brought a “begging bowl” mentality to Washington by seeking funding for peace process initiatives long past their sell-by date, she says. They also made clumsy efforts to tap the diaspora, such as creating the “certificate of Irishness”, a scheme scrapped for lack of interest in 2015, and annoyed Latinos and other groups in the US by unsuccessfully seeking special deals for Irish immigrants.

www.theguardian.com

left

JhuKLTjnseZVLwd2

test

FfI1zLzp9jmGlmDv

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/16/in-rare-bipartisan-action-congress-approves-1-1-trillion-budget/

In rare bipartisan action, Congress approves $1.1 trillion budget

2014-01-16

( CNN ) - The Senate on Thursday easily passed a $ 1.1 trillion spending bill to fund the government through September and sent it to President Barack Obama , a notable departure from chronic , partisan-fueled budget battles in recent years that included the government shutdown last October . The decisive vote , 72-to-26 , concluded congressional action that for the first time since 2012 determined federal spending agency by agency instead of through temporary stopgap measures that spotlighted the divisiveness in Washington . The House approved the budget measure on Wednesday in another strong bipartisan vote , 359-to-67 . `` With very few exceptions we 've heard nothing but positive comments from my colleagues here in the Senate , '' Sen. Richard Shelby , an Alabama Republican , said on the Senate floor as the vote neared . Democrats were just as eager to brag about the budget as an example of a Congress that can indeed function . `` These efforts show that we Democrats and Republicans can work together for the good of the country , '' said one of the people most responsible for the bill , Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski , a Maryland Democrat . `` We can avoid drama ... fiscal cliffs and shutdowns . '' The sweeping bill hits nearly every corner of government . It includes a 1 percent pay increase for troops and a 1 percent cost-of-living boost for federal workers . In recent years , must-pass funding bills have been flashpoints for epic battles over health care , the deficit and social policies from contraception to abortion . As a result , Congress punted most key spending decisions by extending past funding bills , allowing sweeping spending cuts to take effect and failing to decide what agencies needed funding increasing and what ones needed cuts . But following the government shutdown in October , Republican and Democratic leaders took a different approach following last October 's government shutdown , tempering partisan rhetoric in public and discussing compromise in private . Democrats won - and Republicans conceded - on continued funding for Obamacare as well as large spending increases for Head Start and mental health programs . Republicans gained - and Democrats lost - on continued budget cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS . * Disabled veterans and some veteran 's families will be protected from a pension cut slated for younger military retirees . * Funding will increase and budget cuts will be reversed for : the FBI , mental health programs , the Army Corps of Engineers , cybersecurity programs , the Social Security Administration , Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health . * Budget-cut levels will continue for : Transportation Security Administration , the Department of Education , Department of Labor , and the Department of Housing and Urban Development . * The bill freezes a program to phase-out inefficient incandescent lightbulbs . Though manufactures have told CNN they make stop making the bills regardless . * Secretary of State John Kerry must certify that Libya is working to find those behind the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi in 2012 before before any funding can go to Tripoli . * The bill bans any spending on official portraits and freezes many top government salaries , including the Vice President 's . While the bill passed with bipartisan support in both chambers , not everyone was cheering . `` I can not support a funding bill that violates the only real progress we have made in getting our fiscal house in order over the past several years , '' Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker wrote in a statement following his `` no '' vote . Corker and others questioned the bill 's use of long-term savings to increase spending over the next nine months . Another source of anger : the relatively quick timeline from the unveiling of the bill late Monday to final passage Thursday . `` We were given but a day to review this 1,582 page document ... this reflects its own shortcomings , '' wrote South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford . Steve Ellis , vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense , said it was `` staggering '' that the bill flew `` through the Capitol like a greased pig . ''

6 years ago Updated 7:46 p.m. ET, 1/16/2014 (CNN) - The Senate on Thursday easily passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill to fund the government through September and sent it to President Barack Obama, a notable departure from chronic, partisan-fueled budget battles in recent years that included the government shutdown last October. The decisive vote, 72-to-26, concluded congressional action that for the first time since 2012 determined federal spending agency by agency instead of through temporary stopgap measures that spotlighted the divisiveness in Washington. Follow @politicalticker Seventeen Republicans joined 55 Democrats in supporting the legislation. The House approved the budget measure on Wednesday in another strong bipartisan vote, 359-to-67. "With very few exceptions we've heard nothing but positive comments from my colleagues here in the Senate," Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, said on the Senate floor as the vote neared. Democrats were just as eager to brag about the budget as an example of a Congress that can indeed function. "These efforts show that we Democrats and Republicans can work together for the good of the country," said one of the people most responsible for the bill, Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat. "We can avoid drama ... fiscal cliffs and shutdowns." The sweeping bill hits nearly every corner of government. It includes a 1 percent pay increase for troops and a 1 percent cost-of-living boost for federal workers. Obama is expected to sign the measure. In recent years, must-pass funding bills have been flashpoints for epic battles over health care, the deficit and social policies from contraception to abortion. As a result, Congress punted most key spending decisions by extending past funding bills, allowing sweeping spending cuts to take effect and failing to decide what agencies needed funding increasing and what ones needed cuts. But following the government shutdown in October, Republican and Democratic leaders took a different approach following last October's government shutdown, tempering partisan rhetoric in public and discussing compromise in private. Both sides made tradeoffs in the end. Democrats won - and Republicans conceded - on continued funding for Obamacare as well as large spending increases for Head Start and mental health programs. Republicans gained - and Democrats lost - on continued budget cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency and the IRS. Other highlights: * Disabled veterans and some veteran's families will be protected from a pension cut slated for younger military retirees. * Funding will increase and budget cuts will be reversed for: the FBI, mental health programs, the Army Corps of Engineers, cybersecurity programs, the Social Security Administration, Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. * Budget-cut levels will continue for: Transportation Security Administration, the Department of Education, Department of Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. * The bill freezes a program to phase-out inefficient incandescent lightbulbs. Though manufactures have told CNN they make stop making the bills regardless. * Secretary of State John Kerry must certify that Libya is working to find those behind the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi in 2012 before before any funding can go to Tripoli. * The bill bans any spending on official portraits and freezes many top government salaries, including the Vice President's. While the bill passed with bipartisan support in both chambers, not everyone was cheering. "I cannot support a funding bill that violates the only real progress we have made in getting our fiscal house in order over the past several years," Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker wrote in a statement following his "no" vote. Corker and others questioned the bill's use of long-term savings to increase spending over the next nine months. Another source of anger: the relatively quick timeline from the unveiling of the bill late Monday to final passage Thursday. "We were given but a day to review this 1,582 page document ... this reflects its own shortcomings," wrote South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford. Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said it was "staggering" that the bill flew "through the Capitol like a greased pig."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

FfI1zLzp9jmGlmDv

test

IYYeDYqUl3jCGn3R

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/rand-pauls-festivus-celebration-rant-begins-on-twitter/

Rand Paul's Festivus Celebration Rant Begins on Twitter

Abd. Phillip

On this day of Festivus , Paul is airing grievances on all things ranging from his colleague Sen. Cory Booker to the Senate cafeteria to his pesky staff who refuse to let him wear his turtleneck sweaters . Its a holiday made up on the popular TV show `` Seinfeld '' by George Constanza 's father , Frank , who hated the commercial and religious aspects of Christmas so much that he made up his own holiday : Festivus . It begins with an airing of grievances . It can also include feats of strength , and of course you must also have the Festivus pole . It 's a Festivus for the rest of us . In the words of Frank Costanza ( played memorably by Jerry Stiller ) , `` I got a lot of problems with you people . Now you 're gon na hear about it ! '' Paul even aired a little dirty family laundry with a dig at his dad , former Rep. Ron Paul , R-Texas , for auctioning off a vintage 1979 Chevy instead of giving it to him . My Dad auctioned off this car instead of giving it to me . http : //t.co/WcJKiJbAcf pic.twitter.com/sArpHLKmhW — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Read more of Paul 's airing of grievances from earlier today : Airing of Grievances begins … - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 In Washington , `` bipartisan deal '' is a synonym for `` increasing our debt '' - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Oh , and by the way , there 's is n't enough defense of the Constitution going on in Washington these days . One party seems to like some of the Bill of Rights . The other party , some more . Few willing to stand up for the whole thing . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 He 's got beef with the Senate , starting with the cafeteria : The Senate cafeteria never has burgoo . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Let 's move on to the Senate . If you want more bipartisan cooperation , talk more not less . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Allow more debate and amendments . Do n't change the rules to run it with an iron fist . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 One more Festivus grievance about bipartisanship . @ CoryBooker does n't RT me enough . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 U , me & `` feats of strength '' : Senate floor , name the time MT @ SenRandPaul A Festivus grievance re bipartisanship . Booker does n't RT me enough - Cory Booker ( @ CoryBooker ) December 23 , 2013 He 's not a fan of the budget deal , or the Federal Reserve . The recent `` bipartisan deal '' will add 7 trillion more debt . And was hailed as an example of Washington `` getting something done . '' - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Fed policies make you poorer , and hurt the poor and middle class the most . Ridiculous monetary policies increase the costs of goods . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 So you can thank the Fed for your grocery and gas bills getting out or control . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 In case anyone was wondering , no feats of strength today : In response to some of your tweets , there will be no feats of strength , and I have no plans to end Festivus by wrestling with Sen. Reid . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Grievance with my otherwise wonderful staff : Leave the turtleneck alone . I like it and so do viewers . - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Too many people wearing ties on TV as it is - Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 And a Festivus miracle may have occurred : Booker and Paul may take on the `` war on drugs '' in 2014 . Bipartisanship ! @ CoryBooker how about mandatory minimum sentencing reform instead ? — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 @ CoryBooker I am the Senate author of Hemp bill ! — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 I know . U told me last week . Here is to a 2014 where we take on the failed war on drugs RT @ SenRandPaul : I 'm the Senate author of Hemp bill ! — Cory Booker ( @ CoryBooker ) December 23 , 2013

(Bill Pugliano/Getty Images) Sen. Rand Paul's Twitter feed is on fire today. On this day of Festivus, Paul is airing grievances on all things ranging from his colleague Sen. Cory Booker to the Senate cafeteria to his pesky staff who refuse to let him wear his turtleneck sweaters. What is Festivus, you ask? Its a holiday made up on the popular TV show "Seinfeld" by George Constanza's father, Frank, who hated the commercial and religious aspects of Christmas so much that he made up his own holiday: Festivus. It begins with an airing of grievances. It can also include feats of strength, and of course you must also have the Festivus pole. It's a Festivus for the rest of us. In the words of Frank Costanza (played memorably by Jerry Stiller), "I got a lot of problems with you people. Now you're gonna hear about it!" Paul even aired a little dirty family laundry with a dig at his dad, former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, for auctioning off a vintage 1979 Chevy instead of giving it to him. My Dad auctioned off this car instead of giving it to me. http://t.co/WcJKiJbAcf pic.twitter.com/sArpHLKmhW — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Read more of Paul's airing of grievances from earlier today: Let us begin: Airing of Grievances begins … - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Rand Paul is not a fan of "bipartisanship." In Washington, "bipartisan deal" is a synonym for "increasing our debt" - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Oh, and by the way, there's isn't enough defense of the Constitution going on in Washington these days. One party seems to like some of the Bill of Rights. The other party, some more. Few willing to stand up for the whole thing. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 He's got beef with the Senate, starting with the cafeteria: The Senate cafeteria never has burgoo. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Let's move on to the Senate. If you want more bipartisan cooperation, talk more not less. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Allow more debate and amendments. Don't change the rules to run it with an iron fist. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Rand Paul's friends don't retweet him enough: One more Festivus grievance about bipartisanship. @CoryBooker doesn't RT me enough. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 But somewhere out there, Cory Booker is listening: U, me & "feats of strength": Senate floor, name the time MT @SenRandPaul A Festivus grievance re bipartisanship. Booker doesn't RT me enough - Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) December 23, 2013 He's not a fan of the budget deal, or the Federal Reserve. The recent "bipartisan deal" will add 7 trillion more debt. And was hailed as an example of Washington "getting something done." - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Fed policies make you poorer, and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Ridiculous monetary policies increase the costs of goods. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 So you can thank the Fed for your grocery and gas bills getting out or control. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 In case anyone was wondering, no feats of strength today: In response to some of your tweets, there will be no feats of strength, and I have no plans to end Festivus by wrestling with Sen. Reid. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 But let the man wear his turtlenecks! Grievance with my otherwise wonderful staff: Leave the turtleneck alone. I like it and so do viewers. - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Too many people wearing ties on TV as it is - Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 And a Festivus miracle may have occurred: Booker and Paul may take on the "war on drugs" in 2014. Bipartisanship! @CoryBooker how about mandatory minimum sentencing reform instead? — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 @CoryBooker I am the Senate author of Hemp bill! — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 I know. U told me last week. Here is to a 2014 where we take on the failed war on drugs RT @SenRandPaul: I'm the Senate author of Hemp bill! — Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) December 23, 2013 Stay tuned, more to come…

www.abcnews.go.com

left

IYYeDYqUl3jCGn3R

test

E3V6BRCVPACgT12F

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/our-moderates-their-leninists/

OPINION: Our Moderates, Their Leninists

Mark Bauerlein, Brandon J. Weichert, J.T. Young, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Robert Stacy Mccain, David Catron

If I were a hard leftist , I would love thoughtful , responsible conservatives such as David Brooks . They ’ re so much more helpful than those sympathetic liberals at the Times , Atlantic Monthly , and NBC are . “ How We Destroy Lives Today. ” That ’ s the title of the column Mr. Brooks wrote after the Covington Boys affair . That “ We ” certainly pleased the pushy progressives . It was exactly what they wanted our respectable commentators to say . Only for a moment did Mr. Brooks blame identity politics journalists and race advocates for demonizing the boy in the MAGA cap . Soon enough , he rose above the messy skirmish , looked down like a Hegelian sage upon it , and pronounced a general condition that implicates us all . “ In this case the facts happened to support the right-wing tribe , ” Brooks admitted . “ But that ’ s not the point . The crucial thing is that the nation ’ s culture is now enmeshed in a new technology that we don ’ t yet know how to control . ” You see , it ’ s the technology ’ s fault . And there ’ s another one of those universal “ we ” words . The furious denunciation of a teenager from Kentucky who merely stood still and smiled ( was he gloating ? was he nervous ? who cares ! ) became the latest fiend of the race-scolds , but the conservative columnist didn ’ t judge the action a customary tactic of left . No , Brooks and other prudent rightists don ’ t want to identify in the DNA of the left anything accusatory and polarizing . Cautious Conservatives don ’ t point fingers and name names . That ’ s not their style . The rancid identity politics of the left caused this episode , but let ’ s not get bogged down in specifics . The properly conservative mind doesn ’ t get caught up in squabbles . It digs below the racial surface of the white boy face-to-face with the Indian elder and uncovers a condition that crosses political groups . Here , the Cautious Conservative tells us , we have fallen into the habit of setting upon one another , and next time it may just as easily be the right going after an innocent citizen with righteous glee as it was the left this time . The leftist nods with a happy smile , and thanks all the sober and circumspect conservatives who want to restore tolerance and civility to the public square . They are the best allies the left could find . To have their gross misjudgment of the Covington episode de-politicized in just this way leaves them free to do the same thing next time a propitious occasion arises . There is no cost to having failed in demonization this time . The Cautious Conservative has universalized the crime , spreading the blame for disharmony throughout the citizenry and maintaining the illusion that all of us want unity , or at least a more or less peaceful pluralism , or at the very least a country where we can all just get along . But what about Brendan Eich , Mark Regnerus , Naomi Schaefer Riley , Larry Summers , Dan T. Cathy , Charles Murray , Tucker Carlson… . Each one became a target , sometimes a physical target , for expressing an opinion the left found abominable , even though a good portion of the American populace holds it , too . The list could go on for a long time . Now , how many people have suffered the same fate , harassed and threatened , hounded out of their jobs , because of the right ? Conservatives who generalize such attacks by the left into a general American problem are worse than feeble . They are foolish . They don ’ t know their enemy . They don ’ t even realize that the other side considers them an enemy . When they mourn the decay of civility in America , they overlook the cause . The left doesn ’ t want unity . It ’ s never been that way . The spirit of social justice warriors in America was summed up by David Horowitz and Peter Collier in a 1969 editorial in Ramparts Magazine : The system can not be revitalized . It must be overthrown . As humanly as possible , but by any means necessary . [ See here . ] That was at the height of the anti-war movement , and when it ended the left went more or less to the margins . Now , they ’ re back in force , and they don ’ t aim for social improvement through the ordinary channels of democratic deliberation . They want radical transformation , not incremental reform . Liberals are about adjustment and compromise , reasonable accommodation . When friction arises among the people , they keep the System running by bureaucratic response , a new welfare program here , a minimum wage hike there . They fear the leftist radical , yes , and they don ’ t like the aggressive targeting of individuals , but they believe the best way to keep radicalism in check is by concession and offerings . ( See Tom Wolfe , “ Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers . ” ) Leftists will take those temporary submissions , but they understand well that liberal gradualism keeps the system going . This is why a liberal exasperates leftists much more than an outspoken conservative does . They despise moderation . Liberal assimilation slows social unrest , and so leftists must follow the old Leninist formula of “ accelerating the contradictions ” — for instance , Silicon Valley-talk of “ online communities ” simultaneous with centralization of wealth and influence that makes the monopolists of Marx ’ s time look like amateurs . Polarization must be increased , not decreased . The farther they can position an individual at the far end of decency , such as the Covington boy , the better they look ( and the more inclined liberals and moderate conservatives will be to go along ) . One wouldn ’ t think that a circumstance that affects only one in 300 Americans should be a central theme in our country , amplified nonstop in the press , and hailed as a prime talking point by Democratic politicians , as is the case with transgenderism , but it serves the leftist goal of disruption quite well . Find an area of potential conflict and set it on fire . Overplay racial incidents because they set one group against another . Turn a teenager at the Lincoln Memorial into one of the monsters of history and watch the “ likes ” on Twitter pile up . Let ’ s have no more conservative regrets over the polarization that has beset America , as if the problem came from the sky and not from the overheated enclaves of progressivism . The left wants an America in turmoil . It wants interracial suspicion and “ wars on women ” and various “ phobias. ” Liberals want things to calm down . Leftists want them to boil over . And conservatives ? The Establishment figures want calm , too , but they aren ’ t the ones to bring it about . They don ’ t understand their opponent . In June 2009 , when Sonia Sotomayor was on her way to the Supreme Court , Mr. Brooks had this to say about her jurisprudence . In practice , Sotomayor is a liberal incrementalist . Her careful opinions embody the sort of judicial minimalism that Obama and his aide Cass Sunstein admire most.… I hope she ’ s confirmed . The op-ed bore the title “ Cautious At Heart. ” Sotomayor has proceeded to be an aggressive advocate of affirmative action and disparate impact laws and regulations . To call her a “ minimalist ” is almost as ludicrous as to call President Obama a minimalist . The first step in combatting the poison of identity politics is to identify the purveyors clearly . Their aims are more ambitious and their methods more harsh than the Cautious Conservatives can imagine . We are in a terrain that calls for different scouts and different generals .

If I were a hard leftist, I would love thoughtful, responsible conservatives such as David Brooks. They’re so much more helpful than those sympathetic liberals at the Times, Atlantic Monthly, and NBC are. “How We Destroy Lives Today.” That’s the title of the column Mr. Brooks wrote after the Covington Boys affair. That “We” certainly pleased the pushy progressives. It was exactly what they wanted our respectable commentators to say. Only for a moment did Mr. Brooks blame identity politics journalists and race advocates for demonizing the boy in the MAGA cap. Soon enough, he rose above the messy skirmish, looked down like a Hegelian sage upon it, and pronounced a general condition that implicates us all. “In this case the facts happened to support the right-wing tribe,” Brooks admitted. “But that’s not the point. The crucial thing is that the nation’s culture is now enmeshed in a new technology that we don’t yet know how to control.” You see, it’s the technology’s fault. And there’s another one of those universal “we” words. The furious denunciation of a teenager from Kentucky who merely stood still and smiled (was he gloating? was he nervous? who cares!) became the latest fiend of the race-scolds, but the conservative columnist didn’t judge the action a customary tactic of left. No, Brooks and other prudent rightists don’t want to identify in the DNA of the left anything accusatory and polarizing. Cautious Conservatives don’t point fingers and name names. That’s not their style. The rancid identity politics of the left caused this episode, but let’s not get bogged down in specifics. The properly conservative mind doesn’t get caught up in squabbles. It digs below the racial surface of the white boy face-to-face with the Indian elder and uncovers a condition that crosses political groups. Here, the Cautious Conservative tells us, we have fallen into the habit of setting upon one another, and next time it may just as easily be the right going after an innocent citizen with righteous glee as it was the left this time. The leftist nods with a happy smile, and thanks all the sober and circumspect conservatives who want to restore tolerance and civility to the public square. They are the best allies the left could find. To have their gross misjudgment of the Covington episode de-politicized in just this way leaves them free to do the same thing next time a propitious occasion arises. There is no cost to having failed in demonization this time. The Cautious Conservative has universalized the crime, spreading the blame for disharmony throughout the citizenry and maintaining the illusion that all of us want unity, or at least a more or less peaceful pluralism, or at the very least a country where we can all just get along. But what about Brendan Eich, Mark Regnerus, Naomi Schaefer Riley, Larry Summers, Dan T. Cathy, Charles Murray, Tucker Carlson…. Each one became a target, sometimes a physical target, for expressing an opinion the left found abominable, even though a good portion of the American populace holds it, too. The list could go on for a long time. Now, how many people have suffered the same fate, harassed and threatened, hounded out of their jobs, because of the right? Conservatives who generalize such attacks by the left into a general American problem are worse than feeble. They are foolish. They don’t know their enemy. They don’t even realize that the other side considers them an enemy. When they mourn the decay of civility in America, they overlook the cause. The left doesn’t want unity. It’s never been that way. The spirit of social justice warriors in America was summed up by David Horowitz and Peter Collier in a 1969 editorial in Ramparts Magazine: The system cannot be revitalized. It must be overthrown. As humanly as possible, but by any means necessary. [See here.] That was at the height of the anti-war movement, and when it ended the left went more or less to the margins. Now, they’re back in force, and they don’t aim for social improvement through the ordinary channels of democratic deliberation. They want radical transformation, not incremental reform. Liberals are about adjustment and compromise, reasonable accommodation. When friction arises among the people, they keep the System running by bureaucratic response, a new welfare program here, a minimum wage hike there. They fear the leftist radical, yes, and they don’t like the aggressive targeting of individuals, but they believe the best way to keep radicalism in check is by concession and offerings. (See Tom Wolfe, “Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.”) Leftists will take those temporary submissions, but they understand well that liberal gradualism keeps the system going. This is why a liberal exasperates leftists much more than an outspoken conservative does. They despise moderation. Liberal assimilation slows social unrest, and so leftists must follow the old Leninist formula of “accelerating the contradictions” — for instance, Silicon Valley-talk of “online communities” simultaneous with centralization of wealth and influence that makes the monopolists of Marx’s time look like amateurs. Polarization must be increased, not decreased. The farther they can position an individual at the far end of decency, such as the Covington boy, the better they look (and the more inclined liberals and moderate conservatives will be to go along). One wouldn’t think that a circumstance that affects only one in 300 Americans should be a central theme in our country, amplified nonstop in the press, and hailed as a prime talking point by Democratic politicians, as is the case with transgenderism, but it serves the leftist goal of disruption quite well. Find an area of potential conflict and set it on fire. Overplay racial incidents because they set one group against another. Turn a teenager at the Lincoln Memorial into one of the monsters of history and watch the “likes” on Twitter pile up. Let’s have no more conservative regrets over the polarization that has beset America, as if the problem came from the sky and not from the overheated enclaves of progressivism. The left wants an America in turmoil. It wants interracial suspicion and “wars on women” and various “phobias.” Liberals want things to calm down. Leftists want them to boil over. And conservatives? The Establishment figures want calm, too, but they aren’t the ones to bring it about. They don’t understand their opponent. In June 2009, when Sonia Sotomayor was on her way to the Supreme Court, Mr. Brooks had this to say about her jurisprudence. In practice, Sotomayor is a liberal incrementalist. Her careful opinions embody the sort of judicial minimalism that Obama and his aide Cass Sunstein admire most.… I hope she’s confirmed. The op-ed bore the title “Cautious At Heart.” Sotomayor has proceeded to be an aggressive advocate of affirmative action and disparate impact laws and regulations. To call her a “minimalist” is almost as ludicrous as to call President Obama a minimalist. The first step in combatting the poison of identity politics is to identify the purveyors clearly. Their aims are more ambitious and their methods more harsh than the Cautious Conservatives can imagine. We are in a terrain that calls for different scouts and different generals.

www.spectator.org

right

E3V6BRCVPACgT12F

test

Vb7IuWmKNNZMD655

environment

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/22/cnn-poll-do-americans-agree-with-obama-on-climate-change-and-immigration/

CNN Poll: Do Americans agree with Obama on climate change and immigration?

2013-01-22

Washington ( CNN ) - Saying `` we will respond to the threat of climate change , '' President Barack Obama used his second inaugural address to put the divisive issue back on the front burner . But according to a new national survey , Americans are divided over whether global warming is a man made phenomenon . The president also used his speech to highlight the controversial issue of illegal immigration , and a CNN/ORC International survey released Tuesday also indicates that a bare majority of the public says the main focus of the federal government should be on developing a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants to become legal residents , rather than deporting them . The president warned in his Monday address that failure to respond to climate change `` would betray our children and future generations . Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science , but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires , and crippling drought , and more powerful storms . '' According to the poll , which was conducted last week , 49 % agree with the White House that global warming is a proven fact and is due to emissions from cars , power plants and factories . That 's twice as high as the number who say that global warming has not been proven , as well as the 24 % who say that it is a proven fact but is not due to manmade sources . But the 49 % figure is down seven points from 2007 . There 's an expected partisan divide on the question , with two-thirds of Democrats saying global warming is man made . That number drops to 48 % among independent voters and is at 28 % among Republicans . The president tried and failed in his first term to get a climate change bill through Congress . The president also came up empty during his first four years in the White House in trying to pass comprehensive illegal immigration reform though Congress . But Obama has put the issue on his to-do list this year , and in his inaugural address he said `` our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving , hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity ; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country . '' By a 53 % -43 % margin , people questioned in the poll say that main focus of the federal government should be on developing a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants to become legal residents , rather than deporting them . That 's a switch from 2011 , when by a 55 % -42 % margin , Americans said that deporting undocumented residents and stopping more of them from coming into the country should be the main focus of U.S policy on illegal immigration . As expected , the poll indicates a partisan divide on the issue , as well as a generational divide , with younger people saying allowing undocumented immigrants to become legal should be the top priority , and a slight plurality of those 50 and older saying the emphasis should be on deportation and border security . One of the president 's biggest domestic accomplishments in his first term was passing a sweeping health care bill through Congress in 2010 . In his inauguration address , Obama acknowledged that there is still much work ahead on this issue , saying `` we must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care . '' According to the poll , 51 % favor all or most of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act , the official name of what many people refer to as `` Obamacare , '' with 44 % opposed to all or most of the provisions in the law . `` That 's a switch from 2011 , when a CNN poll indicated that a majority opposed all or most of the provisions in the health care bill , '' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . Minutes after his inauguration speech , the president signed documents making official his nominations for some top Cabinet posts , including former Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary . The Nebraska Republican 's nomination has been met with reservations , and even outright opposition , by some senators of both parties , who point to past positions he has taken on Israel , Iran and the war in Iraq . According to the poll , 48 % think the Senate should confirm Hagel . `` That 's twice as high as the number who oppose his confirmation , but with three in ten uncertain of how they feel about the issue , the White House might breathe a little easier if support for Hagel were just over 50 % rather than just under that mark , '' adds Holland . The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International on Jan. 14-15 , with 814 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - Saying "we will respond to the threat of climate change," President Barack Obama used his second inaugural address to put the divisive issue back on the front burner. But according to a new national survey, Americans are divided over whether global warming is a man made phenomenon. The president also used his speech to highlight the controversial issue of illegal immigration, and a CNN/ORC International survey released Tuesday also indicates that a bare majority of the public says the main focus of the federal government should be on developing a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants to become legal residents, rather than deporting them. The president warned in his Monday address that failure to respond to climate change "would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms." According to the poll, which was conducted last week, 49% agree with the White House that global warming is a proven fact and is due to emissions from cars, power plants and factories. That's twice as high as the number who say that global warming has not been proven, as well as the 24% who say that it is a proven fact but is not due to manmade sources. But the 49% figure is down seven points from 2007. There's an expected partisan divide on the question, with two-thirds of Democrats saying global warming is man made. That number drops to 48% among independent voters and is at 28% among Republicans. The president tried and failed in his first term to get a climate change bill through Congress. The president also came up empty during his first four years in the White House in trying to pass comprehensive illegal immigration reform though Congress. But Obama has put the issue on his to-do list this year, and in his inaugural address he said "our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country." By a 53%-43% margin, people questioned in the poll say that main focus of the federal government should be on developing a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants to become legal residents, rather than deporting them. That's a switch from 2011, when by a 55%-42% margin, Americans said that deporting undocumented residents and stopping more of them from coming into the country should be the main focus of U.S policy on illegal immigration. As expected, the poll indicates a partisan divide on the issue, as well as a generational divide, with younger people saying allowing undocumented immigrants to become legal should be the top priority, and a slight plurality of those 50 and older saying the emphasis should be on deportation and border security. One of the president's biggest domestic accomplishments in his first term was passing a sweeping health care bill through Congress in 2010. In his inauguration address, Obama acknowledged that there is still much work ahead on this issue, saying "we must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care." According to the poll, 51% favor all or most of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the official name of what many people refer to as "Obamacare," with 44% opposed to all or most of the provisions in the law. "That's a switch from 2011, when a CNN poll indicated that a majority opposed all or most of the provisions in the health care bill," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. Minutes after his inauguration speech, the president signed documents making official his nominations for some top Cabinet posts, including former Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary. The Nebraska Republican's nomination has been met with reservations, and even outright opposition, by some senators of both parties, who point to past positions he has taken on Israel, Iran and the war in Iraq. According to the poll, 48% think the Senate should confirm Hagel. "That's twice as high as the number who oppose his confirmation, but with three in ten uncertain of how they feel about the issue, the White House might breathe a little easier if support for Hagel were just over 50% rather than just under that mark," adds Holland. The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International on Jan. 14-15, with 814 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

Vb7IuWmKNNZMD655

test

qyivjrTxH4mClsnV

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/24/dem-advantage-down-after-immigration/

Democrat Advantage Down to 4 Points after Peak of Immigration Separation Crisis

2018-06-24

Democrats ’ advantage over Republicans going into November ’ s midterm election has narrowed to four points , according to a poll conducted shortly after the peak of the family separation crisis at the Southern border . More than 36 percent of those surveyed in a CBS poll published Sunday said they want to see Republicans maintain control of Congress in 2018 . Another 40 percent of those surveyed told pollsters they prefer to see Democrats come out ahead on Election Day . The numbers are surprising considering the significant outcry against President Donald Trump ’ s zero tolerance policy , which resulted in the separation of families seeking illegal entry across the border . Nearly 73 percent of Americans oppose splitting up children from parents as a form of deterrence , the poll notes . Democrats ’ advantage in the generic ballot has continued to tumble throughout the year . Their advantage has dipped from a 10 point advantage they had heading into June , according to an NBC poll conducted at the time , which also showed 50 percent of registered voters wanting a Democratic-controlled Congress . CBS ’ s poll , which sampled 2,063 adults between June 21-22 , 2018 and has a margin of error of 2.6 percent , also shows there are a significant number of Trump supporters who opposed the zero-tolerance policy but did not hold the president responsible . The results also suggest voters are compartmentalizing the issue . Many voters , for instance , place blame for the separations on the parents for bringing their children into the U.S. illegally . ( RELATED : Poll Shows Dems Are Losing Steam Heading Into November Elections ) About half of voters believe parents are mostly to blame , the poll notes , which rises to roughly eight in 10 among Republicans . CBS also found that voters in Texas , Florida and Arizona , all of which are important states for Democrats in the midterms , believe Hispanic illegal and legal immigrants have had a negative effect on their lives . Nearly four in 10 say immigrants from Mexico and South America have made life worse , compared to a lower 33 percent among voters across the country . Republicans are particularly likely to say immigrants have negatively impacted their state . Gun control has also affected Democrats advantage since January , The Washington Post noted in poll in April . The gap between support for the two parties in House races has narrowed considerably since the gun control debate became a raging issue after the Florida school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February . Nearly 40 percent of registered voters believe it is extremely important that political candidates share their views on gun control . WaPo ’ s poll also suggested at the time that neither Democrats nor Republicans hold an advantage in support among the 42 percent of likely voters who want congressional candidates to share their views on the issue .

Democrats’ advantage over Republicans going into November’s midterm election has narrowed to four points, according to a poll conducted shortly after the peak of the family separation crisis at the Southern border. More than 36 percent of those surveyed in a CBS poll published Sunday said they want to see Republicans maintain control of Congress in 2018. Another 40 percent of those surveyed told pollsters they prefer to see Democrats come out ahead on Election Day. The numbers are surprising considering the significant outcry against President Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policy, which resulted in the separation of families seeking illegal entry across the border. Nearly 73 percent of Americans oppose splitting up children from parents as a form of deterrence, the poll notes. Democrats’ advantage in the generic ballot has continued to tumble throughout the year. Their advantage has dipped from a 10 point advantage they had heading into June, according to an NBC poll conducted at the time, which also showed 50 percent of registered voters wanting a Democratic-controlled Congress. CBS’s poll, which sampled 2,063 adults between June 21-22, 2018 and has a margin of error of 2.6 percent, also shows there are a significant number of Trump supporters who opposed the zero-tolerance policy but did not hold the president responsible. The results also suggest voters are compartmentalizing the issue. Many voters, for instance, place blame for the separations on the parents for bringing their children into the U.S. illegally. (RELATED: Poll Shows Dems Are Losing Steam Heading Into November Elections) About half of voters believe parents are mostly to blame, the poll notes, which rises to roughly eight in 10 among Republicans. CBS also found that voters in Texas, Florida and Arizona, all of which are important states for Democrats in the midterms, believe Hispanic illegal and legal immigrants have had a negative effect on their lives. Nearly four in 10 say immigrants from Mexico and South America have made life worse, compared to a lower 33 percent among voters across the country. Republicans are particularly likely to say immigrants have negatively impacted their state. Gun control has also affected Democrats advantage since January, The Washington Post noted in poll in April. The gap between support for the two parties in House races has narrowed considerably since the gun control debate became a raging issue after the Florida school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February. Nearly 40 percent of registered voters believe it is extremely important that political candidates share their views on gun control. WaPo’s poll also suggested at the time that neither Democrats nor Republicans hold an advantage in support among the 42 percent of likely voters who want congressional candidates to share their views on the issue. Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

qyivjrTxH4mClsnV

test

4wK8XrCR7H0UNieH

national_defense

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-iraq-syria-melania-trump/2018/12/26/id/895935/

In Iraq, Trump Defends Decision to Withdraw from Syria

2018-12-26

Associated Press

In a surprise trip to Iraq , President Donald Trump on Wednesday defended his decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria where they have been helping battle Islamic State militants . `` We 're no longer the suckers , folks , '' Trump told American servicemen and women at a base in western Iraq . `` We 're respected again as a nation . '' Trump said it 's because of U.S. military gains that he can withdraw 2,000 forces from Syria . During his first visit to a troubled region , Trump also said he has no plans to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq . `` I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds , '' Trump told troops clad in fatigues at al-Asad Airbase west of Baghdad . `` Eight years ago , we went there for three months and we never left , '' he said . `` Now , we 're doing it right and we 're going to finish it off . '' He said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to take out `` any remnants '' of IS left in Syria . The U.S. presence in Syria was not meant to be `` open-ended , '' he said , adding that other wealthy nations should pay for rebuilding Syria . `` The nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future , '' said Trump , who said there would be a `` strong , deliberate and orderly withdrawal '' of U.S. forces from Syria . Trump 's trip to Iraq came a week after he stunned his national security advisers by announcing the U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria . Defense Secretary Jim Mattis abruptly resigned following the announcement , and Trump 's decision rattled allies around the world , including in Iraq . Trump 's trip was shrouded in secrecy . Air Force One flew overnight from Washington , landing at an airbase west of Baghdad under the cover of darkness Wednesday evening . It is his first visit with troops stationed in a troubled region . Fifteen years after the 2003 invasion , the U.S. still has more than 5,000 troops in Iraq supporting the government as it continues the fight against remaining pockets of resistance by the Islamic State group . IS has lost a significant amount of territory in Iraq and Syria but is still seen as a threat . Trump , who speaks often about his support for the U.S. military , had faced criticism for not yet visiting U.S. troops stationed in harm 's way as he comes up on his two-year mark in office . He told The Associated Press in an interview in October that he `` will do that at some point , but I do n't think it 's overly necessary . '' He later began to signal that such a troop visit was in the offing . Trump had planned to spend Christmas at his private club in Florida , but stayed behind in Washington due to the shutdown . It 's unclear whether his trip to Iraq was added after it became apparent that the government would be shut down indefinitely due to a stalemate between Trump and congressional Democrats over the president 's demand for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border . Adding to the tumult , the stock market has been experiencing heavy losses over concerns about a slowing global economy , Trump 's trade war with China and the president 's public slamming of the Federal Reserve and its chairman over interest rate hikes by the independent agency . Trump 's visit comes at a time when his Middle East policy is in flux . He went against the views of his top national security advisers in announcing the Syria withdrawal , a decision that risks creating a vacuum for extremists to thrive . There are dire implications in particular for neighboring Iraq . The Iraqi government now has control of all the country 's cities , towns and villages after fighting its last urban battles against IS in December 2017 . But its political , military and economic situation remains uncertain , and the country continues to experience sporadic bombings , kidnappings and assassinations , which most people attribute to IS . Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi recently said Iraqi troops could deploy into Syria to protect Iraq from threats across its borders . Iraq keeps reinforcements along its frontier to guard against infiltration by IS militants , who hold a pocket of territory along the Euphrates River . Trump campaigned for office on a platform of ending U.S. involvement in foreign trouble spots , such as Syria , Afghanistan and Iraq . The Syria decision will ultimately affect all of the approximately 2,000 troops deployed in the war-torn country . The Pentagon is also said to be developing plans to withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops still serving in Afghanistan . During the presidential campaign , Trump blamed Democrat Hillary Clinton for the rise of IS , due to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011 during her tenure as secretary of state . President George W. Bush is the one who set the 2011 withdrawal date as part of an agreement with the Iraqi government to gradually shrink the U.S. footprint and slowly hand off security responsibilities to the government and Iraqi security forces . His successor , President Barack Obama , wanted to leave a residual force in Iraq to help the government manage ongoing security challenges . But he ultimately went ahead with the scheduled pullout in 2011 after Iraqi 's political leaders rejected terms the U.S. sought for legal protections for the U.S. troops that would have remained . Two of Trump 's recent predecessors visited Iraq early in their terms . Bush visited Iraq in November 2003 , about eight months after that conflict began . Due to security concerns , Bush waited until 2006 to make his first visit to Afghanistan . Obama visited Iraq in April 2009 , the first year of his eight years in office , as part of an overseas tour . He visited Afghanistan in 2010 . Vice President Mike Pence visited Afghanistan in December 2017 , not long after Trump outlined a strategy to break the stalemate in America 's longest war . Pence met with Afghan leaders and visited with U.S. troops stationed in the country . Trump has not visited Afghanistan .

In a surprise trip to Iraq, President Donald Trump on Wednesday defended his decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria where they have been helping battle Islamic State militants. "We're no longer the suckers, folks," Trump told American servicemen and women at a base in western Iraq. "We're respected again as a nation." Trump said it's because of U.S. military gains that he can withdraw 2,000 forces from Syria. During his first visit to a troubled region, Trump also said he has no plans to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. "I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds," Trump told troops clad in fatigues at al-Asad Airbase west of Baghdad. "Eight years ago, we went there for three months and we never left," he said. "Now, we're doing it right and we're going to finish it off." He said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has agreed to take out "any remnants" of IS left in Syria. The U.S. presence in Syria was not meant to be "open-ended," he said, adding that other wealthy nations should pay for rebuilding Syria. "The nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future," said Trump, who said there would be a "strong, deliberate and orderly withdrawal" of U.S. forces from Syria. Trump's trip to Iraq came a week after he stunned his national security advisers by announcing the U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis abruptly resigned following the announcement, and Trump's decision rattled allies around the world, including in Iraq. Trump's trip was shrouded in secrecy. Air Force One flew overnight from Washington, landing at an airbase west of Baghdad under the cover of darkness Wednesday evening. It is his first visit with troops stationed in a troubled region. Fifteen years after the 2003 invasion, the U.S. still has more than 5,000 troops in Iraq supporting the government as it continues the fight against remaining pockets of resistance by the Islamic State group. IS has lost a significant amount of territory in Iraq and Syria but is still seen as a threat. Trump, who speaks often about his support for the U.S. military, had faced criticism for not yet visiting U.S. troops stationed in harm's way as he comes up on his two-year mark in office. He told The Associated Press in an interview in October that he "will do that at some point, but I don't think it's overly necessary." He later began to signal that such a troop visit was in the offing. Trump had planned to spend Christmas at his private club in Florida, but stayed behind in Washington due to the shutdown. It's unclear whether his trip to Iraq was added after it became apparent that the government would be shut down indefinitely due to a stalemate between Trump and congressional Democrats over the president's demand for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Adding to the tumult, the stock market has been experiencing heavy losses over concerns about a slowing global economy, Trump's trade war with China and the president's public slamming of the Federal Reserve and its chairman over interest rate hikes by the independent agency. Trump's visit comes at a time when his Middle East policy is in flux. He went against the views of his top national security advisers in announcing the Syria withdrawal, a decision that risks creating a vacuum for extremists to thrive. There are dire implications in particular for neighboring Iraq. The Iraqi government now has control of all the country's cities, towns and villages after fighting its last urban battles against IS in December 2017. But its political, military and economic situation remains uncertain, and the country continues to experience sporadic bombings, kidnappings and assassinations, which most people attribute to IS. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi recently said Iraqi troops could deploy into Syria to protect Iraq from threats across its borders. Iraq keeps reinforcements along its frontier to guard against infiltration by IS militants, who hold a pocket of territory along the Euphrates River. Trump campaigned for office on a platform of ending U.S. involvement in foreign trouble spots, such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Syria decision will ultimately affect all of the approximately 2,000 troops deployed in the war-torn country. The Pentagon is also said to be developing plans to withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops still serving in Afghanistan. During the presidential campaign, Trump blamed Democrat Hillary Clinton for the rise of IS, due to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of 2011 during her tenure as secretary of state. President George W. Bush is the one who set the 2011 withdrawal date as part of an agreement with the Iraqi government to gradually shrink the U.S. footprint and slowly hand off security responsibilities to the government and Iraqi security forces. His successor, President Barack Obama, wanted to leave a residual force in Iraq to help the government manage ongoing security challenges. But he ultimately went ahead with the scheduled pullout in 2011 after Iraqi's political leaders rejected terms the U.S. sought for legal protections for the U.S. troops that would have remained. Two of Trump's recent predecessors visited Iraq early in their terms. Bush visited Iraq in November 2003, about eight months after that conflict began. Due to security concerns, Bush waited until 2006 to make his first visit to Afghanistan. Obama visited Iraq in April 2009, the first year of his eight years in office, as part of an overseas tour. He visited Afghanistan in 2010. Vice President Mike Pence visited Afghanistan in December 2017, not long after Trump outlined a strategy to break the stalemate in America's longest war. Pence met with Afghan leaders and visited with U.S. troops stationed in the country. Trump has not visited Afghanistan.

www.newsmax.com

right

4wK8XrCR7H0UNieH

test

vbCSPU7OmaRY7sGe

national_defense

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/13/trump-shifting-3-8-billion-for-border-wall/

The Pentagon Is Shifting $3.8 Billion In Funds To Support Border Wall Construction

2020-02-13

The Trump administration announced that it is reallocating $ 3.8 billion in weapons programs to support construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall , upsetting lawmakers who argue the White House is sidestepping their authority . In a notice delivered to Congress on Thursday , the Pentagon announced it is shifting $ 2.2 billion from its base fiscal 2020 budget and $ 1.6 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations war fund . The funds will be transferred to the Department of Defense ’ s counter-drug fund , which will then be applied to border wall construction . The Department of Homeland Security “ has identified areas along the southern border of the United States that are being used by individuals , groups , and transnational criminal organizations as drug smuggling corridors , and determined that the construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the United States border is necessary in order to impede and deny drug smuggling activities , ” read the notice to Congress , according to The Hill . This is not the first time the administration has chosen to use executive authority to shift federal funds to the wall , largely due to Democratic lawmakers opposition to immigration enforcement funding . Thursday ’ s announcement has already rankled lawmakers who demand that the White House seek congressional approval first . “ While some of our Republican colleagues will lament the President ’ s decision , they enabled this theft by blocking our efforts to stop the President from raiding defense accounts , ” New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey , who serves at the House Appropriations Committee chairwoman , said in a joint statement with the chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee , Democratic Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana . Democratic criticism was to be expected ; however , one top Republican lawmaker also took a shot at the administration Thursday . “ The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress ’ s constitutional authority , and I believe that it requires Congress to take action , ” Texas GOP . Rep Mac Thornberry , the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee , said in a statement . Thornberry said he would be in touch with his colleagues on determining the “ appropriate steps to take. ” ( RELATED : EXCLUSIVE : Funding Secured For 1,000 Miles Of Border Wall , White House Officials Say ) “ The wall should be funded , but the funding must come through the Department of Homeland Security rather than diverting critical military resources that are needed and in law , ” Thornberry added , noting that he does believe that there remains a crisis at the U.S. southern border . President Donald Trump first declared an emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border in February 2019 , allowing him to use executive authority to reallocate federal funds . Congress has twice attempted to rescind the president ’ s emergency declaration , but was unable to overturn his vetoes both times . The Trump administration has set an ambitious goal of completing 450 border wall miles by the tail end of 2020 , tackling a campaign goal ahead of the November presidential elections . Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) announced in a document ███ News Foundation obtained that the administration built 119 miles of new border wall in places where dilapidated walls existed or where no walls previously existed at all as of Feb. 7 .

The Trump administration announced that it is reallocating $3.8 billion in weapons programs to support construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, upsetting lawmakers who argue the White House is sidestepping their authority. In a notice delivered to Congress on Thursday, the Pentagon announced it is shifting $2.2 billion from its base fiscal 2020 budget and $1.6 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations war fund. The funds will be transferred to the Department of Defense’s counter-drug fund, which will then be applied to border wall construction. The Department of Homeland Security “has identified areas along the southern border of the United States that are being used by individuals, groups, and transnational criminal organizations as drug smuggling corridors, and determined that the construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the United States border is necessary in order to impede and deny drug smuggling activities,” read the notice to Congress, according to The Hill. This is not the first time the administration has chosen to use executive authority to shift federal funds to the wall, largely due to Democratic lawmakers opposition to immigration enforcement funding. Thursday’s announcement has already rankled lawmakers who demand that the White House seek congressional approval first. “While some of our Republican colleagues will lament the President’s decision, they enabled this theft by blocking our efforts to stop the President from raiding defense accounts,” New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey, who serves at the House Appropriations Committee chairwoman, said in a joint statement with the chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Democratic Rep. Pete Visclosky of Indiana. Democratic criticism was to be expected; however, one top Republican lawmaker also took a shot at the administration Thursday. “The re-programming announced today is contrary to Congress’s constitutional authority, and I believe that it requires Congress to take action,” Texas GOP. Rep Mac Thornberry, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. Thornberry said he would be in touch with his colleagues on determining the “appropriate steps to take.” (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Funding Secured For 1,000 Miles Of Border Wall, White House Officials Say) “The wall should be funded, but the funding must come through the Department of Homeland Security rather than diverting critical military resources that are needed and in law,” Thornberry added, noting that he does believe that there remains a crisis at the U.S. southern border. President Donald Trump first declared an emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border in February 2019, allowing him to use executive authority to reallocate federal funds. Congress has twice attempted to rescind the president’s emergency declaration, but was unable to overturn his vetoes both times. The Trump administration has set an ambitious goal of completing 450 border wall miles by the tail end of 2020, tackling a campaign goal ahead of the November presidential elections. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced in a document the Daily Caller News Foundation obtained that the administration built 119 miles of new border wall in places where dilapidated walls existed or where no walls previously existed at all as of Feb. 7. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

vbCSPU7OmaRY7sGe

test

3TlQohnaXjSluacZ

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/11/west-virginia-elects-first-openly-transgender-official/

West Virginia Elects First Openly Transgender Official

2020-06-11

Amy Furr

West Virginia elected its first openly transgender official on Wednesday as the Third Ward representative of the state ’ s Wheeling City Council . Rosemary Ketchum ’ s campaign focused on a broad range of issues such as opioid addiction and affordable housing , according to CBS News . “ She also focused on improving infrastructure , providing better resources to law enforcement , helping small businesses flourish and transforming local clean energy consumption and waste management , ” the report noted . Ketchum said what the Third Ward deemed important should be the focal point of her win , not her identity , according to WTRF . “ To make criticisms about the promises I ’ ve made or the positions that I hold , that ’ s fair game . But you know , talking about a person ’ s identity is incredibly vulnerable . And , I don ’ t think we have a space for that , ” she commented . On her website , the councilwoman vowed to follow through on campaign promises and shared a list of commitments made to voters . “ I will never hide from a tough conversation . I will host , organize , and fund positive community engagement activities . I will continue to advocate for the safety , security , and future of the 3rd Ward at every turn , ” she stated . Ketchum beat out three other candidates for her seat , thanks to her platform on homelessness and vacant properties in Wheeling , the WTRF article noted . “ I believe that one of the biggest obstacles we need to overcome is the perception of West Virginia itself – from people outside the state , but also from our residents themselves , ” Ketchum explained . “ Vacant properties do nothing to improve the experience of our city and I will work to ensure that they are responsibly taken care of , ” she continued . When Ketchum took office on July 1 , she became the first out LGBTQ elected official in West Virginia , according to the LGBTQ Victory Fund , an organization whose mission was to increase the number of LGBTQ officials at all levels of government . “ We know Rosemary ’ s race will inspire other trans people from conservative states to consider a run for office in their communities – and then those candidates will inspire others as well . That virtuous cycle is the key to building trans acceptance and political power long-term , ” the fund said . HISTORY MADE : @ RosemaryKetchum just won a seat on the Wheeling City Council and is now the first out trans person ever elected in West Virginia ! She will be one of just 27 out trans elected officials in the entire nation . pic.twitter.com/Ma3aMYpiTQ — LGBTQ Victory Fund ( @ VictoryFund ) June 10 , 2020 Later , Ketchum said the response to her campaign was “ incredible . ” “ And , one of the things I am most proud of is that we are really beating back the stigma that people hold for the folks of West Virginia , ” she concluded .

West Virginia elected its first openly transgender official on Wednesday as the Third Ward representative of the state’s Wheeling City Council. Rosemary Ketchum’s campaign focused on a broad range of issues such as opioid addiction and affordable housing, according to CBS News. “She also focused on improving infrastructure, providing better resources to law enforcement, helping small businesses flourish and transforming local clean energy consumption and waste management,” the report noted. Ketchum said what the Third Ward deemed important should be the focal point of her win, not her identity, according to WTRF. “To make criticisms about the promises I’ve made or the positions that I hold, that’s fair game. But you know, talking about a person’s identity is incredibly vulnerable. And, I don’t think we have a space for that,” she commented. On her website, the councilwoman vowed to follow through on campaign promises and shared a list of commitments made to voters. “I will never hide from a tough conversation. I will host, organize, and fund positive community engagement activities. I will continue to advocate for the safety, security, and future of the 3rd Ward at every turn,” she stated. Ketchum beat out three other candidates for her seat, thanks to her platform on homelessness and vacant properties in Wheeling, the WTRF article noted. “I believe that one of the biggest obstacles we need to overcome is the perception of West Virginia itself – from people outside the state, but also from our residents themselves,” Ketchum explained. “Vacant properties do nothing to improve the experience of our city and I will work to ensure that they are responsibly taken care of,” she continued. When Ketchum took office on July 1, she became the first out LGBTQ elected official in West Virginia, according to the LGBTQ Victory Fund, an organization whose mission was to increase the number of LGBTQ officials at all levels of government. “We know Rosemary’s race will inspire other trans people from conservative states to consider a run for office in their communities – and then those candidates will inspire others as well. That virtuous cycle is the key to building trans acceptance and political power long-term,” the fund said. Tuesday, the organization congratulated Ketchum on Twitter. HISTORY MADE: @RosemaryKetchum just won a seat on the Wheeling City Council and is now the first out trans person ever elected in West Virginia! She will be one of just 27 out trans elected officials in the entire nation. pic.twitter.com/Ma3aMYpiTQ — LGBTQ Victory Fund (@VictoryFund) June 10, 2020 Later, Ketchum said the response to her campaign was “incredible.” “And, one of the things I am most proud of is that we are really beating back the stigma that people hold for the folks of West Virginia,” she concluded.

www.breitbart.com

right

3TlQohnaXjSluacZ

test

MbvNx1qQNotNEz10

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Rick-Perry/2015/03/11/id/629590/

Newsmax Exclusive – Rick Perry: 'Americans Are Starving for Leadership'

2015-03-11

Todd Beamon

Former Texas Gov . Rick Perry slammed President Barack Obama 's foreign policy efforts on Wednesday , saying that `` Americans are starving for leadership that will act and solve the great challenges we face today . `` `` Leadership that is n't ashamed to see America lead the world again and that stands with its allies again , '' said Perry , who served as the Lone Star state 's top Republican from 2000 to earlier this year . `` This is the view we must tirelessly protect . `` This is the view the world needs to see , '' Perry added . `` And this is the view I 'll be sharing with Americans as I continue to travel this country . `` Perry , 65 , who is considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016 , outlined his foreign policy agenda in a video released to ███ by his RickPAC organization.The former governor attacked Obama 's lack of leadership on the global stage — and he imagined how America 's enemies and allies viewed this nation amid the vacuum . `` As someone who believes America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity in the world , it 's frustrating to see the president shuffle from one crisis to the next , and to hear his words ring hollow when there should be unwavering resolve , '' Perry said . `` But let 's step back for a minute and imagine the view from the outside , imagine how the president 's weakness and fecklessness are received by both our friends and our enemies . `` From Iran — `` as they 're trying to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the United States '' — Perry said that he imagined leaders there seeing heads of state from `` Western countries scrambling to get Vladimir Putin to sign a piece of paper that he 'll completely ignore within hours . `` Regarding the Islamic State , Perry said : `` After seeing this administration fail to name the enemy that has viciously slaughtered innocent men , women and children for months , imagine the great confusion in the Supreme Revolutionary Council when they heard U.S . Undersecretary of State Rick Stengel say we will win this war with words by engaging ISIS on Twitter , and we should fear not because ISIS is n't as powerful as Buzzfeed when it comes to social media . `` And imagine their great glee when they realized this was n't a parody , '' he added.Perry also harkened back to Obama 's infamous description of ISIS terrorists last year in saying , `` but maybe we should n't be surprised by any of this when the president calls the most dangerous Islamist terrorist group on the planet the JV team . `` For America 's allies , `` the view is bleak , '' Perry said , `` as they hear this president 's empty words and watch him miscalculate and underestimate time and again the absolute necessity of American leadership on the world stage . `` What does it look like from Tel Aviv when our president is more willing to negotiate with Iran than to hear the concerns of our strongest Middle Eastern ally ? '' Perry asked . `` What does it look like from the streets of Paris when the president of the United States fails to show up in France after the worst terror attack in that country in decades ? `` And what does it look like from the squares in Poland , where a people so recently freed from subjugation by Russia see Putin getting away with dismembering Ukraine , and wonder if this president will act to save NATO ? `` Perry said that our allies `` see President Obama 's actions , and perhaps just as importantly , his inaction and see confusion where there should be moral clarity . Unreliability where there should be unwavering support . `` This is not the America I know , '' the former governor concluded . `` The choice we face in 2016 is whether we can endure a future that looks like the last six years . `` Our children will not inherit an America with greater opportunity when America continues to shrink from its role in the world . ''

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry slammed President Barack Obama's foreign policy efforts on Wednesday, saying that "Americans are starving for leadership that will act and solve the great challenges we face today.""Leadership that isn't ashamed to see America lead the world again and that stands with its allies again," said Perry, who served as the Lone Star state's top Republican from 2000 to earlier this year. "This is the view we must tirelessly protect."This is the view the world needs to see," Perry added. "And this is the view I'll be sharing with Americans as I continue to travel this country."Perry, 65, who is considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, outlined his foreign policy agenda in a video released to Newsmax by his RickPAC organization.The former governor attacked Obama's lack of leadership on the global stage — and he imagined how America's enemies and allies viewed this nation amid the vacuum."As someone who believes America is the greatest force for freedom and prosperity in the world, it's frustrating to see the president shuffle from one crisis to the next, and to hear his words ring hollow when there should be unwavering resolve," Perry said."But let's step back for a minute and imagine the view from the outside, imagine how the president's weakness and fecklessness are received by both our friends and our enemies."From Iran — "as they're trying to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the United States" — Perry said that he imagined leaders there seeing heads of state from "Western countries scrambling to get Vladimir Putin to sign a piece of paper that he'll completely ignore within hours."Regarding the Islamic State, Perry said: "After seeing this administration fail to name the enemy that has viciously slaughtered innocent men, women and children for months, imagine the great confusion in the Supreme Revolutionary Council when they heard U.S. Undersecretary of State Rick Stengel say we will win this war with words by engaging ISIS on Twitter, and we should fear not because ISIS isn't as powerful as Buzzfeed when it comes to social media."And imagine their great glee when they realized this wasn't a parody," he added.Perry also harkened back to Obama's infamous description of ISIS terrorists last year in saying, "but maybe we shouldn't be surprised by any of this when the president calls the most dangerous Islamist terrorist group on the planet the JV team."For America's allies, "the view is bleak," Perry said, "as they hear this president's empty words and watch him miscalculate and underestimate time and again the absolute necessity of American leadership on the world stage."What does it look like from Tel Aviv when our president is more willing to negotiate with Iran than to hear the concerns of our strongest Middle Eastern ally?" Perry asked."What does it look like from the streets of Paris when the president of the United States fails to show up in France after the worst terror attack in that country in decades?"And what does it look like from the squares in Poland, where a people so recently freed from subjugation by Russia see Putin getting away with dismembering Ukraine, and wonder if this president will act to save NATO?"Perry said that our allies "see President Obama's actions, and perhaps just as importantly, his inaction and see confusion where there should be moral clarity. Unreliability where there should be unwavering support."This is not the America I know," the former governor concluded. "The choice we face in 2016 is whether we can endure a future that looks like the last six years."Our children will not inherit an America with greater opportunity when America continues to shrink from its role in the world."

www.newsmax.com

right

MbvNx1qQNotNEz10

test

ggqpmJ6NfXKaXLCv

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/24/with-deadline-looming-white-house-details-cuts/?hpt=po_c1

With deadline looming, White House details cuts

2013-02-24

( CNN ) – Food safety inspections , early education classrooms and mental health treatment are all at risk if massive forced spending cuts are allowed to take effect at the end of this week , the White House said Sunday . Those cuts would accompany deep reductions in defense spending - including stalling maintenance on Navy ships - that are also poised to trigger March 1 . In detailed reports for all 50 states and the District of Columbia , President Barack Obama 's budget office spelled out how the cuts - which are the result of a stalemate between Congressional Republicans and the White House over reducing the federal deficit - will affect localities , putting the stakes of the budget debate in stark terms as Congress returns to Washington after a week-long break . But some Republicans question whether the Obama administration is simply crafting a doomsday scenario for the indiscriminate cuts to force Congressional Republicans into accepting a deal that includes more tax increases for wealthy Americans , which GOP leaders say is unacceptable . They would rather cut spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security , which they say are the real drivers of the country 's debt . Nationwide , the White House said , 70,000 children would no longer have access to Head Start early education programs , and 10,000 teacher jobs would be at risk , consequences that Education Secretary Arne Duncan detailed Sunday . `` It creates tremendous instability , '' Duncan said on CBS ' `` Face the Nation . '' `` And there are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips , who are getting notices that they ca n't come back this fall . '' Reduced federal funding for vaccines would mean children would go without shots that prevent measles , mumps , rubella , tetanus , whooping cough , influenza and hepatitis B . The report indicated 2,100 fewer food inspections would occur , and medical research would be stalled . READ MORE : 'These cuts do not have to happen , ' Obama says Hundreds of thousands of `` seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children '' could go without treatment for their ailments , according to the White House , which could lead to higher rates of hospitalization and incarceration . And the Federal Aviation Administration would be forced to cut $ 600 million from its budget , which the agency 's boss said Sunday would result in furloughs - or forced leave - for nearly all of the FAA 's 47,000 employees . `` We 're going to try and cut as much as we possibly can out of contracts and other things that we do , '' Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said . `` But in the end , there has to be some kind of furlough of air traffic controllers , and that will also begin to curtail or eliminate the opportunity for them to guide planes in and out of airports . '' All told , non-defense programs would be forced to reduce their spending by 9 % , the White House said , while defense programs would have to cut 13 % . Cuts to the military would include calling off maintenance on 11 ships in Norfolk , Virginia , home of the world 's largest naval base . Air Force operations in the Commonwealth could be cut by $ 8 million . In San Diego , maintenance on five ships would be canceled . In Jacksonville , Florida , funding to maintain an aircraft depot would disappear . The state-by-state analysis by the White House is a continuation of the administration 's attempt to demonstrate in stark terms how the forced spending cuts would affect Americans - and to pin the blame on the GOP . That effort has been met with some skepticism from Republicans . `` Rather than issuing last-minute press releases on cuts to first responders or troop training or airport security , [ Obama ] should propose smarter ways to cut Washington spending . After all , Washington spending , even with the sequester , is bigger than it was when he got here , '' Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in response to the White House 's detailing of the cuts . “ There are smarter ways to reduce the size of government . And with the national debt well over $ 16 trillion dollars , it ’ s time for the White House to stop spending all its time campaigning , and start finding smarter ways to reduce the deficit , '' McConnell continued . Michael Steel , a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner , said `` The White House needs to spend less time explaining to the press how bad the sequester will be and more time actually working to stop it . '' Some Republicans argue the White House is exaggerating how much Americans would feel the effects of the cuts . `` The American people , we see all these claims about what a tragedy it 's going to be , '' Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said on `` Fox News Sunday , '' pointing to statements from LaHood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano . `` They have plenty of flexibility in terms of discretion on how they spend money , '' Coburn said . `` There are easy ways to cut this money that the American people will never feel . What you hear is an outrage because nobody wants to cut spending . '' Another Republican , Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal , called the dire warnings from Obama administration officials merely `` great political theater about how cutting less than 3 % of the federal budget can cause all these awful consequences . '' `` Here is ( Obama 's ) chance to say , 'Here is how we can do it better . ' The reality is , the federal budget , even after the cuts , will be larger than last year 's budget , '' Jindal said on NBC 's `` Meet the Press . '' Dan Pfeiffer , a senior adviser to the president , denied that the White House was overstating the effects of the cuts , saying that it 's Obama 's `` responsibility to make sure the American people understand what 's at stake here in this debate . '' `` This is going to have a very real impact on people 's lives and on communities , and people need to know why that is , '' Pfeiffer said . `` Are all these things going to go into effect on the first day ? No . But there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are working today who will lose their jobs as a consequence of this Republican decision . ''

7 years ago (CNN) – Food safety inspections, early education classrooms and mental health treatment are all at risk if massive forced spending cuts are allowed to take effect at the end of this week, the White House said Sunday. Those cuts would accompany deep reductions in defense spending - including stalling maintenance on Navy ships - that are also poised to trigger March 1. In detailed reports for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, President Barack Obama's budget office spelled out how the cuts - which are the result of a stalemate between Congressional Republicans and the White House over reducing the federal deficit - will affect localities, putting the stakes of the budget debate in stark terms as Congress returns to Washington after a week-long break. But some Republicans question whether the Obama administration is simply crafting a doomsday scenario for the indiscriminate cuts to force Congressional Republicans into accepting a deal that includes more tax increases for wealthy Americans, which GOP leaders say is unacceptable. They would rather cut spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which they say are the real drivers of the country's debt. Nationwide, the White House said, 70,000 children would no longer have access to Head Start early education programs, and 10,000 teacher jobs would be at risk, consequences that Education Secretary Arne Duncan detailed Sunday. "It creates tremendous instability," Duncan said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "And there are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips, who are getting notices that they can't come back this fall." Reduced federal funding for vaccines would mean children would go without shots that prevent measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza and hepatitis B. The report indicated 2,100 fewer food inspections would occur, and medical research would be stalled. READ MORE: 'These cuts do not have to happen,' Obama says Hundreds of thousands of "seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children" could go without treatment for their ailments, according to the White House, which could lead to higher rates of hospitalization and incarceration. And the Federal Aviation Administration would be forced to cut $600 million from its budget, which the agency's boss said Sunday would result in furloughs - or forced leave - for nearly all of the FAA's 47,000 employees. "We're going to try and cut as much as we possibly can out of contracts and other things that we do," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. "But in the end, there has to be some kind of furlough of air traffic controllers, and that will also begin to curtail or eliminate the opportunity for them to guide planes in and out of airports." All told, non-defense programs would be forced to reduce their spending by 9%, the White House said, while defense programs would have to cut 13%. Cuts to the military would include calling off maintenance on 11 ships in Norfolk, Virginia, home of the world's largest naval base. Air Force operations in the Commonwealth could be cut by $8 million. In San Diego, maintenance on five ships would be canceled. In Jacksonville, Florida, funding to maintain an aircraft depot would disappear. The state-by-state analysis by the White House is a continuation of the administration's attempt to demonstrate in stark terms how the forced spending cuts would affect Americans - and to pin the blame on the GOP. That effort has been met with some skepticism from Republicans. "Rather than issuing last-minute press releases on cuts to first responders or troop training or airport security, [Obama] should propose smarter ways to cut Washington spending. After all, Washington spending, even with the sequester, is bigger than it was when he got here," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in response to the White House's detailing of the cuts. “There are smarter ways to reduce the size of government. And with the national debt well over $16 trillion dollars, it’s time for the White House to stop spending all its time campaigning, and start finding smarter ways to reduce the deficit," McConnell continued. Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said "The White House needs to spend less time explaining to the press how bad the sequester will be and more time actually working to stop it." Some Republicans argue the White House is exaggerating how much Americans would feel the effects of the cuts. "The American people, we see all these claims about what a tragedy it's going to be," Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said on "Fox News Sunday," pointing to statements from LaHood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. "They have plenty of flexibility in terms of discretion on how they spend money," Coburn said. "There are easy ways to cut this money that the American people will never feel. What you hear is an outrage because nobody wants to cut spending." Another Republican, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, called the dire warnings from Obama administration officials merely "great political theater about how cutting less than 3% of the federal budget can cause all these awful consequences." "Here is (Obama's) chance to say, 'Here is how we can do it better.' The reality is, the federal budget, even after the cuts, will be larger than last year's budget," Jindal said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to the president, denied that the White House was overstating the effects of the cuts, saying that it's Obama's "responsibility to make sure the American people understand what's at stake here in this debate." "This is going to have a very real impact on people's lives and on communities, and people need to know why that is," Pfeiffer said. "Are all these things going to go into effect on the first day? No. But there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are working today who will lose their jobs as a consequence of this Republican decision."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

ggqpmJ6NfXKaXLCv

test

xtzoSG9IaIDqXMD1

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/ee14bbf4c377585ed54cf6babfde7e85

Justices rule against Montana homeowners near Superfund site

2020-04-20

FILE- In this Nov. 11 , 2019 file photo , a view of the Supreme Court in Washington . The Supreme Court has delivered a setback to Montana homeowners who are seeking additional cleanup of arsenic left over from years of copper smelting . The court said Monday that the homeowners can not proceed with efforts to decontaminate their own property near the shuttered Anaconda smelter without the permission of the Environmental Protection Agency . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) FILE- In this Nov. 11 , 2019 file photo , a view of the Supreme Court in Washington . The Supreme Court has delivered a setback to Montana homeowners who are seeking additional cleanup of arsenic left over from years of copper smelting . The court said Monday that the homeowners can not proceed with efforts to decontaminate their own property near the shuttered Anaconda smelter without the permission of the Environmental Protection Agency . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Supreme Court delivered a setback Monday to Montana homeowners who are seeking additional cleanup of arsenic left over from years of copper smelting . The court said the homeowners can not proceed with efforts to decontaminate their own property near the shuttered Anaconda smelter without the permission of the Environmental Protection Agency . But it did not order an end to the state court lawsuit that was under review . The smelter , near the town of Opportunity , Montana , belongs to BP-owned Atlantic Richfield Co. and sits at the center of a 300-square-mile Superfund site . The company says it has spent $ 470 million to clean the site . Homeowners who are dissatisfied with the EPA-ordered cleanup want Atlantic Richfield to pay for the removal of more arsenic-tainted soil from their properties . And the Montana Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that their claims could proceed in state court . But Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the high court that federal environmental law requires the homeowners to seek EPA approval for additional cleanup . “ That approval process , if pursued , could ameliorate any conflict between the landowners ’ restoration plan and EPA ’ s Superfund cleanup , just as Congress envisioned , ” Roberts wrote . Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a dissent that Justice Clarence Thomas joined that the court ’ s reading of the Superfund law “ strips away ancient common law rights from innocent landowners and forces them to suffer toxic waste in their backyards , playgrounds , and farms . Respectfully , that is not what the law was written to do ; that is what it was written to prevent . ” An EPA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the decision . The EPA backed Atlantic Richfield in the Supreme Court , urging several ways in which the justices could rule against the homeowners . Joseph Palmore , who represented the homeowners at the Supreme Court , said he was pleased the court did not dismiss his clients ’ suit . “ We look forward to working with the EPA toward a clean-up that will protect the environment and safeguard the health and property of the residents of Opportunity , ” Palmore said .

FILE- In this Nov. 11, 2019 file photo, a view of the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court has delivered a setback to Montana homeowners who are seeking additional cleanup of arsenic left over from years of copper smelting. The court said Monday that the homeowners cannot proceed with efforts to decontaminate their own property near the shuttered Anaconda smelter without the permission of the Environmental Protection Agency. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) FILE- In this Nov. 11, 2019 file photo, a view of the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court has delivered a setback to Montana homeowners who are seeking additional cleanup of arsenic left over from years of copper smelting. The court said Monday that the homeowners cannot proceed with efforts to decontaminate their own property near the shuttered Anaconda smelter without the permission of the Environmental Protection Agency. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court delivered a setback Monday to Montana homeowners who are seeking additional cleanup of arsenic left over from years of copper smelting. The court said the homeowners cannot proceed with efforts to decontaminate their own property near the shuttered Anaconda smelter without the permission of the Environmental Protection Agency. But it did not order an end to the state court lawsuit that was under review. The smelter, near the town of Opportunity, Montana, belongs to BP-owned Atlantic Richfield Co. and sits at the center of a 300-square-mile Superfund site. The company says it has spent $470 million to clean the site. Homeowners who are dissatisfied with the EPA-ordered cleanup want Atlantic Richfield to pay for the removal of more arsenic-tainted soil from their properties. And the Montana Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that their claims could proceed in state court. But Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the high court that federal environmental law requires the homeowners to seek EPA approval for additional cleanup. “That approval process, if pursued, could ameliorate any conflict between the landowners’ restoration plan and EPA’s Superfund cleanup, just as Congress envisioned,” Roberts wrote. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a dissent that Justice Clarence Thomas joined that the court’s reading of the Superfund law “strips away ancient common law rights from innocent landowners and forces them to suffer toxic waste in their backyards, playgrounds, and farms. Respectfully, that is not what the law was written to do; that is what it was written to prevent.” An EPA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the decision. The EPA backed Atlantic Richfield in the Supreme Court, urging several ways in which the justices could rule against the homeowners. Joseph Palmore, who represented the homeowners at the Supreme Court, said he was pleased the court did not dismiss his clients’ suit. “We look forward to working with the EPA toward a clean-up that will protect the environment and safeguard the health and property of the residents of Opportunity,” Palmore said.

www.apnews.com

center

xtzoSG9IaIDqXMD1

test

wH7mbyxfRgBgEcPY

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/19/americas_new_racial_low_point_more_crying_black_mothers_and_tear_gas_on_our_dreams/

America’s new racial low point: More crying black mothers, and tear gas on our dreams

2014-08-19

Brittney Cooper

Six bullets . More than I can count on one hand . That is how many times preliminary autopsy reports indicate that Michael Brown was shot . Nothing about the youthful infraction of strolling down the middle of a residential street in one ’ s own neighborhood justifies having your life ripped away from you by an irate officer firing six bullets as you face him , hands up in surrender . I can not even fathom what Mike , “ Big Mike ” as his friends call him , felt as each of those bullets entered his flesh . I do know a little of the rage , despair , helplessness and hopelessness that black communities have been left to feel in the aftermath of his death . I know he stayed conscious long enough to put his hands up , to try and surrender , as if to say , “ I want to live . Please don ’ t kill me . ” Ferguson residents and protesters now find themselves arms outstretched , palms up , yelling “ don ’ t shoot , ” as police officers in guns , gas masks and tanks occupy the streets of Ferguson , Missouri , dropping canisters of tear gas on our American dreams . Those of us not yet there in Ferguson watch helplessly as the images of at least one child being tear-gassed come through our Twitter feeds , as journalists find themselves facing down the barrel of a hastily drawn police weapon or thrown in jail , as police drop stun grenades on crowds that refuse to comply with the unreasonable demand that they relinquish their right to peaceful assembly . While the world watches aghast , America ’ s penchant for exporting guns , tanks and destruction to other places in the name of law and order has shown up on our own doorsteps , in our backyards , with people pinned into parking lots and onto their porches . They are told they must stay where they are or risk being shot with rubber bullets or have their faces and lungs sting with the inhalation of tear gas . Public space in Ferguson is awash in black tears , but it is the sirens that we hear wailing . The people would weep , but they are too busy running , ducking and taking cover from the angry sounds of a system that does not love them , does not care about their meager “ rights . ” Meanwhile , the government attempts to placate the people with optical sleights of hand . Capt . Ron Johnson , by all accounts a sincere and affable leader and head of the highway patrol , replaced the police chief late last week , with promises that he would not employ military tactics to police the citizens of Ferguson . On Thursday I breathed a bit easier as we watched him giving hugs to protesters , marching with the people , allowing black women of faith to lay hands on him and pray . That peace was short-lived after the Ferguson police inflamed crowds by releasing irrelevant footage of a conflict that Michael Brown had at a local convenience store when he and his friend Dorian went to buy Cigarellos . Late that evening the crowds returned , only to be met by more tanks , more tear gas , more guns . Beyond shock , I continue to be appalled at the extensive lengths to which the police have gone to protect Officer Darren Wilson and his family from any public reproach or reprisal in Mike ’ s death . They delayed the release of his name in order to provide him enough time to leave town . They then released his name to coincide with video of the Cigarello incident , which they later admitted he knew nothing about when he stopped Mike . It is clear that the police are closing ranks , showing that they value the lives of their own more than the lives of citizens . We are told repeatedly that police are worthy of our respect because they risk their lives each day to protect us . That is not the case for black people . When we encounter police , our lives are at risk while they protect themselves . I started to temper my statement by saying “ some police , ” but that gives the impression that I am speaking of the actions of a few rogue officers . The problem with this logic is that we now know that Ferguson law enforcement has a range of problems – disproportionate stops of black residents , disproportionately low numbers of black police ( three out of over 50 ) , and a history of antagonistic exchanges with the people of St. Louis County . We have a problem of overzealous policing in this country . That problem is exacerbated by issues of race and gender , so that black men are perceived to be far more threatening than they actually are . And when black women encounter police , we are not given the protections generally afforded to white femininity . Our womanhood does not mitigate the threat of police force . This , then , is not about the actions of a rogue officer , but rather about the ideology of overpolicing that deputizes extrajudicial behavior as completely justified , as long as the life being taken or haphazardly handled is a black or brown life . Though the killing of Brown by Wilson seemingly fits a long historical script of the harassment of black people at the hands of white police officers , the reality is that overpolicing is an ideology that many police officers subscribe to regardless of color . That ideology is rooted in a kind of anti-blackness that sees black bodies as a perpetual and mortal threat . Anti-black rhetoric has shown up not only from the Ferguson police but also ironically in the reporting and advocacy of everyone from CNN reporter Don Lemon to rapper Nelly , in their continued focus on issues like “ black-on-black crime ” and the necessity of keeping law and order . “ Don ’ t use your last option , first , ” Nelly told folks on St. Louis radio . There is little recognition that it is Darren Wilson who used his last option – lethal force — first . Moreover , the whole point of using tear gas and military vehicles in this small community is to force the residents into a realization that they have run out of options . Sadly , anti-black ideology can emerge even from people who are black or who otherwise love black people . I know Americans like to see themselves as a law and order people , but the few folks who have rioted and looted over the last few days , many of whom are reportedly not Ferguson residents , were stopped in their tracks by peaceful protesters . Even still their presence exposes an inconvenient truth . The killing of unarmed teenagers by police officers is lawlessness . It shows a lack of respect for the sanctity of life and the rule of law . The supreme irony is seeing folks defend the officer ’ s lawlessness while calling for people destroying property to respect the law . As I keep saying , destruction of property is not particularly productive . But I refuse to direct my ire toward anyone but the officer who unjustly took Michael Brown ’ s life and the police establishment that is now complicit in this crime . I am tired . Emotionally exhausted , actually . I am tired of going to sleep each night seeing a community of people who look like me under military siege . I ’ m tired of seeing crying black mothers – Sybrina Fulton , Lucia McBath and Leslie McSpadden —distraught over the loss of their teenage sons Trayvon , Jordan and Michael . I ’ m tired of hearing report after report of people under attack from tear gas . I ’ m tired of journalists being bullied for trying to tell the truth . I ’ m tired of explaining to white people why our anger is justified , why looting , which is a property crime , should not even be part of a conversation about the killing of a teenager , why the alleged shoplifting of cigarettes is not a capital offense , why the police officer who killed Mike for the crime of walking in the street is the real thug . White racism and white privilege continue a bad cop-good cop routine with black America that is utterly exhausting . Just when we think we are making headway , a well-meaning white person asks “ but can ’ t we condemn the looting too ? ” The question is : Have you condemned the killing ? Or have you tried to explain it away ? To justify it ? I will not engage in a condemnation quid pro quo with trolls , well-meaning white citizens or respectable black ones , “ Brand New Negroes ” I call them , in the tradition of the famous text from Harlem Renaissance philosopher Alain Locke . I will not concede that destruction of property is equal to the taking of life . I will not answer calls to be reasonable in the face of unreasonable , unjustifiable black death . I will not believe the lie that black propriety and respectability – pulling our pants up , speaking corporate English , never , ever doing anything wrong – will save us . Ferguson exposes the extent to which American necropolitics shapes the terms and conditions of black life in what professor Sundiata Cha-Jua calls a new racial nadir . The first racial nadir happened from about 1890 to about 1930 , when black people experienced the unprecedented loss of political gains hard won in the aftermath of the Civil War and the astronomical rise of lynching . We have indeed reached a new nadir in America ’ s racial life , one hard to fathom as a black president sits in the White House , abdicating his responsibility to speak forcefully and forthrightly to the problem of racism and military-style policing both for fear of being seen as too “ black ” and for fear of political reprisal from the right . Meanwhile , our voting rights have been stripped away , our kids are being killed in the streets , their killers rarely convicted , and our communities are placed under siege . And our black president reminds us that `` there are young black men who commit crime , '' though he feels no responsibility to say this about any other race of people . It 's a shaming tactic that suggests that black people do not have the right to be angry when our communities are beset with so many problems . It is the kind of anti-black thinking that suggests `` acting respectably '' will save us . These are scary times . They are times for rage . Time for telling the truth . Time for ripping the band-aids off our gaping wounds . Time to recognize that we can neither heal nor fix that which we will not confront .

Six bullets. More than I can count on one hand. That is how many times preliminary autopsy reports indicate that Michael Brown was shot. Nothing about the youthful infraction of strolling down the middle of a residential street in one’s own neighborhood justifies having your life ripped away from you by an irate officer firing six bullets as you face him, hands up in surrender. I cannot even fathom what Mike, “Big Mike” as his friends call him, felt as each of those bullets entered his flesh. I do know a little of the rage, despair, helplessness and hopelessness that black communities have been left to feel in the aftermath of his death. I know he stayed conscious long enough to put his hands up, to try and surrender, as if to say, “I want to live. Please don’t kill me.” Advertisement: Ferguson residents and protesters now find themselves arms outstretched, palms up, yelling “don’t shoot,” as police officers in guns, gas masks and tanks occupy the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, dropping canisters of tear gas on our American dreams. Those of us not yet there in Ferguson watch helplessly as the images of at least one child being tear-gassed come through our Twitter feeds, as journalists find themselves facing down the barrel of a hastily drawn police weapon or thrown in jail, as police drop stun grenades on crowds that refuse to comply with the unreasonable demand that they relinquish their right to peaceful assembly. While the world watches aghast, America’s penchant for exporting guns, tanks and destruction to other places in the name of law and order has shown up on our own doorsteps, in our backyards, with people pinned into parking lots and onto their porches. They are told they must stay where they are or risk being shot with rubber bullets or have their faces and lungs sting with the inhalation of tear gas. Public space in Ferguson is awash in black tears, but it is the sirens that we hear wailing. The people would weep, but they are too busy running, ducking and taking cover from the angry sounds of a system that does not love them, does not care about their meager “rights.” Advertisement: Meanwhile, the government attempts to placate the people with optical sleights of hand. Capt. Ron Johnson, by all accounts a sincere and affable leader and head of the highway patrol, replaced the police chief late last week, with promises that he would not employ military tactics to police the citizens of Ferguson. On Thursday I breathed a bit easier as we watched him giving hugs to protesters, marching with the people, allowing black women of faith to lay hands on him and pray. That peace was short-lived after the Ferguson police inflamed crowds by releasing irrelevant footage of a conflict that Michael Brown had at a local convenience store when he and his friend Dorian went to buy Cigarellos. Late that evening the crowds returned, only to be met by more tanks, more tear gas, more guns. Beyond shock, I continue to be appalled at the extensive lengths to which the police have gone to protect Officer Darren Wilson and his family from any public reproach or reprisal in Mike’s death. They delayed the release of his name in order to provide him enough time to leave town. They then released his name to coincide with video of the Cigarello incident, which they later admitted he knew nothing about when he stopped Mike. It is clear that the police are closing ranks, showing that they value the lives of their own more than the lives of citizens. Advertisement: We are told repeatedly that police are worthy of our respect because they risk their lives each day to protect us. That is not the case for black people. When we encounter police, our lives are at risk while they protect themselves. I started to temper my statement by saying “some police,” but that gives the impression that I am speaking of the actions of a few rogue officers. The problem with this logic is that we now know that Ferguson law enforcement has a range of problems – disproportionate stops of black residents, disproportionately low numbers of black police (three out of over 50), and a history of antagonistic exchanges with the people of St. Louis County. We have a problem of overzealous policing in this country. That problem is exacerbated by issues of race and gender, so that black men are perceived to be far more threatening than they actually are. And when black women encounter police, we are not given the protections generally afforded to white femininity. Our womanhood does not mitigate the threat of police force. This, then, is not about the actions of a rogue officer, but rather about the ideology of overpolicing that deputizes extrajudicial behavior as completely justified, as long as the life being taken or haphazardly handled is a black or brown life. Though the killing of Brown by Wilson seemingly fits a long historical script of the harassment of black people at the hands of white police officers, the reality is that overpolicing is an ideology that many police officers subscribe to regardless of color. Advertisement: That ideology is rooted in a kind of anti-blackness that sees black bodies as a perpetual and mortal threat. Anti-black rhetoric has shown up not only from the Ferguson police but also ironically in the reporting and advocacy of everyone from CNN reporter Don Lemon to rapper Nelly, in their continued focus on issues like “black-on-black crime” and the necessity of keeping law and order. “Don’t use your last option, first,” Nelly told folks on St. Louis radio. There is little recognition that it is Darren Wilson who used his last option – lethal force — first. Moreover, the whole point of using tear gas and military vehicles in this small community is to force the residents into a realization that they have run out of options. Sadly, anti-black ideology can emerge even from people who are black or who otherwise love black people. I know Americans like to see themselves as a law and order people, but the few folks who have rioted and looted over the last few days, many of whom are reportedly not Ferguson residents, were stopped in their tracks by peaceful protesters. Even still their presence exposes an inconvenient truth. The killing of unarmed teenagers by police officers is lawlessness. It shows a lack of respect for the sanctity of life and the rule of law. The supreme irony is seeing folks defend the officer’s lawlessness while calling for people destroying property to respect the law. As I keep saying, destruction of property is not particularly productive. But I refuse to direct my ire toward anyone but the officer who unjustly took Michael Brown’s life and the police establishment that is now complicit in this crime. Advertisement: I am tired. Emotionally exhausted, actually. I am tired of going to sleep each night seeing a community of people who look like me under military siege. I’m tired of seeing crying black mothers – Sybrina Fulton, Lucia McBath and Leslie McSpadden —distraught over the loss of their teenage sons Trayvon, Jordan and Michael. I’m tired of hearing report after report of people under attack from tear gas. I’m tired of journalists being bullied for trying to tell the truth. I’m tired of explaining to white people why our anger is justified, why looting, which is a property crime, should not even be part of a conversation about the killing of a teenager, why the alleged shoplifting of cigarettes is not a capital offense, why the police officer who killed Mike for the crime of walking in the street is the real thug. White racism and white privilege continue a bad cop-good cop routine with black America that is utterly exhausting. Just when we think we are making headway, a well-meaning white person asks “but can’t we condemn the looting too?” The question is: Have you condemned the killing? Or have you tried to explain it away? To justify it? I will not engage in a condemnation quid pro quo with trolls, well-meaning white citizens or respectable black ones, “Brand New Negroes” I call them, in the tradition of the famous text from Harlem Renaissance philosopher Alain Locke. I will not concede that destruction of property is equal to the taking of life. I will not answer calls to be reasonable in the face of unreasonable, unjustifiable black death. I will not believe the lie that black propriety and respectability – pulling our pants up, speaking corporate English, never, ever doing anything wrong – will save us. Advertisement: Ferguson exposes the extent to which American necropolitics shapes the terms and conditions of black life in what professor Sundiata Cha-Jua calls a new racial nadir. The first racial nadir happened from about 1890 to about 1930, when black people experienced the unprecedented loss of political gains hard won in the aftermath of the Civil War and the astronomical rise of lynching. We have indeed reached a new nadir in America’s racial life, one hard to fathom as a black president sits in the White House, abdicating his responsibility to speak forcefully and forthrightly to the problem of racism and military-style policing both for fear of being seen as too “black” and for fear of political reprisal from the right. Meanwhile, our voting rights have been stripped away, our kids are being killed in the streets, their killers rarely convicted, and our communities are placed under siege. And our black president reminds us that "there are young black men who commit crime," though he feels no responsibility to say this about any other race of people. It's a shaming tactic that suggests that black people do not have the right to be angry when our communities are beset with so many problems. It is the kind of anti-black thinking that suggests "acting respectably" will save us. These are scary times. They are times for rage. Time for telling the truth. Time for ripping the band-aids off our gaping wounds. Time to recognize that we can neither heal nor fix that which we will not confront.

www.salon.com

left

wH7mbyxfRgBgEcPY

test

1lOMiGIX7Y76RdWP

fbi

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/24/trump-evil-fbi-achievement/

Trump: ‘Getting Rid’ Of ‘Evil’ FBI Officials ‘One Of My Greatest Achievements’

2019-12-24

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he considers “ getting rid ” of the FBI officials who led the Trump-Russia probe to be one of his “ greatest achievements ” in office . “ These were dirty people . These were bad people . These were evil people , and I hope that someday I ’ m going to consider it my greatest , or one of my greatest achievements , getting rid of them , ” Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago , where he is on Christmas vacation . Trump initially responded to a question about whether he is considering a pardon for Roger Stone , the longtime GOP operative who was indicted in the special counsel ’ s investigation on charges of making false statements to Congress . Stone , who worked briefly on the Trump campaign and has known Trump for decades , was convicted on Nov. 15 . Trump said that he has yet to consider a pardon for Stone , but that he believes he was treated “ very unfair ” in the special counsel ’ s case . “ I haven ’ t thought of it . I think it ’ s very tough what they did to Roger Stone , compared to what they do to other people on their side , ” Trump said . “ Now they ’ re finding out it was a big hoax . They ’ re finding out it was a horrible thing . We were spied on , my campaign was spied on , ” Trump said . Trump did not specifically identify whom at the FBI he is glad to have ousted . Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey on May 9 , 2017 . Andrew McCabe , who served as FBI deputy director , was fired on March 16 , 2018 , after the bureau ’ s Office of Professional Responsibility and Justice Department ’ s inspector general found that he lacked candor during interviews about the authorization of media leaks in October 2016 . ( RELATED : DOJ Watchdog Puts Final Nail In Steele Dossier Coffin ) Peter Strzok , the former deputy chief of counterintelligence , was fired on Aug. 10 , 2018 over anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page . Page resigned from the bureau on May 4 , 2018 . Strzok was the lead investigator on Crossfire Hurricane , the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign . Comey and McCabe were also directly involved in the investigation . The Justice Department ’ s inspector general found that the FBI made “ significant inaccuracies ” in applications for surveillance warrants against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page . The FBI relied heavily on the Steele dossier to obtain the warrants , even though investigators had evidence that undermined dossier author Christopher Steele ’ s credibility .

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he considers “getting rid” of the FBI officials who led the Trump-Russia probe to be one of his “greatest achievements” in office. “These were dirty people. These were bad people. These were evil people, and I hope that someday I’m going to consider it my greatest, or one of my greatest achievements, getting rid of them,” Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago, where he is on Christmas vacation. Trump initially responded to a question about whether he is considering a pardon for Roger Stone, the longtime GOP operative who was indicted in the special counsel’s investigation on charges of making false statements to Congress. Stone, who worked briefly on the Trump campaign and has known Trump for decades, was convicted on Nov. 15. Trump said that he has yet to consider a pardon for Stone, but that he believes he was treated “very unfair” in the special counsel’s case. “I haven’t thought of it. I think it’s very tough what they did to Roger Stone, compared to what they do to other people on their side,” Trump said. WATCH: “Now they’re finding out it was a big hoax. They’re finding out it was a horrible thing. We were spied on, my campaign was spied on,” Trump said. Trump did not specifically identify whom at the FBI he is glad to have ousted. Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey on May 9, 2017. Andrew McCabe, who served as FBI deputy director, was fired on March 16, 2018, after the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Justice Department’s inspector general found that he lacked candor during interviews about the authorization of media leaks in October 2016. (RELATED: DOJ Watchdog Puts Final Nail In Steele Dossier Coffin) Peter Strzok, the former deputy chief of counterintelligence, was fired on Aug. 10, 2018 over anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Page resigned from the bureau on May 4, 2018. Strzok was the lead investigator on Crossfire Hurricane, the counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign. Comey and McCabe were also directly involved in the investigation. The Justice Department’s inspector general found that the FBI made “significant inaccuracies” in applications for surveillance warrants against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The FBI relied heavily on the Steele dossier to obtain the warrants, even though investigators had evidence that undermined dossier author Christopher Steele’s credibility. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

www.dailycaller.com

right

1lOMiGIX7Y76RdWP

test

iBznnUu13c16V1IC

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/03/05/coronavirus-will-be-deadly-to-your-liberty/

Coronavirus Will Be Deadly To Your Liberty

2020-03-05

J.D. Tuccille, Damon Root, Michael Abramowicz, Ronald Bailey, Josh Blackman, Eric Boehm, Nick Gillespie, Jacob Sullum

Nothing makes government grow like a crisis . People get scared , politicians respond to that fear with promises that the state will step in and make everything better , and government ends up larger and more powerful . The pandemic of COVID-19 coronavirus threatens a world-wide wave of sickness , but it 's the healthiest thing to happen to government power in a very long time . As it leaves government with a rosy glow , however , our freedom will end up more haggard than ever . `` You can look at it as socialized medicine , '' Rep. Ted Yoho ( R–Fla . ) said on Tuesday about White House proposals to have the federal government foot the bill for uninsured COVID-19 patients . `` But in the face of an outbreak , a pandemic , what 's your options ? '' Yoho is n't the only Republican to have found a new place in his heart for government control of healthcare ; obviously , the Trump administration is on-board , too . During Senate testimony , the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ' Robert Kadlec , who coordinates the department 's COVID-19 efforts , floated the idea of treating virus patients as disaster victims eligible for federal funds . What else can you do `` in the face of an outbreak , a pandemic '' that has , so far , resulted in an estimated 94,000 cases and 3,200 deaths worldwide ( though the numbers continue to grow ) ? You could , I suppose , rely on the same not-yet-entirely government-dominated health system that deals with influenza outbreaks every year . In the 2019-20 flu season , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention our long-time viral enemy has , so far , infected 32 million Americans , sent 310,000 to the hospital , and killed 18,000 . That 's not to say that COVID-19 is n't serious , or that people are n't suffering from its effects . But we forget about our annual wrestling match with a deadly disease , the flu , while freaking out about the emergence of a virus that is frightening mostly because of its novelty , despite any evidence that we 're inadequate to the challenge . Fear is the key here to Yoho 's sudden love for socialized medicine , as well as other panicked proposals for the government to somehow save us from the pandemic . Fear is a survival characteristic , but it makes us vulnerable to the impulse—or demand—that we surrender control to somebody else . `` All animals experience fear—human beings , perhaps , most of all . Any animal incapable of fear would have been hard pressed to survive , '' wrote economic historian Robert Higgs , the author of Crisis and Leviathan ( 1987 ) , a book-length examination of how bad times drive government to grow in power and scope . `` The people who have the effrontery to rule us , who call themselves our government , understand this basic fact of human nature . They exploit it , and they cultivate it . Whether they compose a warfare state or a welfare state , they depend on it to secure popular submission , compliance with official dictates , and , on some occasions , affirmative cooperation with the state 's enterprises and adventures . '' Or , as Rahm Emanuel put it in 2008 : `` You never want a serious crisis to go to waste . And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before . '' Politicians are human beings , too ( allegedly so , anyway ) and subject to fear , including fear of being voted out of office by panic-stricken constituents looking for officials to `` do something . '' So , their instinct to exploit a crisis complements their inclination to soothe the fearful by making efforts—even counterproductive ones—to assure the public that everything will be just fine . That combination of calculation and fright gave us not only a proposal to stick the taxpayers with the medical bills of the uninsured , but also a seemingly pointless cut in the fed funds rate by the Federal Reserve , and proposals for massive federal spending to off-set economic disruptions by the spread of COVID-19 . `` The Federal Reserve has become the default doctor for whatever ails the U.S. economy , '' noted a skeptical Wall Street Journal editorial board . But economic fallout from the virus `` relates mainly to the damage to global supply chains and expected limits on travel and commerce as the world tries to mitigate the rates of infection . Nobody is going to take that flight to Tokyo because the Fed is suddenly paying less on excess reserves . '' That combination of calculation and fear also gives us Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's proposal to `` enact at least a $ 400 billion fiscal stimulus package to head off the potential economic impact of coronavirus '' on top of `` free care for coronavirus '' that she also endorses . Will the spending repair disrupted supply chains and put production lines back in operation a minute sooner than demand for goods and services dictates ? Not a chance—but Warren probably hoped it would look sufficiently compassionate to those looking for government to `` do something '' to keep her ( now-concluded ) presidential campaign on life support . Public health has long been a playing field for fear and calculation , giving us intrusive laws that sit on the books , waiting to be invoked by the next microorganism to catch the public 's attention . Those laws include a nearly unlimited power to quarantine people suspected of exposure to infectious diseases—and then bill them for the confinement , as has happened to Americans returning from Wuhan , China , where COVID-19 appears to have originated . Never mind that `` quarantines of passengers arriving from mainland China appear excessive and are inconsistent with available epidemiologic data , '' according to bioethicists Lawrence Gostin and James Hodge . Crises breed more government authority , not sensible restraint . There 's usually little pushback because `` people are pretty compliant as long as they believe that their best interests are being taken care of , '' Wendy K. Mariner , a health law professor at Boston University , told The Washington Post . Like all crises , the COVID-19 pandemic will pass , hopefully with a minimum of illness and death . But it will leave behind a residue of laws , spending , and precedents for future government actions that wo n't depart in its wake . That 's because of what Higgs calls the `` ratchet effect , '' by which each crisis sees government shrink a little , but never back to its pre-crisis status . `` Thus , crisis typically has produced not just a temporarily bigger government but also permanently bigger government , '' he wrote . So , even after the public panic retreats , the politicians ' calculations subside , and COVID-19 becomes more knowable and treatable , we 'll be left with the permanent swelling of government caused by the latest crisis .

Nothing makes government grow like a crisis. People get scared, politicians respond to that fear with promises that the state will step in and make everything better, and government ends up larger and more powerful. The pandemic of COVID-19 coronavirus threatens a world-wide wave of sickness, but it's the healthiest thing to happen to government power in a very long time. As it leaves government with a rosy glow, however, our freedom will end up more haggard than ever. "You can look at it as socialized medicine," Rep. Ted Yoho (R–Fla.) said on Tuesday about White House proposals to have the federal government foot the bill for uninsured COVID-19 patients. "But in the face of an outbreak, a pandemic, what's your options?" Yoho isn't the only Republican to have found a new place in his heart for government control of healthcare; obviously, the Trump administration is on-board, too. During Senate testimony, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Robert Kadlec, who coordinates the department's COVID-19 efforts, floated the idea of treating virus patients as disaster victims eligible for federal funds. What else can you do "in the face of an outbreak, a pandemic" that has, so far, resulted in an estimated 94,000 cases and 3,200 deaths worldwide (though the numbers continue to grow)? You could, I suppose, rely on the same not-yet-entirely government-dominated health system that deals with influenza outbreaks every year. In the 2019-20 flu season, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention our long-time viral enemy has, so far, infected 32 million Americans, sent 310,000 to the hospital, and killed 18,000. That's not to say that COVID-19 isn't serious, or that people aren't suffering from its effects. But we forget about our annual wrestling match with a deadly disease, the flu, while freaking out about the emergence of a virus that is frightening mostly because of its novelty, despite any evidence that we're inadequate to the challenge. Fear is the key here to Yoho's sudden love for socialized medicine, as well as other panicked proposals for the government to somehow save us from the pandemic. Fear is a survival characteristic, but it makes us vulnerable to the impulse—or demand—that we surrender control to somebody else. "All animals experience fear—human beings, perhaps, most of all. Any animal incapable of fear would have been hard pressed to survive," wrote economic historian Robert Higgs, the author of Crisis and Leviathan (1987), a book-length examination of how bad times drive government to grow in power and scope. "The people who have the effrontery to rule us, who call themselves our government, understand this basic fact of human nature. They exploit it, and they cultivate it. Whether they compose a warfare state or a welfare state, they depend on it to secure popular submission, compliance with official dictates, and, on some occasions, affirmative cooperation with the state's enterprises and adventures." Or, as Rahm Emanuel put it in 2008: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." Politicians are human beings, too (allegedly so, anyway) and subject to fear, including fear of being voted out of office by panic-stricken constituents looking for officials to "do something." So, their instinct to exploit a crisis complements their inclination to soothe the fearful by making efforts—even counterproductive ones—to assure the public that everything will be just fine. That combination of calculation and fright gave us not only a proposal to stick the taxpayers with the medical bills of the uninsured, but also a seemingly pointless cut in the fed funds rate by the Federal Reserve, and proposals for massive federal spending to off-set economic disruptions by the spread of COVID-19. "The Federal Reserve has become the default doctor for whatever ails the U.S. economy," noted a skeptical Wall Street Journal editorial board. But economic fallout from the virus "relates mainly to the damage to global supply chains and expected limits on travel and commerce as the world tries to mitigate the rates of infection. Nobody is going to take that flight to Tokyo because the Fed is suddenly paying less on excess reserves." That combination of calculation and fear also gives us Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren's proposal to "enact at least a $400 billion fiscal stimulus package to head off the potential economic impact of coronavirus" on top of "free care for coronavirus" that she also endorses. Will the spending repair disrupted supply chains and put production lines back in operation a minute sooner than demand for goods and services dictates? Not a chance—but Warren probably hoped it would look sufficiently compassionate to those looking for government to "do something" to keep her (now-concluded) presidential campaign on life support. Public health has long been a playing field for fear and calculation, giving us intrusive laws that sit on the books, waiting to be invoked by the next microorganism to catch the public's attention. Those laws include a nearly unlimited power to quarantine people suspected of exposure to infectious diseases—and then bill them for the confinement, as has happened to Americans returning from Wuhan, China, where COVID-19 appears to have originated. Never mind that "quarantines of passengers arriving from mainland China appear excessive and are inconsistent with available epidemiologic data," according to bioethicists Lawrence Gostin and James Hodge. Crises breed more government authority, not sensible restraint. There's usually little pushback because "people are pretty compliant as long as they believe that their best interests are being taken care of," Wendy K. Mariner, a health law professor at Boston University, told The Washington Post. Like all crises, the COVID-19 pandemic will pass, hopefully with a minimum of illness and death. But it will leave behind a residue of laws, spending, and precedents for future government actions that won't depart in its wake. That's because of what Higgs calls the "ratchet effect," by which each crisis sees government shrink a little, but never back to its pre-crisis status. "Thus, crisis typically has produced not just a temporarily bigger government but also permanently bigger government," he wrote. So, even after the public panic retreats, the politicians' calculations subside, and COVID-19 becomes more knowable and treatable, we'll be left with the permanent swelling of government caused by the latest crisis.

www.reason.com

right

iBznnUu13c16V1IC

test

hAj30zsbA03ldNbW

fbi

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46353111

Paul Manafort: Trump ex-aide lied to FBI, Mueller said

US prosecutors say Paul Manafort , Donald Trump 's former campaign chief , has breached a plea bargain agreement by repeatedly lying to the FBI . Manafort was convicted of financial fraud in August relating to his work as a political consultant in Ukraine . He then accepted a plea deal on other charges in return for co-operating with Robert Mueller 's probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election . However , Special Counsel Robert Mueller said that Manafort lied `` on a variety of subject matters '' after signing the plea deal . The latest development means that Mr Mueller 's investigation has lost a key witness . Manafort 's lawyers insist that he did not breach the plea deal - however , both sides now agree that there is no reason to delay sentencing . President Trump lashed out at the special counsel on Tuesday morning . In August Manafort was convicted on eight counts of fraud , bank fraud and failing to disclose bank accounts . A month later he pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy against the US and one charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice in a plea bargain with Mr Mueller . The agreement avoided a second trial on money laundering and other charges . The plea deal meant Manafort would face up to 10 years in prison and would forfeit four of his properties and the contents of several bank accounts - but deadlocked charges from the previous trial would be dismissed . It was the first criminal trial arising from the justice department 's investigation into alleged Russian interference in the presidential elections . However , the charges related only to Manafort 's political consulting with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine , largely pre-dating his role with the Trump campaign . The White House has insisted that the guilty plea had absolutely nothing to do with President Trump . In a court filing on Monday , Mr Mueller said that after signing the deal `` Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel 's office on a variety of subject matters '' . The filing did not give details of what Manafort allegedly lied about . In the same filing , Manafort 's legal team said their client had `` provided information to the government in an effort to live up to his co-operation obligations '' . `` He believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government 's characterisation or that he has breached the agreement , '' his lawyers said . As prosecutors allege he breached the agreement , Manafort could now potentially face harsher sentences or have charges against him re-filed . Manafort has been held in a detention centre in Virginia since June . This is seen as a blow to Mr Mueller 's Russia probe . As investigators no longer believe Manafort is a credible witness , they will not be able to use his testimony in their case . Experts say Manafort could now face a longer prison sentence and more criminal charges . One lawyer told Reuters that the consequences could be `` potentially devastating '' for Manafort . However , some observers have speculated that Manafort might be hoping for a presidential pardon . Manafort , 69 , worked for the Trump presidential campaign for five months in 2016 and was in charge when Mr Trump clinched the Republican party nomination . President Trump has branded the Mueller investigation a `` witch hunt '' and insisted there was no collusion between his team and Russia . The Kremlin has also repeatedly denied any meddling . Manafort was charged by Mr Mueller last October and at trial he was accused of using 31 foreign bank accounts in three different countries to evade taxes on millions of dollars . Prosecutors presented evidence of Manafort 's luxurious lifestyle , saying it was only possible because of his bank and tax fraud .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Paul Manafort was found guilty of multiple fraud charges US prosecutors say Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chief, has breached a plea bargain agreement by repeatedly lying to the FBI. Manafort was convicted of financial fraud in August relating to his work as a political consultant in Ukraine. He then accepted a plea deal on other charges in return for co-operating with Robert Mueller's probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Manafort's lawyers say they believe he provided truthful information However, Special Counsel Robert Mueller said that Manafort lied "on a variety of subject matters" after signing the plea deal. The latest development means that Mr Mueller's investigation has lost a key witness. Manafort's lawyers insist that he did not breach the plea deal - however, both sides now agree that there is no reason to delay sentencing. President Trump lashed out at the special counsel on Tuesday morning. What was the plea deal? In August Manafort was convicted on eight counts of fraud, bank fraud and failing to disclose bank accounts. A month later he pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy against the US and one charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice in a plea bargain with Mr Mueller. The agreement avoided a second trial on money laundering and other charges. The plea deal meant Manafort would face up to 10 years in prison and would forfeit four of his properties and the contents of several bank accounts - but deadlocked charges from the previous trial would be dismissed. It was the first criminal trial arising from the justice department's investigation into alleged Russian interference in the presidential elections. However, the charges related only to Manafort's political consulting with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, largely pre-dating his role with the Trump campaign. The White House has insisted that the guilty plea had absolutely nothing to do with President Trump. What does Robert Mueller say now? In a court filing on Monday, Mr Mueller said that after signing the deal "Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel's office on a variety of subject matters". The filing did not give details of what Manafort allegedly lied about. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Paul Manafort's downfall has been celebrated by some In the same filing, Manafort's legal team said their client had "provided information to the government in an effort to live up to his co-operation obligations". "He believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government's characterisation or that he has breached the agreement," his lawyers said. As prosecutors allege he breached the agreement, Manafort could now potentially face harsher sentences or have charges against him re-filed. Manafort has been held in a detention centre in Virginia since June. What are the wider repercussions? This is seen as a blow to Mr Mueller's Russia probe. As investigators no longer believe Manafort is a credible witness, they will not be able to use his testimony in their case. Experts say Manafort could now face a longer prison sentence and more criminal charges. One lawyer told Reuters that the consequences could be "potentially devastating" for Manafort. However, some observers have speculated that Manafort might be hoping for a presidential pardon. How did we get here? Manafort, 69, worked for the Trump presidential campaign for five months in 2016 and was in charge when Mr Trump clinched the Republican party nomination. President Trump has branded the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt" and insisted there was no collusion between his team and Russia. The Kremlin has also repeatedly denied any meddling. Manafort was charged by Mr Mueller last October and at trial he was accused of using 31 foreign bank accounts in three different countries to evade taxes on millions of dollars. Prosecutors presented evidence of Manafort's luxurious lifestyle, saying it was only possible because of his bank and tax fraud.

www.bbc.com

center

hAj30zsbA03ldNbW

test

iqfKrOSIWKLZE2zU

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/shutdown-countdown-6-days-to-go/

Shutdown Countdown: 6 Days To Go

Arlette Saenz

Where things stand : Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the continuing resolution in the Senate on Monday afternoon . Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , asked Reid to consider two procedural maneuvers : The first was to unanimously agree to pass the House-approved resolution , which removes funding for Obamacare , and the second was to require a 60-vote threshold for any amendments . Reid objected to both requests and later in the day filed cloture on the motion to proceed , setting up the first filibuster vote for Wednesday . Who 's saying what : After Reid shot down his requests , Cruz tried to turn the tables on Reid , arguing that the majority leader 's objections were what 's pushing the government closer to a shutdown . `` Five minutes ago , the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown , '' Cruz said Monday . `` But unfortunately , the majority leader chose to object and to say no . He would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it . '' And Cruz warned his Republican colleagues that a vote in favor of cloture `` will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund Obamacare on 51 votes . '' But shortly after Cruz tried to rally his Republican colleagues to vote against cloture , a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that McConnell would not support Cruz 's filibuster push . Instead , the Kentucky Republican , along with the Senate 's No . 2 Republican Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas , said they would not block a bill that would defund Obamacare . Translation : They will vote in favor of cloture , since they support the House resolution , but they 'll ultimately vote against the final Senate amended resolution . Where things are heading : Let 's just say it 's going to be a long week in the Senate . Cruz has vowed to use every procedural measure available to him , including a filibuster , to try to keep the Senate from stripping the defund Obamacare language from the CR , so it is expected that this vote will go down to the wire . Here 's a look at how things might shake out over the next few days . The Senate will hold votes on some judicial nominees in the morning before heading to the weekly caucus lunches . Later in the afternoon , it will keep an eye on the Senate floor for Cruz , who is expected to speak and could lay out his plans moving forward . The Senate will have its first test vote when it votes to end debate on the motion to proceed , which will require 60 votes to pass . Reid has indicated this vote would occur no later than noon . If the vote passes , a 30-hour clock would start before the Senate can vote on a motion to proceed . At the end of the 30 hours , the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed . At this time , Reid can file the amendment that would strip the Obamacare defunding language from the bill . Reid would then file cloture on the resolution , setting up a vote to end debate for Saturday . This is a day of debate during which Cruz could launch a filibuster to try to keep the Senate from taking out the defund Obamacare language . The Senate will vote to end debate on the resolution , which will require 60 votes . The 30- hour clock would then start , allowing for the final votes to occur on Sunday . The Senate will hold two votes on Sunday . The first would be to approve the amendment that would strip the defunding language from the CR , and the second would be on final passage of the bill , at which point it would be sent back to the House .

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images|Frank Franklin II/AP Photo Days till government shutdown: 6 Where things stand: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the continuing resolution in the Senate on Monday afternoon. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Reid to consider two procedural maneuvers: The first was to unanimously agree to pass the House-approved resolution, which removes funding for Obamacare, and the second was to require a 60-vote threshold for any amendments. Reid objected to both requests and later in the day filed cloture on the motion to proceed, setting up the first filibuster vote for Wednesday. Who's saying what: After Reid shot down his requests, Cruz tried to turn the tables on Reid, arguing that the majority leader's objections were what's pushing the government closer to a shutdown. "Five minutes ago, the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown," Cruz said Monday. "But unfortunately, the majority leader chose to object and to say no. He would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it." And Cruz warned his Republican colleagues that a vote in favor of cloture "will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund Obamacare on 51 votes." But shortly after Cruz tried to rally his Republican colleagues to vote against cloture, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that McConnell would not support Cruz's filibuster push. Instead, the Kentucky Republican, along with the Senate's No. 2 Republican Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said they would not block a bill that would defund Obamacare. Translation: They will vote in favor of cloture, since they support the House resolution, but they'll ultimately vote against the final Senate amended resolution. Where things are heading: Let's just say it's going to be a long week in the Senate. Cruz has vowed to use every procedural measure available to him, including a filibuster, to try to keep the Senate from stripping the defund Obamacare language from the CR, so it is expected that this vote will go down to the wire. Here's a look at how things might shake out over the next few days. Tuesday, Sept. 24 The Senate will hold votes on some judicial nominees in the morning before heading to the weekly caucus lunches. Later in the afternoon, it will keep an eye on the Senate floor for Cruz, who is expected to speak and could lay out his plans moving forward. Wednesday, Sept. 25 The Senate will have its first test vote when it votes to end debate on the motion to proceed, which will require 60 votes to pass. Reid has indicated this vote would occur no later than noon. If the vote passes, a 30-hour clock would start before the Senate can vote on a motion to proceed. Thursday, Sept. 26 At the end of the 30 hours, the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed. At this time, Reid can file the amendment that would strip the Obamacare defunding language from the bill. Reid would then file cloture on the resolution, setting up a vote to end debate for Saturday. Friday, Sept. 27 This is a day of debate during which Cruz could launch a filibuster to try to keep the Senate from taking out the defund Obamacare language. Saturday, Sept. 28 The Senate will vote to end debate on the resolution, which will require 60 votes. The 30- hour clock would then start, allowing for the final votes to occur on Sunday. Sunday, Sept. 29 The Senate will hold two votes on Sunday. The first would be to approve the amendment that would strip the defunding language from the CR, and the second would be on final passage of the bill, at which point it would be sent back to the House.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

iqfKrOSIWKLZE2zU

test

oivTGZJRO3iKgLVe

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/30/pelosi-rules-out-budget-deal-without-new-taxes/?hpt=po_t1

Pelosi rules out budget deal without new tax revenues

2013-10-30

Washington ( CNN ) - House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is ruling out any budget deal that does not include new tax revenues . She was responding to a report on Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that said President Barack Obama has signaled he wouldn ’ t insist on that condition . `` Our position is that we are going to the table in order to reduce the deficit , grow the economy , create jobs , end the sequester - revenue needs to be on the table , '' Pelosi said when asked by CNN about the report . The article said Obama indicated in discussions with Senate Republicans that he could support a proposal to eliminate some of the forced sequester spending cuts , even if they were paid for without tax increases . Senate Republicans suggested the President was open to using savings from changes to entitlement programs , such as agriculture subsidies . For the first time in four years a bicameral bipartisan budget conference committee met Wednesday to work on a fiscal blueprint to address federal spending levels . Pelosi argued any proposal addressing the budget has to be comprehensive . `` If you 're not going to have revenue who 's going to pay ? Granny on Medicare ? That 's not something we can accept , '' Pelosi said . She is n't the only top Democrat closing the door on a fiscal deal without new revenues . Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked on Tuesday if he would consider such an agreement and he said , `` No . '' The budget committee session in the Capitol lasted two and a half hours , but the meeting consisted mostly of House and Senate members on the panel restating their positions . Many of them urged Congress to compromise , but there was no back and forth about any potential agreement . The chairman of the panel , House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan , announced the committee wo n't meet in another open session for two weeks , stating that both chambers are n't scheduled to be in Washington at the same time until then .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is ruling out any budget deal that does not include new tax revenues. She was responding to a report on Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal that said President Barack Obama has signaled he wouldn’t insist on that condition. "Our position is that we are going to the table in order to reduce the deficit, grow the economy, create jobs, end the sequester - revenue needs to be on the table," Pelosi said when asked by CNN about the report. The article said Obama indicated in discussions with Senate Republicans that he could support a proposal to eliminate some of the forced sequester spending cuts, even if they were paid for without tax increases. Senate Republicans suggested the President was open to using savings from changes to entitlement programs, such as agriculture subsidies. For the first time in four years a bicameral bipartisan budget conference committee met Wednesday to work on a fiscal blueprint to address federal spending levels. Pelosi argued any proposal addressing the budget has to be comprehensive. "If you're not going to have revenue who's going to pay? Granny on Medicare? That's not something we can accept," Pelosi said. She isn't the only top Democrat closing the door on a fiscal deal without new revenues. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked on Tuesday if he would consider such an agreement and he said, "No." The budget committee session in the Capitol lasted two and a half hours, but the meeting consisted mostly of House and Senate members on the panel restating their positions. Many of them urged Congress to compromise, but there was no back and forth about any potential agreement. The chairman of the panel, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, announced the committee won't meet in another open session for two weeks, stating that both chambers aren't scheduled to be in Washington at the same time until then.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

oivTGZJRO3iKgLVe

test

ibM4yhwN5JQ0tDSl

education

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/025ecb79f9c394b451ee9c5f7dc6ae03

SAT and ACT college tests canceled because of virus fears

2020-03-16

Jeff Amy

Students leave Lewis and Clark High School at the end of classes Friday , March 13 , 2020 , in Spokane , Wash. To protect against the spread of the new coronavirus , Gov . Jay Inslee has ordered all public and private schools in districts across the state closed , starting Tuesday , March 17 through April 24 . ( Colin Mulvany/The Spokesman-Review via AP ) Students leave Lewis and Clark High School at the end of classes Friday , March 13 , 2020 , in Spokane , Wash. To protect against the spread of the new coronavirus , Gov . Jay Inslee has ordered all public and private schools in districts across the state closed , starting Tuesday , March 17 through April 24 . ( Colin Mulvany/The Spokesman-Review via AP ) Spring dates for college admissions tests are being rescheduled or postponed amid concerns about the coronavirus , while high school seniors may be allowed to take Advanced Placement exams to earn college credit from home . The groups that give both the ACT and SAT tests announced Monday that they ’ re putting off the next nationwide examinations . The April 4 ACT test has been rescheduled for June 13 while the May 2 SAT has been canceled . The spring tests are typically prime dates for high school juniors planning to apply to colleges the next fall . No testing now could mean some students can ’ t take tests multiple times to try to get higher scores . “ The class of 2021 will actually be the most affected class , ” said Sara Harberson , a former admissions dean who counsels high school students on college admission . Harberson , based in Philadelphia , said many high school juniors take the tests for the first time during this season . “ All of these students are stressed about how this impacts their college decision . ” The SAT was administered last Saturday , but a number of sites that were scheduled to host the exam canceled plans , some leaving students in the lurch at the last minute . The College Board said it ’ s also canceling the March 28 makeup date for those who missed Saturday ’ s tests . The College Board couldn ’ t immediately say on Monday how many students took the SAT Saturday or how many sites were shuttered , said spokeswoman Jaslee Carayol . Iowa-based ACT said all students registered for April 4 will be offered the chance to reschedule for June 13 or another future test date . The New York-based College Board said everyone registered for the May 2 SAT would receive refunds . The College Board said it would seek to provide additional testing opportunities , and said that the June 6 exam date remains scheduled , at least for now . For most people , the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms , such as fever and cough . For some , especially older adults and people with existing health problems , it can cause more severe illness , including pneumonia . The vast majority of people recover from the new virus . The situation could lead more schools to scrap requirements that students take the tests . Although application deadlines have already passed for most schools , a few with rolling admissions or who are struggling to fill their freshman class are already waiving test requirements for current seniors . Colleges are also having to consider changing dates for seniors to accept offers of admission or make deposits said Joyce Smith , the CEO for the National Association of College Admission Counseling . Plus there are concerns over high schools being able to issue final transcripts if they don ’ t reopen this spring . “ The situation is changing by the hour , practically , ” she said . The association itself has canceled 38 college admission fairs set for this spring . The College Board said it ’ s working with local schools who give the SAT and PSAT on school days . Many schools also give the ACT during regular class time , instead of on Saturday , when the exams have traditionally been given . The College Board also administers Advanced Placement exams to high school students seeking to earn college credit . The board said it ’ s trying to develop “ streamlined AP Exam options ” that would allow student to test from home . The board promised an update on its plans by Friday . Smith said the College Board faces particular difficulty because it gives all its tests on paper , while the ACT has developed some electronic exams . The International Baccalaureate organization , which also gives exams aimed at certifying advanced high school proficiency , has said it ’ s not delaying its May exams . The ███ receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute ’ s Department of Science Education . The AP is solely responsible for all content .

Students leave Lewis and Clark High School at the end of classes Friday, March 13, 2020, in Spokane, Wash. To protect against the spread of the new coronavirus, Gov. Jay Inslee has ordered all public and private schools in districts across the state closed, starting Tuesday, March 17 through April 24. (Colin Mulvany/The Spokesman-Review via AP) Students leave Lewis and Clark High School at the end of classes Friday, March 13, 2020, in Spokane, Wash. To protect against the spread of the new coronavirus, Gov. Jay Inslee has ordered all public and private schools in districts across the state closed, starting Tuesday, March 17 through April 24. (Colin Mulvany/The Spokesman-Review via AP) Spring dates for college admissions tests are being rescheduled or postponed amid concerns about the coronavirus , while high school seniors may be allowed to take Advanced Placement exams to earn college credit from home. The groups that give both the ACT and SAT tests announced Monday that they’re putting off the next nationwide examinations. The April 4 ACT test has been rescheduled for June 13 while the May 2 SAT has been canceled. The spring tests are typically prime dates for high school juniors planning to apply to colleges the next fall. No testing now could mean some students can’t take tests multiple times to try to get higher scores. “The class of 2021 will actually be the most affected class,” said Sara Harberson, a former admissions dean who counsels high school students on college admission. Harberson, based in Philadelphia, said many high school juniors take the tests for the first time during this season. “All of these students are stressed about how this impacts their college decision.” The SAT was administered last Saturday, but a number of sites that were scheduled to host the exam canceled plans, some leaving students in the lurch at the last minute. The College Board said it’s also canceling the March 28 makeup date for those who missed Saturday’s tests. The College Board couldn’t immediately say on Monday how many students took the SAT Saturday or how many sites were shuttered, said spokeswoman Jaslee Carayol. Iowa-based ACT said all students registered for April 4 will be offered the chance to reschedule for June 13 or another future test date. The New York-based College Board said everyone registered for the May 2 SAT would receive refunds. The College Board said it would seek to provide additional testing opportunities, and said that the June 6 exam date remains scheduled, at least for now. For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia. The vast majority of people recover from the new virus. The situation could lead more schools to scrap requirements that students take the tests. Although application deadlines have already passed for most schools, a few with rolling admissions or who are struggling to fill their freshman class are already waiving test requirements for current seniors. Colleges are also having to consider changing dates for seniors to accept offers of admission or make deposits said Joyce Smith, the CEO for the National Association of College Admission Counseling. Plus there are concerns over high schools being able to issue final transcripts if they don’t reopen this spring. “The situation is changing by the hour, practically,” she said. The association itself has canceled 38 college admission fairs set for this spring. The College Board said it’s working with local schools who give the SAT and PSAT on school days. Many schools also give the ACT during regular class time, instead of on Saturday, when the exams have traditionally been given. The College Board also administers Advanced Placement exams to high school students seeking to earn college credit. The board said it’s trying to develop “streamlined AP Exam options” that would allow student to test from home. The board promised an update on its plans by Friday. Smith said the College Board faces particular difficulty because it gives all its tests on paper, while the ACT has developed some electronic exams. The International Baccalaureate organization, which also gives exams aimed at certifying advanced high school proficiency, has said it’s not delaying its May exams. ___ The Associated Press receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

www.apnews.com

center

ibM4yhwN5JQ0tDSl

test

VZwb7sGpl6NMfcdM

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/13/peter-navarro-trump-coronavirus-cbs-60-minutes

Trump adviser Navarro defends US response in angry CBS interview

2020-04-13

Martin Pengelly

Trump ’ s coronavirus tsar Peter Navarro defended the administration ’ s pandemic response on CBS on Sunday night , angrily challenging his hosts to show him how they had covered pandemic preparations under previous administrations . Peter Navarro : what Trump 's Covid-19 tsar lacks in expertise , he makes up Read more “ I challenge you , ” said Navarro , “ show me the 60 Minutes episode a year ago , two years ago , or during the Obama administration , during the Bush administration that said , ‘ Hey , global pandemic ’ s coming , you got ta do X , Y and Z , and , by the way , we got ta shut down the economy to fight it . “ Show me that episode . Then you ’ ll have some credence in terms of attacking the Trump administration for not being prepared . ” 60 Minutes duly ran clips from a 2009 feature on the fight against H1N1 , or swine flu – “ a pandemic , meaning it ’ s a global epidemic , the first flu pandemic in 41 years ” – and a 2005 section on H5N1 , or avian flu , which the show said had “ the potential to cause an influenza pandemic similar to the one that killed 50 million people in 1918 ” . The 2005 piece included an interview with Dr Anthony Fauci , the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who is now a leading public health expert in the Trump White House , under increasing fire from the president . “ I don ’ t see it as an exercise because it could be the big one , ” Fauci said then , of preparations being pursued by the federal government . “ It could be , and if it is our rushing around doing what we need to do , pushing the envelope is not for nought or in vain . ” Navarro is a China hawk and trade adviser with a checkered political past . Last month , Trump named him Defense Production Act policy coordinator , in charge of enforcing the production of masks , PPE , ventilators and other badly needed medical supplies as the coronavirus , Covid-19 , spreads throughout the US . According to Johns Hopkins University , by Monday nearly 560,000 cases had been confirmed in the US and more than 22,000 people had died . In New York state , more than three times as many people have died as were killed on 9/11 . Nationally , experts currently expect 60,000 deaths by August . The US economy remains shuttered , and unemployment is soaring . Trump was warned in January of Covid-19 's devastating impact , memos reveal Read more Trump ’ s lack of preparation and failure to respond quickly has been relentlessly examined in the media , with Navarro among advisers reported to have warned the president of the potentially catastrophic nature of the approaching pandemic . But when the 60 Minutes host Bill Whitaker challenged Navarro about claims by Trump among others that nobody could have anticipated the outbreak , Navarro responded pugnaciously . “ Let me push back a little bit on that , ” he said . “ I don ’ t know what you mean . It ’ s like an intelligence agency said a global pandemic could happen . I mean , I ’ m sure they ’ ve been saying that for decades and nobody took them seriously . Why ? Well , black swans are hard to sell and this was the 500-year flood . This hasn ’ t happened since 1917 . ”

Trump’s coronavirus tsar Peter Navarro defended the administration’s pandemic response on CBS on Sunday night, angrily challenging his hosts to show him how they had covered pandemic preparations under previous administrations. Peter Navarro: what Trump's Covid-19 tsar lacks in expertise, he makes up Read more So 60 Minutes did. “I challenge you,” said Navarro, “show me the 60 Minutes episode a year ago, two years ago, or during the Obama administration, during the Bush administration that said, ‘Hey, global pandemic’s coming, you gotta do X, Y and Z, and, by the way, we gotta shut down the economy to fight it. “Show me that episode. Then you’ll have some credence in terms of attacking the Trump administration for not being prepared.” 60 Minutes duly ran clips from a 2009 feature on the fight against H1N1, or swine flu – “a pandemic, meaning it’s a global epidemic, the first flu pandemic in 41 years” – and a 2005 section on H5N1, or avian flu, which the show said had “the potential to cause an influenza pandemic similar to the one that killed 50 million people in 1918”. The 2005 piece included an interview with Dr Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who is now a leading public health expert in the Trump White House, under increasing fire from the president. “I don’t see it as an exercise because it could be the big one,” Fauci said then, of preparations being pursued by the federal government. “It could be, and if it is our rushing around doing what we need to do, pushing the envelope is not for nought or in vain.” Navarro is a China hawk and trade adviser with a checkered political past. Last month, Trump named him Defense Production Act policy coordinator, in charge of enforcing the production of masks, PPE, ventilators and other badly needed medical supplies as the coronavirus, Covid-19, spreads throughout the US. According to Johns Hopkins University, by Monday nearly 560,000 cases had been confirmed in the US and more than 22,000 people had died. In New York state, more than three times as many people have died as were killed on 9/11. Nationally, experts currently expect 60,000 deaths by August. The US economy remains shuttered, and unemployment is soaring. Trump was warned in January of Covid-19's devastating impact, memos reveal Read more Trump’s lack of preparation and failure to respond quickly has been relentlessly examined in the media, with Navarro among advisers reported to have warned the president of the potentially catastrophic nature of the approaching pandemic. But when the 60 Minutes host Bill Whitaker challenged Navarro about claims by Trump among others that nobody could have anticipated the outbreak, Navarro responded pugnaciously. “Let me push back a little bit on that,” he said. “I don’t know what you mean. It’s like an intelligence agency said a global pandemic could happen. I mean, I’m sure they’ve been saying that for decades and nobody took them seriously. Why? Well, black swans are hard to sell and this was the 500-year flood. This hasn’t happened since 1917.” Then he issued his fateful challenge.

www.theguardian.com

left

VZwb7sGpl6NMfcdM

test

s3yb3YXgiHznfbSw

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/black_americas_baltimore_schism_why_the_freddie_gray_tragedy_demands_serious_soul_searching/

Black America's Baltimore schism: Why the Freddie Gray tragedy demands serious soul-searching

2015-04-29

Brittney Cooper

Baltimore has erupted . Its citizens have taken to the streets to rebel against an undue and all-too-common show of excessive force against citizens by the police . Most recently , the Baltimore Police applied such force when arresting 25-year-old Freddie Gray that they severed his spinal cord . Arrested apparently for making eye contact with the police -- essentially for daring to look while Black -- Gray was denied medical care . He ended up in a coma and died seven days after being arrested . On Monday , despite calls for a peaceful day out of respect for Freddie ’ s burial , protesters took to the streets , smashing stores , burning buildings , and taking property from a mall , a CVS , and a check casher . These acts of justifiable rage and rebellion whipped the media and government officials into a frenzy , calling for the “ thugs ” and “ criminals ” of Baltimore to be arrested and locked up . A procession of respectable-sounding Black folks got on television , the Rev . Jamal Harrison Bryant the most visible among them , calling for peace and an end to the violence . I watched on the news as people smashed the windows of the check casher . And I couldn ’ t muster even the faintest anger or outrage toward them . The presence of these check-cashing businesses is one of the key physical features of Black and poor neighborhoods that you rarely see in affluent neighborhoods -- places where poor people , in the absence of bank accounts , are forced to pay exorbitant fees just to access the money they have fairly earned . These kinds of businesses prey on our most vulnerable citizens , and do so under the guise of offering a needed service . That the residents chose that business to smash suggests that at least some of them recognize the ways in which such companies extract the meager resources of local residents . Others may simply have thought there was money on the premises . But the idea that all citizens who rebel against an unjust system must have righteous intentions in order for their actions to be worthy of respect is simply ludicrous . The oppressed are not a monolith . They don ’ t move or think with one mind . They don ’ t all react to injustice in the same way . Nor should they . The right of the people to revolt in response to unjust conditions is a founding principle of this Republic . But another founding principle of this republic is that Black people are not fully human . Therefore they are not legitimately `` the people , '' not a part of the `` demos '' in democracy . Thus revolution and rebellion remain the province and property of America 's white citizens . All other comers are illegitimate . The Baltimore rebellion arises at a singular moment in history , as three Black women have been tasked with restoring law and order : The first is Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake , who gave a statement on Monday condemning the “ thugs ” doing violence in the city . The second is Gen. Linda Singh , an officer with the Maryland National Guard , who appeared in military fatigues , in a show of state force and authority . And finally , there is Attorney General Loretta Lynch , who was being sworn in at the exact same moment that the protests erupted in Baltimore . What does it mean that three Black women have an unprecedented amount of municipal , national and military power to put down a rebellion ? I must admit I am conflicted . When you grow up as a Black girl overachiever in this country , you are taught that the levels of power and prestige that these three women have are the very kinds of power and access that our ancestors fought and died for us to even have the possibility of experiencing . Simply on the basis of Black exceptionalism , I am supposed to be magnificently proud of these three women – of the kind of possibility they represent . Not one of these women stands in the place of power she stands in without having battled for it : Take , for example , the GOP ’ s now-legendary obstruction of Lynch ’ s nomination . In a similar vein , climbing through the military ranks and landing a position of substantial authority , as Singh has done , is notoriously difficult for any woman . Just look to the sexist comments Rawlings-Blake has faced on social media in recent days for a sign of what a woman in authority faces on a regular basis . But our ancestors did not fight for us to get access to these spaces just so that we could act like white supremacists in Blackface . They wanted us there so we could do the work of justice . So while my Black feminist , Black woman , Black girl overachiever self wants to stand and champion these women and their presences as a triumph of American democracy , I can not . Their presence proves that American empire , in its most democratic iteration , is no respecter of persons . Any person willing to do the state ’ s bidding can have a role to play . Lynch ’ s first statement as attorney general begins : “ I condemn the senseless acts of violence by some individuals in Baltimore that have resulted in harm to law enforcement officers , destruction of property and a shattering of the peace in the city of Baltimore . ” I recognize that this is the kind of thing those appointed to enforce law and order must say . But it is rooted in a fundamental kind of dishonesty . For respectable citizens , a shattering of the peace sounds like broken windows and burning businesses . But I would submit that the shattering of the peace for Baltimore ’ s poor and disenfranchised residents sounds much quieter -- it sounds like the snapping of Freddie Gray ’ s neck , and the crushing of his voice box so no one could hear his screams , in the back of a van driven by those sworn to protect him . To narrate the story in any other way is to propagate a pathological level of deception about who the real criminals and the real victims are . To continue to condemn as senseless acts of violence things that actually make perfect damn sense is only to further this pathology . If the police are the criminals then what sense does it make to tell ordinary citizens to sit at home , quietly observing law-and-order ? What sense does it make to ask those citizens to keep faith with a system that would sooner snap their necks for committing virtually no crime rather than give them due process ? And for an attorney general who has watched lawmakers skirt right up to the edge of the law in order to prevent her from obtaining her position , what sense does it make to be a law-enforcement sympathizer ? For any person who has ever been angry enough to throw a glass against a wall , or destroy one ’ s personal property out of sheer frustration and injustice , the anger of citizens who are daily subjected to indignities , violations of personal space , and limited opportunity makes perfect sense . Baltimore is a city with a Black mayor and a large Black middle class . These folks have worked hard and been rewarded well by the system . In this moment , class schisms among Black people become apparent , as respectable middle-class Black citizens plead for an end to violence , and hope against hope that they won ’ t be mistaken for their lower-class brethren . Baltimore teaches us that Black bodies can propagate anti-black state violence . It ’ s the very kind of internecine struggle that won ’ t help any of us get free . I am a middle-class Black person , but I have seen cops harass my family members . I have seen predatory lending practices devastate those I love . I see multigenerational poverty nipping at the heels of relatives who have not been as fortunate on the path as me . And I am angry about it . Believing in the myth of my own exceptionalism helped me to make a way out of a working-class existence . But it didn ’ t help anybody else . Because exceptionalism by its very nature is not meant to have mass impact . As we watch Baltimore burn , Black folks will have to do some serious soul-searching about where our solidarities will lie . Are they going to lie in our allegiance to our comfortable middle-class existences and deep desires for success in a fundamentally effed-up system , or are they going to reside with those still struggling to make it ? If we are going to push America to stop sanctioning the killings of our people , then we will have to decide to throw our lot in with the people , to recognize that no matter how fancy we look on the outside , in the right circumstance , all of us are just one police encounter away from the grave . Freddie Gray ’ s death , though tragic , is instructive . If you want to kill a thing , snap its neck . It might take us a while to snap the back of white supremacy , but it is past time for us to handcuff it , put it in a van without a seatbelt and take it for a “ rough ride. ” When we all emerge , hopefully , at the very least , white supremacy will be on life support .

Baltimore has erupted. Its citizens have taken to the streets to rebel against an undue and all-too-common show of excessive force against citizens by the police. Most recently, the Baltimore Police applied such force when arresting 25-year-old Freddie Gray that they severed his spinal cord. Arrested apparently for making eye contact with the police -- essentially for daring to look while Black -- Gray was denied medical care. He ended up in a coma and died seven days after being arrested. On Monday, despite calls for a peaceful day out of respect for Freddie’s burial, protesters took to the streets, smashing stores, burning buildings, and taking property from a mall, a CVS, and a check casher. These acts of justifiable rage and rebellion whipped the media and government officials into a frenzy, calling for the “thugs” and “criminals” of Baltimore to be arrested and locked up. A procession of respectable-sounding Black folks got on television, the Rev. Jamal Harrison Bryant the most visible among them, calling for peace and an end to the violence. Advertisement: I watched on the news as people smashed the windows of the check casher. And I couldn’t muster even the faintest anger or outrage toward them. The presence of these check-cashing businesses is one of the key physical features of Black and poor neighborhoods that you rarely see in affluent neighborhoods -- places where poor people, in the absence of bank accounts, are forced to pay exorbitant fees just to access the money they have fairly earned. These kinds of businesses prey on our most vulnerable citizens, and do so under the guise of offering a needed service. That the residents chose that business to smash suggests that at least some of them recognize the ways in which such companies extract the meager resources of local residents. Others may simply have thought there was money on the premises. But the idea that all citizens who rebel against an unjust system must have righteous intentions in order for their actions to be worthy of respect is simply ludicrous. The oppressed are not a monolith. They don’t move or think with one mind. They don’t all react to injustice in the same way. Nor should they. The right of the people to revolt in response to unjust conditions is a founding principle of this Republic. But another founding principle of this republic is that Black people are not fully human. Therefore they are not legitimately "the people," not a part of the "demos" in democracy. Thus revolution and rebellion remain the province and property of America's white citizens. All other comers are illegitimate. Advertisement: The Baltimore rebellion arises at a singular moment in history, as three Black women have been tasked with restoring law and order: The first is Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who gave a statement on Monday condemning the “thugs” doing violence in the city. The second is Gen. Linda Singh, an officer with the Maryland National Guard, who appeared in military fatigues, in a show of state force and authority. And finally, there is Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was being sworn in at the exact same moment that the protests erupted in Baltimore. What does it mean that three Black women have an unprecedented amount of municipal, national and military power to put down a rebellion? I must admit I am conflicted. When you grow up as a Black girl overachiever in this country, you are taught that the levels of power and prestige that these three women have are the very kinds of power and access that our ancestors fought and died for us to even have the possibility of experiencing. Simply on the basis of Black exceptionalism, I am supposed to be magnificently proud of these three women – of the kind of possibility they represent. Not one of these women stands in the place of power she stands in without having battled for it: Take, for example, the GOP’s now-legendary obstruction of Lynch’s nomination. In a similar vein, climbing through the military ranks and landing a position of substantial authority, as Singh has done, is notoriously difficult for any woman. Just look to the sexist comments Rawlings-Blake has faced on social media in recent days for a sign of what a woman in authority faces on a regular basis. Advertisement: But our ancestors did not fight for us to get access to these spaces just so that we could act like white supremacists in Blackface. They wanted us there so we could do the work of justice. So while my Black feminist, Black woman, Black girl overachiever self wants to stand and champion these women and their presences as a triumph of American democracy, I cannot. Their presence proves that American empire, in its most democratic iteration, is no respecter of persons. Any person willing to do the state’s bidding can have a role to play. Lynch’s first statement as attorney general begins: “I condemn the senseless acts of violence by some individuals in Baltimore that have resulted in harm to law enforcement officers, destruction of property and a shattering of the peace in the city of Baltimore.” Advertisement: I recognize that this is the kind of thing those appointed to enforce law and order must say. But it is rooted in a fundamental kind of dishonesty. For respectable citizens, a shattering of the peace sounds like broken windows and burning businesses. But I would submit that the shattering of the peace for Baltimore’s poor and disenfranchised residents sounds much quieter -- it sounds like the snapping of Freddie Gray’s neck, and the crushing of his voice box so no one could hear his screams, in the back of a van driven by those sworn to protect him. To narrate the story in any other way is to propagate a pathological level of deception about who the real criminals and the real victims are. To continue to condemn as senseless acts of violence things that actually make perfect damn sense is only to further this pathology. If the police are the criminals then what sense does it make to tell ordinary citizens to sit at home, quietly observing law-and-order? What sense does it make to ask those citizens to keep faith with a system that would sooner snap their necks for committing virtually no crime rather than give them due process? And for an attorney general who has watched lawmakers skirt right up to the edge of the law in order to prevent her from obtaining her position, what sense does it make to be a law-enforcement sympathizer? What sense does any of it make? Advertisement: For any person who has ever been angry enough to throw a glass against a wall, or destroy one’s personal property out of sheer frustration and injustice, the anger of citizens who are daily subjected to indignities, violations of personal space, and limited opportunity makes perfect sense. Baltimore is a city with a Black mayor and a large Black middle class. These folks have worked hard and been rewarded well by the system. In this moment, class schisms among Black people become apparent, as respectable middle-class Black citizens plead for an end to violence, and hope against hope that they won’t be mistaken for their lower-class brethren. Baltimore teaches us that Black bodies can propagate anti-black state violence. It’s the very kind of internecine struggle that won’t help any of us get free. I am a middle-class Black person, but I have seen cops harass my family members. I have seen predatory lending practices devastate those I love. I see multigenerational poverty nipping at the heels of relatives who have not been as fortunate on the path as me. And I am angry about it. Believing in the myth of my own exceptionalism helped me to make a way out of a working-class existence. But it didn’t help anybody else. Because exceptionalism by its very nature is not meant to have mass impact. Advertisement: As we watch Baltimore burn, Black folks will have to do some serious soul-searching about where our solidarities will lie. Are they going to lie in our allegiance to our comfortable middle-class existences and deep desires for success in a fundamentally effed-up system, or are they going to reside with those still struggling to make it? If we are going to push America to stop sanctioning the killings of our people, then we will have to decide to throw our lot in with the people, to recognize that no matter how fancy we look on the outside, in the right circumstance, all of us are just one police encounter away from the grave. Freddie Gray’s death, though tragic, is instructive. If you want to kill a thing, snap its neck. It might take us a while to snap the back of white supremacy, but it is past time for us to handcuff it, put it in a van without a seatbelt and take it for a “rough ride.” When we all emerge, hopefully, at the very least, white supremacy will be on life support.

www.salon.com

left

s3yb3YXgiHznfbSw

test

eSKQhPEe1dhyXhHC

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/03/03/democratic-primary-super-tuesday-warren-biden-sanders/

Democratic Primary Voters Decisively Rejected the Media's Favorite Candidates

2020-03-03

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Mike Riggs, Charles Oliver, Peter Suderman, Katie Herzog, J.D. Tuccille, Veronique De Rugy

As Super Tuesday finally transfigures the Democratic presidential nomination process into a binary choice between two old , occasionally problematic white men whose enduring popularity is consistently underrated by a baffled mainstream press , it 's worth reflecting on just how poorly the media 's preferred candidates performed in the 2020 race . In the end , The New York Times ' dual Democratic presidential endorsements—bestowed upon both Sens . Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) and Amy Klobuchar ( D–Minn . ) —were like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway ? : They just did n't matter . Nor did the media 's fawning over South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg , early flirtation with Beto O'Rourke , and absolute worship of Sen. Kamala Harris ( D–Calif . ) resonate with the millions of Americans living outside the Acela corridor . Instead , Democratic voters indicated over and over again that they were most interested in the popular former vice president and the iconoclastic but well-respected runner-up from the 2016 Democratic race . Before the actual primaries , Biden consistently led in polls and Sanders performed well—and then the eventual voting followed this pattern , with early wins for Sanders and a comeback surge from Biden . The idea that any other candidate had a particularly likely shot at the nomination was always pundit-driven misdirection from a class of commentators demanding more interesting , intersectional characters , because the commentators themselves are more interested in identity-based diversity than the rest of the country . Indeed , the media stumped for Warren so hard that Vox 's Matt Yglesias recently had to write a post explaining to people why she was losing `` even if all your friends love her . '' By your friends , he meant friends of people like you , a reader of Vox . Yglesias famously described Vox 's audience as `` a graduate of or student at a selective college ( which also describes the staff and our social peers ) '' and lamented that `` if you assigned me the job of serving a less-educated audience [ I 'd ] probably need to think about how to change things up . '' He 's right ; outside the Vox bubble , there was little interest in the kind of cultural progressivism represented by Warren . At present , Biden and Sanders are locked in a battle for delegates . Both men have a good shot at the nomination . But this was true a year ago as well . They were both better-known and better-liked than many in the media seemed to grasp , and an endless series of magazine covers , fluff pieces , and editorial board endorsements aimed at other candidates could n't make any difference whatsoever .

As Super Tuesday finally transfigures the Democratic presidential nomination process into a binary choice between two old, occasionally problematic white men whose enduring popularity is consistently underrated by a baffled mainstream press, it's worth reflecting on just how poorly the media's preferred candidates performed in the 2020 race. In the end, The New York Times' dual Democratic presidential endorsements—bestowed upon both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.)—were like the points on Whose Line Is It Anyway?: They just didn't matter. Nor did the media's fawning over South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, early flirtation with Beto O'Rourke, and absolute worship of Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) resonate with the millions of Americans living outside the Acela corridor. Instead, Democratic voters indicated over and over again that they were most interested in the popular former vice president and the iconoclastic but well-respected runner-up from the 2016 Democratic race. Before the actual primaries, Biden consistently led in polls and Sanders performed well—and then the eventual voting followed this pattern, with early wins for Sanders and a comeback surge from Biden. The idea that any other candidate had a particularly likely shot at the nomination was always pundit-driven misdirection from a class of commentators demanding more interesting, intersectional characters, because the commentators themselves are more interested in identity-based diversity than the rest of the country. Indeed, the media stumped for Warren so hard that Vox's Matt Yglesias recently had to write a post explaining to people why she was losing "even if all your friends love her." By your friends, he meant friends of people like you, a reader of Vox. Yglesias famously described Vox's audience as "a graduate of or student at a selective college (which also describes the staff and our social peers)" and lamented that "if you assigned me the job of serving a less-educated audience [I'd] probably need to think about how to change things up." He's right; outside the Vox bubble, there was little interest in the kind of cultural progressivism represented by Warren. At present, Biden and Sanders are locked in a battle for delegates. Both men have a good shot at the nomination. But this was true a year ago as well. They were both better-known and better-liked than many in the media seemed to grasp, and an endless series of magazine covers, fluff pieces, and editorial board endorsements aimed at other candidates couldn't make any difference whatsoever.

www.reason.com

right

eSKQhPEe1dhyXhHC

test

9U1piWzusI3FC1Mx

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/13/gops_shady_news_websites_republicans_get_into_the_propaganda_game/

GOP’s shady “news” websites: Republicans get into the propaganda game

2014-08-13

Simon Maloy

At some point , probably not too long ago , a version of this conversation transpired within the halls of the National Republican Congressional Committee , the campaign committee led by Oregon congressman Greg Walden : STAFFER 1 : Hey , so you know how it ’ s our job to convince people to vote for Republicans and against Democrats ? STAFFER 2 : Yep ! That sure is our job . STAFFER 1 : Well , I was thinking that what if , instead of convincing them , we fool them into consuming our talking points by disguising them as news websites . STAFFER 2 : Whoa , what a great idea ! Wait … isn ’ t there a word for political messaging disguised as news ? STAFFER 1 : Not that I ’ m aware . Let ’ s get cracking . And thus was born electionupdate2014.com , the NRCC ’ s fake-news propaganda website that makes every effort to deceive people into thinking they ’ re reading the news , when they ’ re actually getting a full dose of Republican messaging . “ The NRCC has created about two dozen of these new faux news sites targeting Democrats , both challengers and incumbents , and is promoting them across the country with localized Google search ads , ” National Journal ’ s Shane Goldmacher reported yesterday . The sites themselves are very , very shady . They are tailored to the district each Democrat is running in – Iowa ’ s 3rd District is covered by the “ Des Moines Update , ” Colorado ’ s 6th District is the “ Aurora Update , ” etc . Most of the “ articles ” start off with a neutral just-the-facts lede , typically some variation of “ Let ’ s take a look at [ Democrat ’ s ] record and let you decide , ” before transitioning into more partisan messaging . Each “ article ” also has the trappings of your typical local news website : sections listing the “ Most Popular ” articles and “ Most Viewed ” videos , all of which are culled from NRCC opposition research . You ’ re not given any outright indicator that you ’ re reading official Republican Party talking points until you scroll down to the very bottom of the page , where the “ Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee ” disclaimer lurks well beneath the “ Return to Top ” link , separated by an absurd amount of white space . They ’ re all flagrantly deceptive , but some are far worse than others . Here , for example , is the lede of a “ Tuscon Update ” article targeting Arizona Democrat Ron Barber : Arizona Democrat Ron Barber continues to face questions about his hypocrisy on pay equality . The Arizona Daily Star , reports today that the controversy over Ron Barber ’ s office pay gap between men and women has reached a “ fever pitch in the Congressional District 2 race . ” Questions are being raised ! And who was doing the questioning , as reported by the Arizona Daily Star and excerpted in the “ Tuscon Update ” ? The NRCC , of course : The National Republican Campaign Committee fired the first shot complaining about bad math shortly after an Op-Ed piece by Rep. Ron Barber in the Star April 15 , saying it was “ inexcusable ” that women were still being paid less than their male counterparts more than a half-century after joining the workforce . Barber ’ s piece relied heavily on a statistic used by the White House , comparing the median salaries of all men working full-time for a full year to their female counterparts . The NRCC used the same math with Barber ’ s congressional staff , calculating the disparity for the 10 employees working in his office last year full-time for the entire year The NRCC says that using the White House formula , it found that the Tucson Democrat is not paying his female staffers as much as their male counterparts . Barber is paying women roughly $ 8,950 a year less than their male counterparts , said NRCC Regional Political Director Annie Kelly . So here you have an NRCC-funded “ news ” website excerpting an Arizona Daily Star article reporting on the NRCC ’ s attacks on Barber . This is talking-point laundering . This grossly unethical monstrosity does , however , represent something of a streamlining of the typical process for disguising GOP messaging as news . In the past , the NRCC would have had to rely on the lax ethics standards of certain cable news outlets to see their handiwork transformed into “ journalism. ” I guess they ’ ve decided to just cut out the middleman .

At some point, probably not too long ago, a version of this conversation transpired within the halls of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign committee led by Oregon congressman Greg Walden: STAFFER 1: Hey, so you know how it’s our job to convince people to vote for Republicans and against Democrats? STAFFER 2: Yep! That sure is our job. STAFFER 1: Well, I was thinking that what if, instead of convincing them, we fool them into consuming our talking points by disguising them as news websites. STAFFER 2: Whoa, what a great idea! Wait … isn’t there a word for political messaging disguised as news? STAFFER 1: Not that I’m aware. Let’s get cracking. And thus was born electionupdate2014.com, the NRCC’s fake-news propaganda website that makes every effort to deceive people into thinking they’re reading the news, when they’re actually getting a full dose of Republican messaging. “The NRCC has created about two dozen of these new faux news sites targeting Democrats, both challengers and incumbents, and is promoting them across the country with localized Google search ads,” National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher reported yesterday. Advertisement: The sites themselves are very, very shady. They are tailored to the district each Democrat is running in – Iowa’s 3rd District is covered by the “Des Moines Update,” Colorado’s 6th District is the “Aurora Update,” etc. Most of the “articles” start off with a neutral just-the-facts lede, typically some variation of “Let’s take a look at [Democrat’s] record and let you decide,” before transitioning into more partisan messaging. Each “article” also has the trappings of your typical local news website: sections listing the “Most Popular” articles and “Most Viewed” videos, all of which are culled from NRCC opposition research. You’re not given any outright indicator that you’re reading official Republican Party talking points until you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, where the “Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee” disclaimer lurks well beneath the “Return to Top” link, separated by an absurd amount of white space. They’re all flagrantly deceptive, but some are far worse than others. Here, for example, is the lede of a “Tuscon Update” article targeting Arizona Democrat Ron Barber: Advertisement: Arizona Democrat Ron Barber continues to face questions about his hypocrisy on pay equality. The Arizona Daily Star, reports today that the controversy over Ron Barber’s office pay gap between men and women has reached a “fever pitch in the Congressional District 2 race.” Questions are being raised! And who was doing the questioning, as reported by the Arizona Daily Star and excerpted in the “Tuscon Update”? The NRCC, of course: The National Republican Campaign Committee fired the first shot complaining about bad math shortly after an Op-Ed piece by Rep. Ron Barber in the Star April 15, saying it was “inexcusable” that women were still being paid less than their male counterparts more than a half-century after joining the workforce. Barber’s piece relied heavily on a statistic used by the White House, comparing the median salaries of all men working full-time for a full year to their female counterparts. The NRCC used the same math with Barber’s congressional staff, calculating the disparity for the 10 employees working in his office last year full-time for the entire year The NRCC says that using the White House formula, it found that the Tucson Democrat is not paying his female staffers as much as their male counterparts. Barber is paying women roughly $8,950 a year less than their male counterparts, said NRCC Regional Political Director Annie Kelly. So here you have an NRCC-funded “news” website excerpting an Arizona Daily Star article reporting on the NRCC’s attacks on Barber. This is talking-point laundering. This grossly unethical monstrosity does, however, represent something of a streamlining of the typical process for disguising GOP messaging as news. In the past, the NRCC would have had to rely on the lax ethics standards of certain cable news outlets to see their handiwork transformed into “journalism.” I guess they’ve decided to just cut out the middleman.

www.salon.com

left

9U1piWzusI3FC1Mx

test

W8wHGw15H8K0Lkrs

politics

John Stossel

https://reason.com/archives/2017/02/01/trump-bubble-bursts

OPINION: Trump Bubble Bursts

2017-02-01

Jacob Sullum, Eugene Volokh, Noah Shepardson, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon

I was n't a big Donald Trump backer—on TV I have called him a bully , a narcissist , etc.—but his first days were thrilling ! Finally , a president who meant it when he said he 'd cut red tape that kills growth , a man who mocks political correctness and sneers at leftist reporters . Finally , an executive choosing good people : Andy Puzder , Scott Pruitt , Betsy DeVos , Mick Mulvaney , Mike Pompeo… These are not the political hacks I 've come to expect from D.C.—not the smug bureaucracy-lovers Hillary Clinton would have inflicted on us . These are people who understand the limits of government command and control , people eager to lift the web of opportunity-smothering rules . His immigrant ban is bad . I wo n't write about it until I know more . But even before that , he said he 'd impose a 20 percent tax on Mexican imports , and he trashed trade by insisting that `` we want the ( Keystone ) pipe to be manufactured here ! '' I know—he said stuff like that when campaigning , but I did n't think he meant it . His own businesses use overseas suppliers if they are cheaper or better . He must know that tariffs punish Americans , that a trade war helped create the Depression . You Trump fans will sneer at that , but please , hear me out . Yes , some steelworkers ' jobs are saved by buy-American edicts , but more jobs will be lost . It 's hard to recognize this because of a conflict economist Frederic Bastiat called `` the seen vs. the unseen . '' We see the jobs at a steel plant . If it closes , our cameras record the moment . We interview the workers on their last day . Our hearts break at their disappointment . Many wo n't find other jobs , or jobs that pay as well . We want to `` do something '' to help . What we do n't as easily see , though , are the many jobs created if companies are free to use steel that 's a little cheaper . We do n't see the jobs created by the dynamism that results when people are free to buy and sell all over the world . Alternatively , we do n't easily see the jobs that never get created because tariffs or `` buy American '' rules make ingredients more expensive . The media never show those jobs , but they are very real nevertheless . History makes it clear : Where trade is free , prosperity follows . When it is restricted , stagnation follows . Open societies are better than the alternative . In 1400 , China led the world . They invented gunpowder , the compass , the clock , real paper and printing . Then they walled themselves off . They burned the trading ships . The emperor wanted to `` protect '' the Chinese from outsiders . The result was stagnation . By last century ( before free market reforms ) , China was one of the poorest nations on earth . In his inaugural speech , President Trump promised to take power from Washington and give it `` back to you , the people . '' America `` must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products , stealing our companies and destroying our jobs . `` ? At Cafe Hayek , economist Don Boudreaux writes , `` Overlook the absurd suggestion that foreigners who peacefully offer to sell to us attractive products at low prices are akin to invading armies … Trump 's incessant promise to raise trade barriers is a promise to reduce each American 's freedom to spend his or her money as he or she chooses … a pledge to give to politicians and bureaucrats in the capital city more authority . '' Still , I want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt . But historian Robert Higgs asks : `` Why do some libertarians cut Trump so much slack ? … ( s ) omeone who enjoys thumbing his nose at the political establishment ( poses ) his own brand of threat to your life , liberty , and property . Trump talks about many things . … But … there is one topic that he never mentions , and that is freedom . ''

No! The bubble burst. My fantasy died. I wasn't a big Donald Trump backer—on TV I have called him a bully, a narcissist, etc.—but his first days were thrilling! Finally, a president who meant it when he said he'd cut red tape that kills growth, a man who mocks political correctness and sneers at leftist reporters. Finally, an executive choosing good people: Andy Puzder, Scott Pruitt, Betsy DeVos, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo… These are not the political hacks I've come to expect from D.C.—not the smug bureaucracy-lovers Hillary Clinton would have inflicted on us. These are people who understand the limits of government command and control, people eager to lift the web of opportunity-smothering rules. Trump revived the Keystone Pipeline, froze federal hiring. Wow. But then he broke my heart. His immigrant ban is bad. I won't write about it until I know more. But even before that, he said he'd impose a 20 percent tax on Mexican imports, and he trashed trade by insisting that "we want the (Keystone) pipe to be manufactured here!" I know—he said stuff like that when campaigning, but I didn't think he meant it. His own businesses use overseas suppliers if they are cheaper or better. He must know that tariffs punish Americans, that a trade war helped create the Depression. "Protecting" jobs with bans and tariffs is counterproductive. You Trump fans will sneer at that, but please, hear me out. Yes, some steelworkers' jobs are saved by buy-American edicts, but more jobs will be lost. It's hard to recognize this because of a conflict economist Frederic Bastiat called "the seen vs. the unseen." We see the jobs at a steel plant. If it closes, our cameras record the moment. We interview the workers on their last day. Our hearts break at their disappointment. Many won't find other jobs, or jobs that pay as well. We want to "do something" to help. What we don't as easily see, though, are the many jobs created if companies are free to use steel that's a little cheaper. We don't see the jobs created by the dynamism that results when people are free to buy and sell all over the world. Alternatively, we don't easily see the jobs that never get created because tariffs or "buy American" rules make ingredients more expensive. The media never show those jobs, but they are very real nevertheless. History makes it clear: Where trade is free, prosperity follows. When it is restricted, stagnation follows. Open societies are better than the alternative. In 1400, China led the world. They invented gunpowder, the compass, the clock, real paper and printing. Then they walled themselves off. They burned the trading ships. The emperor wanted to "protect" the Chinese from outsiders. The result was stagnation. By last century (before free market reforms), China was one of the poorest nations on earth. In his inaugural speech, President Trump promised to take power from Washington and give it "back to you, the people." America "must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and destroying our jobs."? At Cafe Hayek, economist Don Boudreaux writes, "Overlook the absurd suggestion that foreigners who peacefully offer to sell to us attractive products at low prices are akin to invading armies … Trump's incessant promise to raise trade barriers is a promise to reduce each American's freedom to spend his or her money as he or she chooses … a pledge to give to politicians and bureaucrats in the capital city more authority." Still, I want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. But historian Robert Higgs asks: "Why do some libertarians cut Trump so much slack? … (s)omeone who enjoys thumbing his nose at the political establishment (poses) his own brand of threat to your life, liberty, and property. Trump talks about many things. … But … there is one topic that he never mentions, and that is freedom." It's true. I never hear Trump say the word. I wish he knew what it really means. COPYRIGHT 2017 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

www.reason.com

right

W8wHGw15H8K0Lkrs

test

qEkXshumJ7Hdue0X

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/peter-strzok-a-cocky-liar-to-the-end/

OPINION: Peter Strzok, A Cocky Liar to the End

George Neumayr, Jeffrey Lord, Dov Fischer, Wesley J. Smith, Robert Stacy Mccain, R. Emmett Tyrrell

The Peter Strzok hearing was a travesty , starting with the fact that he testified as a cocooned , lawyered-up government employee still working for the FBI . It is outrageous that he hasn ’ t been fired yet . He even still has a security clearance ! That alone is proof of the deep state ’ s hold on certain executive branch agencies . If the FBI keeps its so-so employees close , it keeps its worst employees even closer . That Strzok could huddle with FBI lawyers while stonewalling a Republican-led committee speaks to the corruption of official Washington and the comparative impotence of Republican administrations . Does anybody think an FBI agent who had vowed to “ stop ” the candidacy of Barack Obama would have lasted a week at his job , let alone over a year , after the discovery of his bias ? The cockiness of Strzok at Thursday ’ s hearing is a reflection of the immunity that ruling-class mandarins enjoy in liberal Washington . He was testifying from the safety of the deep state and thus knew that he could lie his head off without consequence . How else to explain his unrepentant opening statement , with its blatant anti-Trump special pleading ? The statement sounded like it had been written by Rachel Maddow , resting on the lamest and hackiest of MSNBC-style talking points , that “ today ’ s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin ’ s belt and another milestone in our enemies ’ campaign to tear America apart . ” Whatever credibility Strzok as an FBI agent still possessed vanished with that partisan cant , and he spent much of the hearing tossing out similarly hackish anti-Trump gibes designed to win the applause of the ruling class . He couldn ’ t remember his “ we-will-stop ” -Trump-from-winning text , though he could remember its noble meaning — that righteous Americans would stop a candidate like Trump who evinced “ disgusting behavior . ” His testimony was full of such anti-Trump pandering and constituted one big non-apology apology , based on liberalism ’ s conceit that its opinions never count as “ bias ” and could never result in on-the-job misconduct at odds with “ public service . ” Like John Brennan , who calls himself “ non-partisan ” while making the most insanely partisan points , Strzok asserted that his “ political opinions ” didn ’ t count as bias and certainly didn ’ t explain or affect his official conduct . That is , if you don ’ t count his expressing them on an FBI device during FBI time while trashing the subject of an FBI investigation to another FBI member working on the same FBI case with whom he was breaking FBI rules . Trust me , Strzok said to the committee , he has kept his “ oath. ” Maybe the committee should check with his wife about his oath-keeping record . He launched a baseless investigation into a political rival , yet claimed that he couldn ’ t understand the committee ’ s concerns . He is right that his anti-Trump animus didn ’ t affect “ one ” decision ; it affected all of them . How else to explain something as outré as the investigation of a rival presidential campaign without a shred of credible evidence of collusion , an investigation that largely revolved around the opposition research of that campaign ’ s opponent ? After hiding behind FBI lawyers for much of the hearing , Strzok late in it admitted that he could answer the GOP ’ s question about whether Justice Department official Bruce Ohr , who through his wife was connected to Hillary ’ s opposition research team , gave the FBI its work . The answer , of course , was yes . But Strzok insulted everyone ’ s intelligence by insinuating that something other than Hillary ’ s opposition research had spurred the FBI to investigate her opponent . He couldn ’ t tell the committee what that was , of course , lest that threaten an “ ongoing investigation. ” But , trust him , that something was really , really “ significant . ” The lying bluff here is sickening . The FBI knows damn well that Hillary ’ s opposition research drove the bogus investigation . The FBI only invented the sham George Papadopoulos story — which is pitiful , non-conclusive hearsay that doesn ’ t come anywhere close to Strzok ’ s description of “ intelligence ” justifying a counterintelligence probe — because it doesn ’ t want to admit that it was spying on a Republican campaign based on smears from the Democratic campaign . There is no other reason than that for its stonewalling . One act of obvious perjury during the hearing was Strzok ’ s claim — which he presented as incontrovertible proof of his apolitical professionalism — that he “ never ” spoke to reporters about the investigation before election day . Strzok didn ’ t even bother to coordinate this lie with his defense attorney , who has previously admitted that Strzok talked to reporters about the investigation . Strzok ’ s attorney wrote an Op-Ed in USA Today saying that “ Peter and others ” at the FBI “ actively ensured that news reports didn ’ t overplay the seriousness of the investigation. ” How did he do that without talking to them ? According to the New York Times , Strzok ’ s team had been chatting with its reporters about the investigation for six weeks or so before election day . In the paper ’ s pre-election article on the FBI ’ s investigation into alleged Trump-Russian collusion , it stated : “ Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump ’ s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate . ” So Strzok was talking to reporters , but he didn ’ t have anything damning to give them , owing to the baselessness and fruitlessness of his investigation . He is now trying to turn that into a virtue . But it wasn ’ t . He had started an improper investigation and was desperately trying to entrap Trump campaign members in an attempt to justify it . Had he found something , Strzok would have surely leaked it to the press before election day . It is too bad the Republicans didn ’ t ask Strzok about his relationship with John Brennan , to whom Strzok served as FBI liaison . Did Strzok encourage Brennan to leak information about the investigation to Harry Reid before election day ? The question wasn ’ t asked , but it should have been . The Brennan-Strzok relationship , which was nourished by an intense hatred of Trump , lies at the root of this scandal . Who are they kidding ? They did want to hurt candidate Trump . The problem was that they didn ’ t have any evidence of collusion to leak , a problem they tried to remedy by running a spy into the campaign ’ s ranks . They needed a late-campaign surprise , but their “ confidential informant ” Stefan Halper , for all of his oafish entrapment attempts , couldn ’ t produce one . Yet that still didn ’ t stop Brennan from getting Reid to push anti-Trump smears out to his friends in the press . Strzok , upon seeing Brennan ’ s handiwork , excitedly texted his mistress , “ Here we go , ” and sent her a link to an article about Reid ’ s leak . The Strzok on display at the hearing was the same arrogant bureaucrat on display in the texts — an abusive , ruling-class jerk who still thinks he deserves a place on the Mueller probe . Making Mueller look like an ass and cementing his probe ’ s reputation as a partisan clown show , Strzok insisted that his removal from it had nothing to do with unprofessional behavior but with a mere “ appearance ” problem , one he blamed not on his own conduct but on Republicans “ misinterpreting ” his texts . This is chutzpah on a breathtaking scale , which would be inconceivable were the target of his blundering espionage anyone other than Trump . Strzok ’ s “ insurance policy ” against Trump had a provision for his career too . He would survive exposure by wrapping himself in the protective gauze of the anti-Trump resistance .

The Peter Strzok hearing was a travesty, starting with the fact that he testified as a cocooned, lawyered-up government employee still working for the FBI. It is outrageous that he hasn’t been fired yet. He even still has a security clearance! That alone is proof of the deep state’s hold on certain executive branch agencies. If the FBI keeps its so-so employees close, it keeps its worst employees even closer. That Strzok could huddle with FBI lawyers while stonewalling a Republican-led committee speaks to the corruption of official Washington and the comparative impotence of Republican administrations. Does anybody think an FBI agent who had vowed to “stop” the candidacy of Barack Obama would have lasted a week at his job, let alone over a year, after the discovery of his bias? The cockiness of Strzok at Thursday’s hearing is a reflection of the immunity that ruling-class mandarins enjoy in liberal Washington. He was testifying from the safety of the deep state and thus knew that he could lie his head off without consequence. How else to explain his unrepentant opening statement, with its blatant anti-Trump special pleading? The statement sounded like it had been written by Rachel Maddow, resting on the lamest and hackiest of MSNBC-style talking points, that “today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart.” Whatever credibility Strzok as an FBI agent still possessed vanished with that partisan cant, and he spent much of the hearing tossing out similarly hackish anti-Trump gibes designed to win the applause of the ruling class. He couldn’t remember his “we-will-stop”-Trump-from-winning text, though he could remember its noble meaning — that righteous Americans would stop a candidate like Trump who evinced “disgusting behavior.” His testimony was full of such anti-Trump pandering and constituted one big non-apology apology, based on liberalism’s conceit that its opinions never count as “bias” and could never result in on-the-job misconduct at odds with “public service.” Like John Brennan, who calls himself “non-partisan” while making the most insanely partisan points, Strzok asserted that his “political opinions” didn’t count as bias and certainly didn’t explain or affect his official conduct. That is, if you don’t count his expressing them on an FBI device during FBI time while trashing the subject of an FBI investigation to another FBI member working on the same FBI case with whom he was breaking FBI rules. Trust me, Strzok said to the committee, he has kept his “oath.” Maybe the committee should check with his wife about his oath-keeping record. He launched a baseless investigation into a political rival, yet claimed that he couldn’t understand the committee’s concerns. He is right that his anti-Trump animus didn’t affect “one” decision; it affected all of them. How else to explain something as outré as the investigation of a rival presidential campaign without a shred of credible evidence of collusion, an investigation that largely revolved around the opposition research of that campaign’s opponent? After hiding behind FBI lawyers for much of the hearing, Strzok late in it admitted that he could answer the GOP’s question about whether Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who through his wife was connected to Hillary’s opposition research team, gave the FBI its work. The answer, of course, was yes. But Strzok insulted everyone’s intelligence by insinuating that something other than Hillary’s opposition research had spurred the FBI to investigate her opponent. He couldn’t tell the committee what that was, of course, lest that threaten an “ongoing investigation.” But, trust him, that something was really, really “significant.” The lying bluff here is sickening. The FBI knows damn well that Hillary’s opposition research drove the bogus investigation. The FBI only invented the sham George Papadopoulos story — which is pitiful, non-conclusive hearsay that doesn’t come anywhere close to Strzok’s description of “intelligence” justifying a counterintelligence probe — because it doesn’t want to admit that it was spying on a Republican campaign based on smears from the Democratic campaign. There is no other reason than that for its stonewalling. One act of obvious perjury during the hearing was Strzok’s claim — which he presented as incontrovertible proof of his apolitical professionalism — that he “never” spoke to reporters about the investigation before election day. Strzok didn’t even bother to coordinate this lie with his defense attorney, who has previously admitted that Strzok talked to reporters about the investigation. Strzok’s attorney wrote an Op-Ed in USA Today saying that “Peter and others” at the FBI “actively ensured that news reports didn’t overplay the seriousness of the investigation.” How did he do that without talking to them? According to the New York Times, Strzok’s team had been chatting with its reporters about the investigation for six weeks or so before election day. In the paper’s pre-election article on the FBI’s investigation into alleged Trump-Russian collusion, it stated: “Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate.” So Strzok was talking to reporters, but he didn’t have anything damning to give them, owing to the baselessness and fruitlessness of his investigation. He is now trying to turn that into a virtue. But it wasn’t. He had started an improper investigation and was desperately trying to entrap Trump campaign members in an attempt to justify it. Had he found something, Strzok would have surely leaked it to the press before election day. It is too bad the Republicans didn’t ask Strzok about his relationship with John Brennan, to whom Strzok served as FBI liaison. Did Strzok encourage Brennan to leak information about the investigation to Harry Reid before election day? The question wasn’t asked, but it should have been. The Brennan-Strzok relationship, which was nourished by an intense hatred of Trump, lies at the root of this scandal. Who are they kidding? They did want to hurt candidate Trump. The problem was that they didn’t have any evidence of collusion to leak, a problem they tried to remedy by running a spy into the campaign’s ranks. They needed a late-campaign surprise, but their “confidential informant” Stefan Halper, for all of his oafish entrapment attempts, couldn’t produce one. Yet that still didn’t stop Brennan from getting Reid to push anti-Trump smears out to his friends in the press. Strzok, upon seeing Brennan’s handiwork, excitedly texted his mistress, “Here we go,” and sent her a link to an article about Reid’s leak. The Strzok on display at the hearing was the same arrogant bureaucrat on display in the texts — an abusive, ruling-class jerk who still thinks he deserves a place on the Mueller probe. Making Mueller look like an ass and cementing his probe’s reputation as a partisan clown show, Strzok insisted that his removal from it had nothing to do with unprofessional behavior but with a mere “appearance” problem, one he blamed not on his own conduct but on Republicans “misinterpreting” his texts. This is chutzpah on a breathtaking scale, which would be inconceivable were the target of his blundering espionage anyone other than Trump. Strzok’s “insurance policy” against Trump had a provision for his career too. He would survive exposure by wrapping himself in the protective gauze of the anti-Trump resistance.

www.spectator.org

right

qEkXshumJ7Hdue0X

test

n7Vf7EtkUwjQvbvu

fbi

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-flynn/judge-blasts-trump-ex-adviser-flynn-delays-sentencing-in-mueller-case-idUSKBN1OH0D7

Judge blasts Trump ex-adviser Flynn, delays sentencing in Mueller case

2018-12-19

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A U.S. judge fiercely criticized President Donald Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Tuesday for lying to FBI agents in a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election , and delayed sentencing him until Flynn has finished helping prosecutors . U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn , a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency , that he had arguably betrayed his country . Sullivan also noted that Flynn had operated as an undeclared lobbyist for Turkey even as he worked on Trump ’ s campaign team and prepared to be his White House national security adviser . Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016 conversations with Sergei Kislyak , then Russia ’ s ambassador in Washington , about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump ’ s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama . The conversations took place between Trump ’ s November election victory and his inauguration in January 2017 . Special Counsel Robert Mueller , leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump ’ s campaign and Russia ahead of the election , had asked the judge not to sentence Flynn to prison because he had already provided “ substantial ” cooperation over the course of many interviews . Lying to the FBI carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison . Flynn ’ s plea agreement stated that he was eligible for a sentence of between zero and six months . Sullivan sternly told Flynn his actions were abhorrent , noting that Flynn had also lied to senior White House officials , who in turn misled the public . The judge said he had read additional facts about Flynn ’ s behavior that have not been made public . At one point , Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could have been charged with treason , although the judge later said he had not been suggesting such a charge was warranted . “ Arguably , you sold your country out , ” Sullivan told Flynn . “ I ’ m not hiding my disgust , my disdain for this criminal offense . ” Related Coverage Factbox : Mueller and other probes posing risk for Trump Flynn , dressed in a suit and tie , showed little emotion throughout the hearing , and spoke calmly when he confirmed his guilty plea and answered questions from the judge . Sullivan appeared ready to sentence Flynn to prison but then gave him the option of a delay in his sentencing so he could fully cooperate with any pending investigations and bolster his case for leniency . The judge told Flynn he could not promise that he would not eventually sentence him to serve prison time . Flynn accepted that offer . Sullivan did not set a new date for sentencing but asked Mueller ’ s team and Flynn ’ s attorney to give him a status report by March 13 . Sullivan later imposed travel restrictions on Flynn , ordering him to surrender his passport and to obtain court permission before traveling outside the Washington area . The curbs are typical for people released on their own recognizance , the judge said . Prosecutors said Flynn already had provided most of the cooperation he could , but it was possible he might be able to help investigators further . Flynn ’ s attorney said his client is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a case against Bijan Rafiekian , his former business partner who has been charged with unregistered lobbying for Turkey . Rafiekian pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to those charges in federal court in Alexandria , Virginia . His trial is scheduled for Feb. 11 . Flynn is expected to testify . Prosecutors have said Rafiekian and Flynn lobbied to have Washington extradite a Muslim cleric who lives in the United States and is accused by Turkey ’ s government of backing a 2016 coup attempt . Flynn has not been charged in that case . Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in Washington , U.S. , December 18 , 2018 . ███/Joshua Roberts Flynn was a high-profile adviser to Trump ’ s campaign team . At the Republican Party ’ s national convention in 2016 , Flynn led Trump ’ s supporters in cries of “ Lock her up ! ” directed against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton . A group of protesters , including some who chanted “ Lock him up , ” gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday , along with a large inflatable rat fashioned to look like Trump . Several Flynn supporters also were there , cheering as he entered and exited . One held a sign that read , “ Michael Flynn is a hero . ” Flynn became national security adviser when Trump took office in January 2017 , but lasted only 24 days before being fired . He told FBI investigators on Jan. 24 , 2017 , that he had not discussed the U.S. sanctions with Kislyak when in fact he had , according to his plea agreement . Trump has said he fired Flynn because he also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the contacts with Kislyak . Trump has said Flynn did not break the law and has voiced support for him , raising speculation the Republican president might pardon him . “ Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn . Will be interesting to see what he has to say , despite tremendous pressure being put on him , about Russian Collusion in our great and , obviously , highly successful political campaign . There was no Collusion ! ” Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday morning . After the hearing , White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters the FBI had “ ambushed ” Flynn in the way agents questioned him , but said his “ activities ” at the center of the case “ don ’ t have anything to do with the president ” and disputed that Flynn had committed treason . In contrast , Trump has called his former long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen , who has pleaded guilty to separate charges , a “ rat . ” Mueller ’ s investigation into Russia ’ s role in the 2016 election and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe has cast a shadow over his presidency . Several former Trump aides have pleaded guilty in Mueller ’ s probe , but Flynn was the first former Trump White House official to do so . Mueller also has charged a series of Russian individuals and entities . Trump has called Mueller ’ s investigation a “ witch hunt ” and has denied collusion with Moscow . Russia has denied meddling in the election , contrary to the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that have said Moscow used hacking and propaganda to try to sow discord in the United States and boost Trump ’ s chances against Clinton .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge fiercely criticized President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Tuesday for lying to FBI agents in a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and delayed sentencing him until Flynn has finished helping prosecutors. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, that he had arguably betrayed his country. Sullivan also noted that Flynn had operated as an undeclared lobbyist for Turkey even as he worked on Trump’s campaign team and prepared to be his White House national security adviser. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016 conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador in Washington, about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. The conversations took place between Trump’s November election victory and his inauguration in January 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, leading the investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia ahead of the election, had asked the judge not to sentence Flynn to prison because he had already provided “substantial” cooperation over the course of many interviews. Lying to the FBI carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in prison. Flynn’s plea agreement stated that he was eligible for a sentence of between zero and six months. Sullivan sternly told Flynn his actions were abhorrent, noting that Flynn had also lied to senior White House officials, who in turn misled the public. The judge said he had read additional facts about Flynn’s behavior that have not been made public. At one point, Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could have been charged with treason, although the judge later said he had not been suggesting such a charge was warranted. “Arguably, you sold your country out,” Sullivan told Flynn. “I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense.” Related Coverage Factbox: Mueller and other probes posing risk for Trump Flynn, dressed in a suit and tie, showed little emotion throughout the hearing, and spoke calmly when he confirmed his guilty plea and answered questions from the judge. Sullivan appeared ready to sentence Flynn to prison but then gave him the option of a delay in his sentencing so he could fully cooperate with any pending investigations and bolster his case for leniency. The judge told Flynn he could not promise that he would not eventually sentence him to serve prison time. Flynn accepted that offer. Sullivan did not set a new date for sentencing but asked Mueller’s team and Flynn’s attorney to give him a status report by March 13. Sullivan later imposed travel restrictions on Flynn, ordering him to surrender his passport and to obtain court permission before traveling outside the Washington area. The curbs are typical for people released on their own recognizance, the judge said. Prosecutors said Flynn already had provided most of the cooperation he could, but it was possible he might be able to help investigators further. Flynn’s attorney said his client is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a case against Bijan Rafiekian, his former business partner who has been charged with unregistered lobbying for Turkey. Rafiekian pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to those charges in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. His trial is scheduled for Feb. 11. Flynn is expected to testify. Prosecutors have said Rafiekian and Flynn lobbied to have Washington extradite a Muslim cleric who lives in the United States and is accused by Turkey’s government of backing a 2016 coup attempt. Flynn has not been charged in that case. Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts ‘LOCK HER UP!’ Flynn was a high-profile adviser to Trump’s campaign team. At the Republican Party’s national convention in 2016, Flynn led Trump’s supporters in cries of “Lock her up!” directed against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. A group of protesters, including some who chanted “Lock him up,” gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday, along with a large inflatable rat fashioned to look like Trump. Several Flynn supporters also were there, cheering as he entered and exited. One held a sign that read, “Michael Flynn is a hero.” Flynn became national security adviser when Trump took office in January 2017, but lasted only 24 days before being fired. He told FBI investigators on Jan. 24, 2017, that he had not discussed the U.S. sanctions with Kislyak when in fact he had, according to his plea agreement. Trump has said he fired Flynn because he also lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the contacts with Kislyak. Trump has said Flynn did not break the law and has voiced support for him, raising speculation the Republican president might pardon him. “Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him, about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful political campaign. There was no Collusion!” Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday morning. After the hearing, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters the FBI had “ambushed” Flynn in the way agents questioned him, but said his “activities” at the center of the case “don’t have anything to do with the president” and disputed that Flynn had committed treason. “We wish General Flynn well,” Sanders said. In contrast, Trump has called his former long-time personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to separate charges, a “rat.” Slideshow (8 Images) Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe has cast a shadow over his presidency. Several former Trump aides have pleaded guilty in Mueller’s probe, but Flynn was the first former Trump White House official to do so. Mueller also has charged a series of Russian individuals and entities. Trump has called Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt” and has denied collusion with Moscow. Russia has denied meddling in the election, contrary to the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that have said Moscow used hacking and propaganda to try to sow discord in the United States and boost Trump’s chances against Clinton.

www.reuters.com

center

n7Vf7EtkUwjQvbvu

test

IHcCC5jqeeQRKQKE

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/02/tenth-state-set-to-make-same-sex-marriage-legal/?hpt=po_c2

Tenth state set to make same-sex marriage legal

2013-05-02

( CNN ) - Rhode Island Gov . Lincoln Chafee signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage after the state legislature approved the measure Thursday , making Rhode Island the tenth state in the nation to give same-sex couples the right to wed . Last week both the Rhode Island House and Senate approved by large margins measures allowing same-sex marriage , but more votes were required after the legislation was tweaked . The law will go into effect August 1 . Iowa , New York , Vermont , New Hampshire , Massachusetts , Connecticut , Maine , Maryland , Washington and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage . Their combined populations , based on U.S. Census estimates for 2012 , represent 15.8 % of the U.S. population . The addition of Rhode Island 's 1,050,292 residents will nudge that up to 16.1 % . `` Today 's vote shows that marriage does n't belong to a particular party or ideology , and increasingly , the public and politicians alike realize that only marriage provides loving couples and families with the protection they need and deserve , '' said Chad Griffin , the president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign . `` That the entire Rhode Island Senate GOP caucus joined with a vast majority of Democratic lawmakers to live up to the state 's values in voting for marriage will inspire more momentum in more states , '' added Marc Solomon , the national campaign director for pro-same-sex marriage group Freedom to Marry . `` It is time now for the Supreme Court to uphold these American values for all loving and committed couples . '' Christopher Plante , the Rhode Island regional director for the National Organization for Marriage , opposed the law , saying it omitted important religious protections that have been included in other states ' laws . `` Redefining marriage into a genderless institution to satisfy the demands of a small but politically powerful group is bad enough , but besides advocating a flawed policy HB 5015 and SB 38 contain a shocking lack of religious liberty protections , '' Plante wrote , saying the bill , at a minimum , should have included legal protections for individuals , businesses and groups who refuse to serve or participate in same-sex marriages . In March , a divided United States Supreme Court heard arguments over the legality of two marriage laws – the federal Defense of Marriage act , which defines marriage as between one man and one woman , and California 's Proposition 8 , which bans same-sex marriage . The nine justices hinted at disparate views on the hot-button issue , though it was far from clear how they will rule . A decision is expected in June .

6 years ago (CNN) - Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage after the state legislature approved the measure Thursday, making Rhode Island the tenth state in the nation to give same-sex couples the right to wed. Last week both the Rhode Island House and Senate approved by large margins measures allowing same-sex marriage, but more votes were required after the legislation was tweaked. The law will go into effect August 1. Iowa, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage. Their combined populations, based on U.S. Census estimates for 2012, represent 15.8% of the U.S. population. The addition of Rhode Island's 1,050,292 residents will nudge that up to 16.1%. "Today's vote shows that marriage doesn't belong to a particular party or ideology, and increasingly, the public and politicians alike realize that only marriage provides loving couples and families with the protection they need and deserve," said Chad Griffin, the president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign. "That the entire Rhode Island Senate GOP caucus joined with a vast majority of Democratic lawmakers to live up to the state's values in voting for marriage will inspire more momentum in more states," added Marc Solomon, the national campaign director for pro-same-sex marriage group Freedom to Marry. "It is time now for the Supreme Court to uphold these American values for all loving and committed couples." Christopher Plante, the Rhode Island regional director for the National Organization for Marriage, opposed the law, saying it omitted important religious protections that have been included in other states' laws. "Redefining marriage into a genderless institution to satisfy the demands of a small but politically powerful group is bad enough, but besides advocating a flawed policy HB 5015 and SB 38 contain a shocking lack of religious liberty protections," Plante wrote, saying the bill, at a minimum, should have included legal protections for individuals, businesses and groups who refuse to serve or participate in same-sex marriages. In March, a divided United States Supreme Court heard arguments over the legality of two marriage laws – the federal Defense of Marriage act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage. The nine justices hinted at disparate views on the hot-button issue, though it was far from clear how they will rule. A decision is expected in June. CNN's Tom Watkins and Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

IHcCC5jqeeQRKQKE

test

3Ngum89NVtXlG8n4

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-strategy-obama-bill/2015/06/07/id/649223/

NY Times: Hillary Embraces Obama's Strategy Over Bill's

2015-06-07

Greg Richter

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is using President Barack Obama 's campaign strategy rather than the one that got her husband , Bill Clinton , twice elected to the White House , The New York Times reports . That 's because the electorate has changed , former Clinton strategist James Carville told the Times . `` The highest-premium voter in '92 was a voter who would vote for one party some and for another party some , '' Carville said . `` Now the highest-premium voter is somebody with a high probability to vote for you and low probability to turn out . That ’ s the golden list . And that ’ s a humongous change in basic strategic doctrine . `` That shift means focusing on certain states where the party 's liberal base is strong , but perhaps not motivated to get to the polls , while ignoring more conservative states with a larger number of swing voters.That method worked for Obama , but is n't as effective as helping the party down ticket , something the former secretary of state and New York senator says she wants to do.It also alienates Americans who felt ignored during the campaign , making them feel they are not a part of the White House 's vision.Despite his two victories , that has been exactly what Obama has faced , and the Times said Clinton 's campaign staff seems little concerned with trying to avoid it . `` If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate , you ’ re not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need , '' said top Obama strategist David Plouffe , who also has worked informally with Hillary Clinton.Democrats in Congress are n't too optimistic of retaking control on Capitol Hill even if Clinton wins the White House . Some from conservative districts fear her strategy wo n't help whatever chances they have and might even make the margin for herself slimmer . `` Go ask Al Gore , ” West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin told the Times . `` He 'd be president with five electoral votes from West Virginia . So it is big , and it can make a difference . ''

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is using President Barack Obama's campaign strategy rather than the one that got her husband, Bill Clinton, twice elected to the White House, The New York Times reports. That's because the electorate has changed, former Clinton strategist James Carville told the Times."The highest-premium voter in '92 was a voter who would vote for one party some and for another party some," Carville said. "Now the highest-premium voter is somebody with a high probability to vote for you and low probability to turn out. That’s the golden list. And that’s a humongous change in basic strategic doctrine."That shift means focusing on certain states where the party's liberal base is strong, but perhaps not motivated to get to the polls, while ignoring more conservative states with a larger number of swing voters.That method worked for Obama, but isn't as effective as helping the party down ticket, something the former secretary of state and New York senator says she wants to do.It also alienates Americans who felt ignored during the campaign, making them feel they are not a part of the White House's vision.Despite his two victories, that has been exactly what Obama has faced, and the Times said Clinton's campaign staff seems little concerned with trying to avoid it."If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate, you’re not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need," said top Obama strategist David Plouffe, who also has worked informally with Hillary Clinton.Democrats in Congress aren't too optimistic of retaking control on Capitol Hill even if Clinton wins the White House. Some from conservative districts fear her strategy won't help whatever chances they have and might even make the margin for herself slimmer."Go ask Al Gore,” West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin told the Times. "He'd be president with five electoral votes from West Virginia. So it is big, and it can make a difference."

www.newsmax.com

right

3Ngum89NVtXlG8n4

test

UY2MGUbAvQ36btQR

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/26/al_sharpton_does_not_have_my_ear_why_we_need_new_black_leadership_now/

Al Sharpton does not have my ear: Why we need new black leadership now

2014-08-26

Brittney Cooper

Racial politics in the U.S. is beholden to the space of black death . On Monday , Michael Brown ’ s family , friends and loved ones gathered to lay his body to rest , even though his unjust and untimely death leaves his community of Ferguson , Missouri , in a state of unrest . Michael ’ s funeral , held in a local black Baptist Church , was reminiscent of so many familiar rituals of black cultural home-goings : raucous preaching , the call and response of the audience emboldening those in the pulpit to “ make it plain , ” and “ tell it all , ” while the truths being affirmed received “ hearty amens . ” Black churches are a central part of the 20th century story of American racial politics . Dr. King was the consummate preacher , flanked by peers like Rev . Ralph Abernathy and Rev . Joseph Lowery , and protégés like Rev . Jesse Jackson . Last century , black churches were the locus of a kind of narrative authority in black communities – the way black preachers , mostly male , told our story to us in light of the story of Jesus Christ gave us hope , inspired change and helped us to make sense of black suffering , to believe that God had a grander purpose in the sure and steady sacrifice of black bodies , namely the fashioning of a better , more just America . It is within that context , that of the black church and its relationship to black politics , that we have come over the last three decades to know the person of Rev . Al Sharpton . In his sermonic remarks at Michael ’ s funeral yesterday , Sharpton tried to assume the mantle of black America ’ s spiritual leader , the one with the moral and rhetorical force to move us toward thinking of Mike ’ s death as the beginning of a movement , rather than merely a moment . Al Sharpton , however , does not have the ear of this generation , and it is not his leadership that any of us who will live on the planet for the next half-century or so really needs . To be clear , I do not believe in the slaying of elders . Black cultural traditions hold within them a serious reverence for the authority and wisdom of elder people . This is not about Sharpton ’ s age , but rather about how he has positioned himself in relationship to black politics . My issue with him resides squarely within the limitations of his moral and political vision for who and how black people get to be within the American body politic . Those limitations emerged almost immediately in his sermonic remarks as he stood in a pulpit over Mike Brown ’ s casket . Unable to resist shaking a finger at “ looters and rioters , ” he told them “ this is not about you . This is about justice. ” Justice apparently is not about us . Taking a page from the standard conservative black preacher playbook , he goes on to rail against a black community that mistakenly thinks the “ definition of blackness ” is “ about how low you could go. ” Among these misguided black people , there is the apparent sense that “ it ain ’ t black no more to be successful. ” Thus he concludes , that “ we have to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America. ” We have to do this because , “ nobody is going to help us if we don ’ t help ourselves. ” Thus , we must quickly dispense with our penchant for “ ghetto pity parties . ” To quote Philip Agnew of the Dream Defenders , when asked recently about the helpfulness of clergy to the work in Ferguson , some of the clergy have been “ problematic. ” Problematic is putting it mildly . Sharpton ’ s words should certainly put to rest those critics who suggest that black people are never outraged about “ black-on-black crime ” and the ills that plague black communities . These sermonic turns of phrase rise to the level of cliché when set against any number of sermons preached from black pulpits on Sunday mornings . The idea that black communities can be saved through self-help is an idea that emerged during the immediate moment following Reconstruction , when Northerners and the federal government , weary of helping black people get on their feet after centuries of slavery and tired of being at odds with their white Southern brethren , abdicated all sense of responsibility to fledgling , newly freed black communities . In response to this massive depletion of government resources , black communities turned inward , touting a politics of respectability , hoping that if they merely “ acted better ” and “ more fit , ” the nation would accept them . For nearly 140 years now , we have repeated this mantra of “ self-help , ” stopping only in limited instances to question whether in fact it is we who are the problem . But Sharpton ’ s remarks , his own call for us to finally deal with the problem of militarized and racist policing of black communities , suggests that we are not in fact the problem . His remarks did not meet a contradiction they did not embrace . While demanding that Mike Brown ’ s death be a turning point for the nation , Sharpton also suggested that the real turning point needed to be first within black communities . That kind of argument is deeply dishonest , and places Sharpton adjacent to more robust traditions of prophetic leadership in the black church that have called the nation to account for failing to meet its stated democratic ideals . If the U.S. would “ clean up its act , ” this would necessarily mean a real commitment to due process , protection of voting rights , a livable wage , the dissolution of the prison industrial complex , funding of good public education at both K-12 and college levels , a serious commitment to affirmative action , food security and full reproductive justice for all women . Those are the kinds of conditions under which black communities , and all communities , could thrive . That kind of commitment to the ideals of democracy would require us , as my friend activist Marlon Peterson did recently , to “ ask not what you can do for your country . Ask what your country can undo for you . ” These young people , some more militant than others , some whose understandable nihilism and “ don ’ t give a f___ ” attitudes show up as militancy , are looking for leaders with the courage to tell the truth . The inconvenient truth is that the continued machinations of racism and its devastating and traumatizing impact upon communities of color will be the undoing of our country . Sharpton stuck to safe truths , convenient ones , about the problem of militarized policing , particularly in black communities . Sharpton chose not to be a prophetic voice for the people of Ferguson but rather to do the work that the Obama administration sent him to do . That work entailed the placating of the people by ostensibly affirming their sense of injustice , while disaffirming their right to a kind of righteous rage in the face of such injustice . If the nation does not believe in and protect its people , we should not be surprised when the people no longer believe the idea of the nation itself . Absent strong federal intervention , this is exactly what should and will happen . A recent New York Times poll found that 20 percent of African-Americans disapprove of Obama ’ s anemic response to the crisis in Ferguson . That disapproval rating is incredibly high when you consider that the president ’ s approval rating in black communities usually hovers at or above 90 percent . While Eric Holder ’ s presence and the Department of Justice ’ s civil rights investigation are welcome , a visit from the president would be , too . Nobody is trying to hear excuses about the separation of powers . The civil rights that African-Americans have enjoyed for fleeting moments across the centuries are a direct result of strong federal action , often in the face of obstructionists wagging fingers about the infringement upon “ states ’ rights . ” The kind of anemic truth-telling in which Sharpton trafficked will also be the undoing of mainstream black churches . Their heavily male leadership , their refusal to blend real political critique with substantive theology , and the investment of black male preachers in being both figureheads of the movement and friends of those with political power rather than fighters for real change run the risk of rendering the black church an institution increasingly irrelevant to 21st century political change . The optics of the heavily black male preachers and preachers-by-proxy including Sharpton , T.D . Jakes and Martin Luther King III , who showed up and had a front row seat at the funeral , suggest that this is exactly the kind of outdated model that we are being asked to invest in again . Jesse Jackson , who had been the subject of vitriol early last week , sat a few rows back in the audience , clearly dethroned from a place of either honor or leadership or relevance . It is easy in times like these to suggest that there is a crisis in black leadership , to pathologize black people further by suggesting that we do not have the political acumen to figure out the right direction in which to head . But as I speak to activists on the ground and prepare to ride this weekend to Ferguson with people from across the country , I believe we should give the emerging leadership credit for , at the very least , knowing what kind of leaders they do not want . They are not invested in leaders who emerge from churches using Christian theology to placate them , to “ pray over them and send them home at the end of each night ” as Philip Agnew noted . Churches , like Greater St. Mark ’ s Church , that act as gathering spaces and treatment spaces for organizers and tear gas victims , seem to be acceptable . But “ the church ” as the arbiter of the narrative of this moment and any emerging movement has been abandoned as the leadership model for this generation . This generation of people has grown up with the dethroned gods of Generation X and the failures of political courage that have marked the Hip-Hop Generation . The most faith they have , hubristic though it may turn out to be , is in themselves to be agents of change . But they will not invest in a nation-state project that hands them black presidents alongside dead unarmed black boys in the street . These are irreconcilable contradictions . And these are non-conciliatory times .

Racial politics in the U.S. is beholden to the space of black death. On Monday, Michael Brown’s family, friends and loved ones gathered to lay his body to rest, even though his unjust and untimely death leaves his community of Ferguson, Missouri, in a state of unrest. Michael’s funeral, held in a local black Baptist Church, was reminiscent of so many familiar rituals of black cultural home-goings: raucous preaching, the call and response of the audience emboldening those in the pulpit to “make it plain,” and “tell it all,” while the truths being affirmed received “hearty amens.” Advertisement: Black churches are a central part of the 20th century story of American racial politics. Dr. King was the consummate preacher, flanked by peers like Rev. Ralph Abernathy and Rev. Joseph Lowery, and protégés like Rev. Jesse Jackson. Last century, black churches were the locus of a kind of narrative authority in black communities – the way black preachers, mostly male, told our story to us in light of the story of Jesus Christ gave us hope, inspired change and helped us to make sense of black suffering, to believe that God had a grander purpose in the sure and steady sacrifice of black bodies, namely the fashioning of a better, more just America. It is within that context, that of the black church and its relationship to black politics, that we have come over the last three decades to know the person of Rev. Al Sharpton. In his sermonic remarks at Michael’s funeral yesterday, Sharpton tried to assume the mantle of black America’s spiritual leader, the one with the moral and rhetorical force to move us toward thinking of Mike’s death as the beginning of a movement, rather than merely a moment. Advertisement: Al Sharpton, however, does not have the ear of this generation, and it is not his leadership that any of us who will live on the planet for the next half-century or so really needs. To be clear, I do not believe in the slaying of elders. Black cultural traditions hold within them a serious reverence for the authority and wisdom of elder people. This is not about Sharpton’s age, but rather about how he has positioned himself in relationship to black politics. My issue with him resides squarely within the limitations of his moral and political vision for who and how black people get to be within the American body politic. Those limitations emerged almost immediately in his sermonic remarks as he stood in a pulpit over Mike Brown’s casket. Unable to resist shaking a finger at “looters and rioters,” he told them “this is not about you. This is about justice.” Justice apparently is not about us. Taking a page from the standard conservative black preacher playbook, he goes on to rail against a black community that mistakenly thinks the “definition of blackness” is “about how low you could go.” Among these misguided black people, there is the apparent sense that “it ain’t black no more to be successful.” Thus he concludes, that “we have to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America.” We have to do this because, “nobody is going to help us if we don’t help ourselves.” Thus, we must quickly dispense with our penchant for “ghetto pity parties.” Advertisement: To quote Philip Agnew of the Dream Defenders, when asked recently about the helpfulness of clergy to the work in Ferguson, some of the clergy have been “problematic.” Problematic is putting it mildly. Sharpton’s words should certainly put to rest those critics who suggest that black people are never outraged about “black-on-black crime” and the ills that plague black communities. These sermonic turns of phrase rise to the level of cliché when set against any number of sermons preached from black pulpits on Sunday mornings. The idea that black communities can be saved through self-help is an idea that emerged during the immediate moment following Reconstruction, when Northerners and the federal government, weary of helping black people get on their feet after centuries of slavery and tired of being at odds with their white Southern brethren, abdicated all sense of responsibility to fledgling, newly freed black communities. In response to this massive depletion of government resources, black communities turned inward, touting a politics of respectability, hoping that if they merely “acted better” and “more fit,” the nation would accept them. Advertisement: For nearly 140 years now, we have repeated this mantra of “self-help,” stopping only in limited instances to question whether in fact it is we who are the problem. But Sharpton’s remarks, his own call for us to finally deal with the problem of militarized and racist policing of black communities, suggests that we are not in fact the problem. His remarks did not meet a contradiction they did not embrace. While demanding that Mike Brown’s death be a turning point for the nation, Sharpton also suggested that the real turning point needed to be first within black communities. That kind of argument is deeply dishonest, and places Sharpton adjacent to more robust traditions of prophetic leadership in the black church that have called the nation to account for failing to meet its stated democratic ideals. If the U.S. would “clean up its act,” this would necessarily mean a real commitment to due process, protection of voting rights, a livable wage, the dissolution of the prison industrial complex, funding of good public education at both K-12 and college levels, a serious commitment to affirmative action, food security and full reproductive justice for all women. Those are the kinds of conditions under which black communities, and all communities, could thrive. That kind of commitment to the ideals of democracy would require us, as my friend activist Marlon Peterson did recently, to “ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can undo for you.” Advertisement: These young people, some more militant than others, some whose understandable nihilism and “don’t give a f___” attitudes show up as militancy, are looking for leaders with the courage to tell the truth. The inconvenient truth is that the continued machinations of racism and its devastating and traumatizing impact upon communities of color will be the undoing of our country. Sharpton stuck to safe truths, convenient ones, about the problem of militarized policing, particularly in black communities. Sharpton chose not to be a prophetic voice for the people of Ferguson but rather to do the work that the Obama administration sent him to do. That work entailed the placating of the people by ostensibly affirming their sense of injustice, while disaffirming their right to a kind of righteous rage in the face of such injustice. If the nation does not believe in and protect its people, we should not be surprised when the people no longer believe the idea of the nation itself. Absent strong federal intervention, this is exactly what should and will happen. A recent New York Times poll found that 20 percent of African-Americans disapprove of Obama’s anemic response to the crisis in Ferguson. That disapproval rating is incredibly high when you consider that the president’s approval rating in black communities usually hovers at or above 90 percent. While Eric Holder’s presence and the Department of Justice’s civil rights investigation are welcome, a visit from the president would be, too. Nobody is trying to hear excuses about the separation of powers. The civil rights that African-Americans have enjoyed for fleeting moments across the centuries are a direct result of strong federal action, often in the face of obstructionists wagging fingers about the infringement upon “states’ rights.” Advertisement: The kind of anemic truth-telling in which Sharpton trafficked will also be the undoing of mainstream black churches. Their heavily male leadership, their refusal to blend real political critique with substantive theology, and the investment of black male preachers in being both figureheads of the movement and friends of those with political power rather than fighters for real change run the risk of rendering the black church an institution increasingly irrelevant to 21st century political change. The optics of the heavily black male preachers and preachers-by-proxy including Sharpton, T.D. Jakes and Martin Luther King III, who showed up and had a front row seat at the funeral, suggest that this is exactly the kind of outdated model that we are being asked to invest in again. Jesse Jackson, who had been the subject of vitriol early last week, sat a few rows back in the audience, clearly dethroned from a place of either honor or leadership or relevance. It is easy in times like these to suggest that there is a crisis in black leadership, to pathologize black people further by suggesting that we do not have the political acumen to figure out the right direction in which to head. But as I speak to activists on the ground and prepare to ride this weekend to Ferguson with people from across the country, I believe we should give the emerging leadership credit for, at the very least, knowing what kind of leaders they do not want. They are not invested in leaders who emerge from churches using Christian theology to placate them, to “pray over them and send them home at the end of each night” as Philip Agnew noted. Churches, like Greater St. Mark’s Church, that act as gathering spaces and treatment spaces for organizers and tear gas victims, seem to be acceptable. But “the church” as the arbiter of the narrative of this moment and any emerging movement has been abandoned as the leadership model for this generation. Advertisement: This generation of people has grown up with the dethroned gods of Generation X and the failures of political courage that have marked the Hip-Hop Generation. The most faith they have, hubristic though it may turn out to be, is in themselves to be agents of change. But they will not invest in a nation-state project that hands them black presidents alongside dead unarmed black boys in the street. These are irreconcilable contradictions. And these are non-conciliatory times.

www.salon.com

left

UY2MGUbAvQ36btQR

test

3JQeQ1nHxvHEPBit

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/turn-around-time-in-america/

Turn-Around Time in America

William Murchison, Jeffrey Lord, Debra J. Saunders, Brian Mcnicoll, Aymenn Al-Tamimi, Jared Whitley

Like him or not — and I can argue it both ways — established constitutional processes have hoisted Donald J. Trump atop the presidential plinth , where he stands now , getting ready to run things . Insofar as anybody runs anything anymore . The latter point — the semi-chaotic nature of 21st century social and political life — is one we might fix on as we figure out what we ’ re in for these next four years . Here is my guess : We are “ in for ” market-driven reforms led by an entrepreneur who will show us , as all entrepreneurs must in due course , whether he ’ s as good at execution as he is at salesmanship . Donald Trump , businessman , is the figure to keep your eye on : not Donald Trump , master manipulator ; or Donald Trump , political visionary ; or Donald Trump , true and faithful patriot . We have chosen for president a man of the marketplace , with a highly tuned sense of what works and what doesn ’ t . This moment has been coming on us for a while . Ross Perot was its herald . He intended , if you recall , to “ get under the hood ” and tune up the national engine . That was a quarter of a century ago . Times aren ’ t as good now as they were then . Trump ’ s objectives , like America ’ s local and international enmeshments , are larger : vanishing industrial jobs , terrorism , energy , urban decline , immigration , police relations , health care , retirement policy , and so on . He wants , in his brash , ultra-capitalistic way , to smash some old stuff by way of making new stuff ; stuff that works . It ’ s what capitalists do . So what ’ s the matter around here ? This inaugural address reference to national “ carnage ” ; the repeated pledges to “ make America great again ” — less in Reaganesque city-on-a-hill fashion than America seen as a thriving , well-functioning , and most of all free community . What ’ s all that about ? It ’ s the way in which numerous Americans see their country and the challenges , as well as opportunities , now facing it . Which is why so many Americans went to the polls last year and purchased , in essence , stock in a Trump comeback plan , its details sketchy , its vision encouraging or uplifting , depending on taste . Donald Trump sees himself as a national turn-around artist . Could that be plainer ? But , as I asked a moment ago , what ’ s the matter ? Why the need for a turnaround — a need sensed by — I make bold to guess — all who voted for Trump ? The matter is the failure of Western liberalism . Liberalism has the vitality , coupled with the dimensions and avoirdupois , of a beached whale . It doesn ’ t work . It lies there and flops about a little . Liberalism ( renamed “ progressivism ” after it ceased to connote freedom ) posits government — specifically , federal government — activity as the key to prosperity and happiness . If public schools no longer produce a “ winning ” ( as Trump might say ) product , throw more taxpayer money at them ; and then more . And let Washington , D.C. , and the teachers unions prescribe the standards . If tax policy discourages investment and leads to capital flight , let ’ s denounce tax cuts for “ the wealthiest 1 percent ” to keep from cutting the taxes paid by everyone else . Let ’ s tell consumers what kind of energy to use — and business what kind not to develop and produce . Let ’ s turn health care into a transaction between government and provider , with the patient mostly a bystander . Why worry about the assimilation — linguistic , occupational , cultural — of newcomers to America inasmuch as concern with assimilation probably reflects prejudice and nativism ? The modern liberal/progressive project thrives on top-down control as opposed to the creative flexibility traditionally enjoyed by people at grass-roots level — to plan , to cooperate , to respond to real , as opposed to dreamed-up , needs . The liberal/progressive project stems , it is fair to say , in part from well-motivated concerns as to genuine problems . Care for those in need is unmistakably a social duty . Care that , on the other hand , compromises freedom and mortgages the prospects of unborn generations is an outrage . No one would argue — well , Donald might — that Donald has published with shining clarity his turnaround prospectus . But that , I think we should own , is what he ’ s up to — looking under the hood and throwing defective parts all over the landscape . I might not call it fun to watch . But fascinating ? We may never again see the like .

Like him or not — and I can argue it both ways — established constitutional processes have hoisted Donald J. Trump atop the presidential plinth, where he stands now, getting ready to run things. Insofar as anybody runs anything anymore. The latter point — the semi-chaotic nature of 21st century social and political life — is one we might fix on as we figure out what we’re in for these next four years. Here is my guess: We are “in for” market-driven reforms led by an entrepreneur who will show us, as all entrepreneurs must in due course, whether he’s as good at execution as he is at salesmanship. Donald Trump, businessman, is the figure to keep your eye on: not Donald Trump, master manipulator; or Donald Trump, political visionary; or Donald Trump, true and faithful patriot. We have chosen for president a man of the marketplace, with a highly tuned sense of what works and what doesn’t. This moment has been coming on us for a while. Ross Perot was its herald. He intended, if you recall, to “get under the hood” and tune up the national engine. That was a quarter of a century ago. Times aren’t as good now as they were then. Trump’s objectives, like America’s local and international enmeshments, are larger: vanishing industrial jobs, terrorism, energy, urban decline, immigration, police relations, health care, retirement policy, and so on. He wants, in his brash, ultra-capitalistic way, to smash some old stuff by way of making new stuff; stuff that works. It’s what capitalists do. So what’s the matter around here? This inaugural address reference to national “carnage”; the repeated pledges to “make America great again” — less in Reaganesque city-on-a-hill fashion than America seen as a thriving, well-functioning, and most of all free community. What’s all that about? It’s the way in which numerous Americans see their country and the challenges, as well as opportunities, now facing it. Which is why so many Americans went to the polls last year and purchased, in essence, stock in a Trump comeback plan, its details sketchy, its vision encouraging or uplifting, depending on taste. Donald Trump sees himself as a national turn-around artist. Could that be plainer? But, as I asked a moment ago, what’s the matter? Why the need for a turnaround — a need sensed by — I make bold to guess — all who voted for Trump? The matter is the failure of Western liberalism. Liberalism has the vitality, coupled with the dimensions and avoirdupois, of a beached whale. It doesn’t work. It lies there and flops about a little. Liberalism (renamed “progressivism” after it ceased to connote freedom) posits government — specifically, federal government — activity as the key to prosperity and happiness. If public schools no longer produce a “winning” (as Trump might say) product, throw more taxpayer money at them; and then more. And let Washington, D.C., and the teachers unions prescribe the standards. If tax policy discourages investment and leads to capital flight, let’s denounce tax cuts for “the wealthiest 1 percent” to keep from cutting the taxes paid by everyone else. Let’s tell consumers what kind of energy to use — and business what kind not to develop and produce. Let’s turn health care into a transaction between government and provider, with the patient mostly a bystander. Why worry about the assimilation — linguistic, occupational, cultural — of newcomers to America inasmuch as concern with assimilation probably reflects prejudice and nativism? The modern liberal/progressive project thrives on top-down control as opposed to the creative flexibility traditionally enjoyed by people at grass-roots level — to plan, to cooperate, to respond to real, as opposed to dreamed-up, needs. The liberal/progressive project stems, it is fair to say, in part from well-motivated concerns as to genuine problems. Care for those in need is unmistakably a social duty. Care that, on the other hand, compromises freedom and mortgages the prospects of unborn generations is an outrage. No one would argue — well, Donald might — that Donald has published with shining clarity his turnaround prospectus. But that, I think we should own, is what he’s up to — looking under the hood and throwing defective parts all over the landscape. I might not call it fun to watch. But fascinating? We may never again see the like. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

www.spectator.org

right

3JQeQ1nHxvHEPBit

test

gcBZVkzglaF6uGVn

politics

Salon

https://www.salon.com/2017/12/15/a-trump-judicial-nominee-was-just-embarrassed-for-his-lack-of-legal-knowledge/

A Trump judicial nominee was just embarrassed for his lack of legal knowledge

2017-12-15

Matthew Rozsa

One of President Donald Trump 's judicial nominees — a man who , if confirmed , would sit on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for life — failed to answer basic legal questions during his confirmation hearing on Thursday night . Matthew Spencer Petersen , who currently serves as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission , was questioned by Sen. John Kennedy , R-La. , and found himself fumbling over information that Kennedy implied should have been common knowledge . After admitting that he had no experience trying a jury trial , civil trial , criminal trial , bench trial or state or federal court trial , Petersen revealed a stunning display of ignorance over fundamental legal facts . Kennedy first asked about the Daubert Standard , which is used as a preliminary guideline for assessing the validity and applicability of a scientific expert 's testimony . Petersen did not know the answer . Kennedy then asked about motion in limine , which is a motion made at the beginning of a trial to exclude certain evidence . After initially giving the appearance that he knew the answer to that question , Petersen had to admit when pressed that he did not . Kennedy finally asked Petersen if he knew about an abstention doctrine ( when a court refuses to hear a case because it may infringe upon the powers of another court ) based on the 1971 Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris . Petersen was not able to answer that question as well . He was also unable to answer a question about an abstention doctrine related to the 1941 Supreme Court case , Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co . Petersen did however ace two important questions . He could say that he had n't written blog posts and , similarly , confirmed that he had never blogged in favor of the Ku Klux Klan . There have been a number of judicial candidates nominated by Trump who have raised concerns about their own qualifications . Leonard Steven Grasz , despite getting a rare `` not qualified '' rating from the American Bar Association , was backed to serve on the 8th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals on a party-line vote . Trump also nominated Brett Talley to be a federal judge in Alabama , even though Talley has never argued a motion , only practiced law for three years and made partisan comments on his blog that would normally be considered unbecoming for a judge , such as denouncing the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate as `` Hillary Rotten Clinton . ''

One of President Donald Trump's judicial nominees — a man who, if confirmed, would sit on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for life — failed to answer basic legal questions during his confirmation hearing on Thursday night. Matthew Spencer Petersen, who currently serves as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, was questioned by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., and found himself fumbling over information that Kennedy implied should have been common knowledge. Advertisement: After admitting that he had no experience trying a jury trial, civil trial, criminal trial, bench trial or state or federal court trial, Petersen revealed a stunning display of ignorance over fundamental legal facts. Kennedy first asked about the Daubert Standard, which is used as a preliminary guideline for assessing the validity and applicability of a scientific expert's testimony. Petersen did not know the answer. Kennedy then asked about motion in limine, which is a motion made at the beginning of a trial to exclude certain evidence. After initially giving the appearance that he knew the answer to that question, Petersen had to admit when pressed that he did not. Kennedy finally asked Petersen if he knew about an abstention doctrine (when a court refuses to hear a case because it may infringe upon the powers of another court) based on the 1971 Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris. Petersen was not able to answer that question as well. He was also unable to answer a question about an abstention doctrine related to the 1941 Supreme Court case, Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. Advertisement: Petersen did however ace two important questions. He could say that he hadn't written blog posts and, similarly, confirmed that he had never blogged in favor of the Ku Klux Klan. There have been a number of judicial candidates nominated by Trump who have raised concerns about their own qualifications. Leonard Steven Grasz, despite getting a rare "not qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, was backed to serve on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a party-line vote. Trump also nominated Brett Talley to be a federal judge in Alabama, even though Talley has never argued a motion, only practiced law for three years and made partisan comments on his blog that would normally be considered unbecoming for a judge, such as denouncing the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate as "Hillary Rotten Clinton."

www.salon.com

left

gcBZVkzglaF6uGVn

test

jkfIqHF6QhBeyF1e

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/John-Boehner-opponents-tea-party-no-realistic/2015/09/27/id/693555/

John Boehner: GOP Opponents 'Not Realistic'

2015-09-27

Greg Richter

House Speaker John Boehner , who announced of Friday he will be stepping down and resigning from Congress on October 30 , said his more conservative opponents are not being realistic about how things are accomplished in Washington.The tea party wing of the party has had its sights set on Boehner for quite some time , and he was only narrowly re-elected speaker in 2013 . Conservative members have reportedly been plotting to force him to step down amid the debate over defunding Planned Parenthood.Appearing Sunday onBoehner said he had always intended to step down at year 's end anyway , and said he would have gotten the overwhelming majority of votes had he been challenged.But he said the did n't want to make fellow Republicans `` walk the plank '' with voters back home because their constituents felt they were n't being aggressive enough.He ticked off a list of accomplishments made under his leadership , including stopping a tax increase on most Americans and entitlement reforms . `` All done over the last four-and-half years with a Democrat president , all voted against by my most conservative members because it was n't good enough , '' Boehner said . `` Really ? This is the part that I really do n't understand . `` The founders set up a system of government that allowed the president to make a decision after the House and Senate had voted , Boehner said , because they did n't want a parliamentary system where changes were made too quickly . `` And so change comes slowly , '' he said . `` And , obviously , too slowly for some . `` Asked if the tea party wing was being unrealistic in its expectations , Boehner emphatically replied , `` Absolutely , they 're not realistic ! `` Our system of government is not about Hail Mary passes , '' Boehner said . `` It 's the Woody Hayes school of football : three yards and a cloud of dust , three yards and a cloud of dust . It 's a slow methodical process . `` Boehner admitted he was a rebel himself when he entered Congress in 1991 , but said his goal was to shake up the House of Representatives , not the Republican Party.Boehner announced his resignation one day after hosting Pope Francis at an address to a join session of Congress — something Boehner has been pushing for since the mid-1990s . He said meeting the pope did not spur his decision , but it `` helped clear the picture . `` As for what he wants said about him when his portrait is unveiled in Statuary Hall , Boehner said simply , `` He was a good man . That 's all . ''

House Speaker John Boehner, who announced of Friday he will be stepping down and resigning from Congress on October 30, said his more conservative opponents are not being realistic about how things are accomplished in Washington.The tea party wing of the party has had its sights set on Boehner for quite some time, and he was only narrowly re-elected speaker in 2013. Conservative members have reportedly been plotting to force him to step down amid the debate over defunding Planned Parenthood.Appearing Sunday onBoehner said he had always intended to step down at year's end anyway, and said he would have gotten the overwhelming majority of votes had he been challenged.But he said the didn't want to make fellow Republicans "walk the plank" with voters back home because their constituents felt they weren't being aggressive enough.He ticked off a list of accomplishments made under his leadership, including stopping a tax increase on most Americans and entitlement reforms."All done over the last four-and-half years with a Democrat president, all voted against by my most conservative members because it wasn't good enough," Boehner said. "Really? This is the part that I really don't understand."The founders set up a system of government that allowed the president to make a decision after the House and Senate had voted, Boehner said, because they didn't want a parliamentary system where changes were made too quickly."And so change comes slowly," he said. "And, obviously, too slowly for some."Asked if the tea party wing was being unrealistic in its expectations, Boehner emphatically replied, "Absolutely, they're not realistic!"Our system of government is not about Hail Mary passes," Boehner said. "It's the Woody Hayes school of football: three yards and a cloud of dust, three yards and a cloud of dust. It's a slow methodical process."Boehner admitted he was a rebel himself when he entered Congress in 1991, but said his goal was to shake up the House of Representatives, not the Republican Party.Boehner announced his resignation one day after hosting Pope Francis at an address to a join session of Congress — something Boehner has been pushing for since the mid-1990s. He said meeting the pope did not spur his decision, but it "helped clear the picture."As for what he wants said about him when his portrait is unveiled in Statuary Hall, Boehner said simply, "He was a good man. That's all."

www.newsmax.com

right

jkfIqHF6QhBeyF1e

test

G1zcj1D3DXJMf9En

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/10/david-horowitz-inauguration-war/

David Horowitz: The Inauguration War

2017-01-10

David Horowitz

According to Gallup , the average presidential honeymoon lasts seven months . This is a window when the losing party declares a partisan peace , allows the incoming president to pick his cabinet and launch the agenda his victory mandates . Presidential honeymoons are not only a venerable American tradition they are one of democracy ’ s pillars . For generations they have been ceremonial supports for the peaceful transition of power , and the peaceful resolution of partisan conflicts . Not this election year . There will be no honeymoon . This year even before Trump arrives in the Oval Office , the opposition cry has been Resist ! Block ! Reject ! It is not just anti-American radicals like Michael Moore , who has indeed called for “ 100 days of resistance ” to the Trump presidency , but by the leadership of the Democratic Party which has vowed to fight Trump ’ s appointments , has attacked the election result as an expression of popular racism , attempted to discredit the Electoral College by falsely calling it a legacy of slavery , and even accused Trump of being a Russian agent , a pawn in the chess game of its dictator Vladimir Putin . It is a sad day for America when the world ’ s oldest political party , whose name proclaims it a partisan of democracy , comes out in force as a saboteur of that same system . Nor is all this simply a fit of Democratic absent-mindedness . Instead , it is the culmination of a long developing shift in Democratic Party politics , a shift symbolized by the current favorite to become its next leader . Keith Ellison is a Muslim radical who spent his formative adult years as a vocal supporter of the anti-American , anti-Semitic racist Louis Farrakhan . Ellison reflects the power of the Bernie Sanders radicals in the Democratic Party who according to recent Gallup polls now represent its majority , even though they lost a rigged primary election which would have made him the party ’ s presidential nominee . The face of this new Democratic Party was revealed during a seminal moment in the second Clinton-Trump presidential debate . It came when Trump turned to the cameras and said , “ Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart. ” He was referring to her now notorious statement that half of Trump ’ s supporters belonged in a “ basket of deplorables , ” which was followed by her iteration of those she had in mind : “ The racist , sexist , homophobic , xenophobic , Islamophobic—you name it . And unfortunately there are people like that . And he has lifted them up . ” What made this moment pivotal was that the slurs were not an idiosyncratic tic of the Democratic standard-bearer and leader of the party ’ s “ moderate ” wing . They were the logical expression of the identity politics that had become the party ’ s creed . If every political issue and conflict is reduced to a conflict of races , genders and ethnic origins this inevitably leads to the demonization of the opposition as racist , sexist … deplorable . It is this mentality that has swallowed the Democratic Party and caused it to view politics not as an art of compromise but as a war against the indecent and the irredeemable . There can be no more succinct summary of what the Democrats ’ rejection of the traditional presidential honeymoon is about . Nonetheless , what was most significant in the presidential debate was Trump ’ s readiness to confront Hillary to her face and describe her attack for what it was : hate . It was the kind of indiscreet character description that had become a signature reflex of Trump ’ s campaign . Never before had one presidential candidate so bluntly confronted another . Never had any Republican dared to characterize a Democratic opponent in such damning moral terms before a national audience . This why the attempt to reverse the election result , block Trump ’ s appointments and cripple his agendas will fail . Other Republicans faced with such extreme attacks on their appointments would have thrown many of them under the bus . But Trump himself has been the target of such attacks from the outset of his campaign . The reason he has been so attacked has been his readiness to confront head on what is called “ political correctness ” but what is in fact a party line demonizing anyone who challenges it as a racist , sexist , Islamophobic — deplorable . This is the revolution that Trump represents . It will succeed or fail on whether the American people are ready to reject the racial , gender and ethnic divisiveness that has become the policy of the Democratic Party ; whether they are ready to restore the American social contract that regards individuals on their merits , regardless of race , color or creed . In short it will succeed or fail on whether they are ready to make America great again . David Horowitz ’ s new book “ Big Agenda : President Trump ’ s Plan to Save America , ” will be published by Humanix Books on January 17 , 2017

According to Gallup, the average presidential honeymoon lasts seven months. This is a window when the losing party declares a partisan peace, allows the incoming president to pick his cabinet and launch the agenda his victory mandates. Presidential honeymoons are not only a venerable American tradition they are one of democracy’s pillars. For generations they have been ceremonial supports for the peaceful transition of power, and the peaceful resolution of partisan conflicts. Not this election year. There will be no honeymoon. This year even before Trump arrives in the Oval Office, the opposition cry has been Resist! Block! Reject! It is not just anti-American radicals like Michael Moore, who has indeed called for “100 days of resistance” to the Trump presidency, but by the leadership of the Democratic Party which has vowed to fight Trump’s appointments, has attacked the election result as an expression of popular racism, attempted to discredit the Electoral College by falsely calling it a legacy of slavery, and even accused Trump of being a Russian agent, a pawn in the chess game of its dictator Vladimir Putin. It is a sad day for America when the world’s oldest political party, whose name proclaims it a partisan of democracy, comes out in force as a saboteur of that same system. Nor is all this simply a fit of Democratic absent-mindedness. Instead, it is the culmination of a long developing shift in Democratic Party politics, a shift symbolized by the current favorite to become its next leader. Keith Ellison is a Muslim radical who spent his formative adult years as a vocal supporter of the anti-American, anti-Semitic racist Louis Farrakhan. Ellison reflects the power of the Bernie Sanders radicals in the Democratic Party who according to recent Gallup polls now represent its majority, even though they lost a rigged primary election which would have made him the party’s presidential nominee. The face of this new Democratic Party was revealed during a seminal moment in the second Clinton-Trump presidential debate. It came when Trump turned to the cameras and said, “Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart.” He was referring to her now notorious statement that half of Trump’s supporters belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” which was followed by her iteration of those she had in mind: “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” What made this moment pivotal was that the slurs were not an idiosyncratic tic of the Democratic standard-bearer and leader of the party’s “moderate” wing. They were the logical expression of the identity politics that had become the party’s creed. If every political issue and conflict is reduced to a conflict of races, genders and ethnic origins this inevitably leads to the demonization of the opposition as racist, sexist … deplorable. It is this mentality that has swallowed the Democratic Party and caused it to view politics not as an art of compromise but as a war against the indecent and the irredeemable. There can be no more succinct summary of what the Democrats’ rejection of the traditional presidential honeymoon is about. Nonetheless, what was most significant in the presidential debate was Trump’s readiness to confront Hillary to her face and describe her attack for what it was: hate. It was the kind of indiscreet character description that had become a signature reflex of Trump’s campaign. Never before had one presidential candidate so bluntly confronted another. Never had any Republican dared to characterize a Democratic opponent in such damning moral terms before a national audience. This why the attempt to reverse the election result, block Trump’s appointments and cripple his agendas will fail. Other Republicans faced with such extreme attacks on their appointments would have thrown many of them under the bus. But Trump himself has been the target of such attacks from the outset of his campaign. The reason he has been so attacked has been his readiness to confront head on what is called “political correctness” but what is in fact a party line demonizing anyone who challenges it as a racist, sexist, Islamophobic — deplorable. This is the revolution that Trump represents. It will succeed or fail on whether the American people are ready to reject the racial, gender and ethnic divisiveness that has become the policy of the Democratic Party; whether they are ready to restore the American social contract that regards individuals on their merits, regardless of race, color or creed. In short it will succeed or fail on whether they are ready to make America great again. David Horowitz’s new book “Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America,” will be published by Humanix Books on January 17, 2017

www.breitbart.com

right

G1zcj1D3DXJMf9En

test

tx0ljfh22jS6RtHp

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/august/ny-gov-andrew-cuomo-blasts-america-in-anti-trump-rant-saying-america-was-never-that-great

America 'Was Never that Great': NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo Blasts USA in Anti-Trump Rant

2018-08-16

New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo surprised an audience Wednesday when he trashed America as a country that `` was never that great . '' The Democrat said , `` We 're not going to make America great again - it was never that great . '' The crowd at the event was shocked , reacting with surprised gasps , and the blowback then escalated to social media . While Cuomo claimed that President Trump wants to return to a period of greater sexism , racism and intolerance toward immigrants , his spokeswoman later tried to explain that the governor meant American greatness wo n't be realized until every man , woman and child has full equality , accusing President Trump 's slogan `` Make America Great Again '' of being code for going back in time . President Trump reacted to Cuomo 's comment in a tweet saying : `` WE 'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN , IT WAS NEVER THAT GREAT . '' Can you believe this is the Governor of the Highest Taxed State in the U.S. , Andrew Cuomo , having a total meltdown ! `` WE 'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN , IT WAS NEVER THAT GREAT . '' Can you believe this is the Governor of the Highest Taxed State in the U.S. , Andrew Cuomo , having a total meltdown ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 16 , 2018 The minority leader of the New York state Assembly , Republican Brian Kolb , tweeted that Cuomo 's remark was `` inexcusable & reprehensible . '' You can dislike the President . You can disagree with his policies . You can mock his slogans . But for Andrew Cuomo to say America `` was never that great '' is inexcusable & reprehensible . America is the greatest country in the world & an apology is in order . https : //t.co/v77RdEcfzN — Brian Kolb ( @ GOPLdrBrianKolb ) August 15 , 2018 And the Republican running to win the New York governorship this fall had a few words to say as well . `` America , with its imperfections , has always been great . Our people , our principles and our promises have been a beacon of light to the world for 242 years and counting , '' said Marc Molinaro , the executive of Dutchess County . `` Mr. Cuomo owes the nation an apology . He should be ashamed of himself . '' Before the fall election , Cuomo faces a primary challenge next month from the Left from actress Cynthia Nixon as he seeks a third term as governor . Cuomo is also considered a potential White House contender in 2020 .

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo surprised an audience Wednesday when he trashed America as a country that "was never that great." The Democrat said, "We're not going to make America great again - it was never that great." The crowd at the event was shocked, reacting with surprised gasps, and the blowback then escalated to social media. While Cuomo claimed that President Trump wants to return to a period of greater sexism, racism and intolerance toward immigrants, his spokeswoman later tried to explain that the governor meant American greatness won't be realized until every man, woman and child has full equality, accusing President Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" of being code for going back in time. President Trump reacted to Cuomo's comment in a tweet saying: "WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, IT WAS NEVER THAT GREAT." Can you believe this is the Governor of the Highest Taxed State in the U.S., Andrew Cuomo, having a total meltdown! "WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, IT WAS NEVER THAT GREAT." Can you believe this is the Governor of the Highest Taxed State in the U.S., Andrew Cuomo, having a total meltdown! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2018 Other Republicans quickly criticized Cuomo's remark. The minority leader of the New York state Assembly, Republican Brian Kolb, tweeted that Cuomo's remark was "inexcusable & reprehensible." You can dislike the President. You can disagree with his policies. You can mock his slogans. But for Andrew Cuomo to say America "was never that great" is inexcusable & reprehensible. America is the greatest country in the world & an apology is in order. https://t.co/v77RdEcfzN — Brian Kolb (@GOPLdrBrianKolb) August 15, 2018 And the Republican running to win the New York governorship this fall had a few words to say as well. "America, with its imperfections, has always been great. Our people, our principles and our promises have been a beacon of light to the world for 242 years and counting," said Marc Molinaro, the executive of Dutchess County. "Mr. Cuomo owes the nation an apology. He should be ashamed of himself." Before the fall election, Cuomo faces a primary challenge next month from the Left from actress Cynthia Nixon as he seeks a third term as governor. Cuomo is also considered a potential White House contender in 2020.

www1.cbn.com

right

tx0ljfh22jS6RtHp

test

7NIa14RDcapmUEOh

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45286906

Jeff Sessions: US attorney general hits back at Trump

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has responded to Donald Trump 's latest attack on him by insisting that the justice department he heads will not bend to political pressure . The apparent rebuke of Mr Trump came after the president said Mr Sessions was not in control of his department . Mr Trump has been vociferous in his criticism of the Department of Justice . He has been particularly riled by its handling of the inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election . Mr Sessions , an early supporter of Mr Trump 's campaign , has stepped aside from that inquiry to avoid a potential conflict of interest and handed control to his deputy , Rod Rosenstein . That decision by Mr Sessions , and the ongoing progress of the inquiry under special counsel Robert Mueller - which is also reportedly now looking into whether Mr Trump has attempted to obstruct justice - have provoked frequent outbursts from the president , both in person and on his Twitter feed . The president remains insistent that there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russian government , and denies he has attempted to obstruct justice . After the latest exchanges , two key Republican senators signalled that they would support Mr Trump if he were to fire Mr Sessions after the November mid-term elections . However , other Republicans told Politico they thought this would be a bad move and said they were standing by the attorney general . `` I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in , '' the attorney general said in a statement . `` While I am attorney general , the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations . `` I demand the highest standards , and where they are not met , I take action . '' He added : `` No nation has a more talented , more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States . `` I am proud to serve with them and proud of the work we have done in successfully advancing the rule of law . '' Previously , Mr Sessions had been largely non-committal following criticism of him by the president , who appears to believe that Mr Sessions should have shown him greater loyalty instead of recusing himself from the Russia inquiry . In an earlier interview with the Fox and Friends programme , Mr Trump said : `` I put in an attorney general that never took control of the justice department . Jeff Sessions never took control of the justice department and it 's a sort of an incredible thing . '' Turning to the Russia inquiry , the president said : `` Jeff Sessions recused himself , which he should n't have done . Or he should have told me [ before I appointed him ] . `` Even my enemies say that Jeff Sessions should have told you that he was going to recuse himself , and then you would n't have put him in . He took the job and then he said I 'm going to recuse myself . I said : 'What kind of a man is this ? ' `` You know the only reason I gave him the job ? Because I felt loyalty , he was an original supporter . He was on the campaign . He knows there was no collusion . '' Jeff Sessions was originally brought into the Trump campaign because of his hardline views on immigration . A stubborn man , Mr Sessions fought for decades for anti-immigration policies . Still , he has a gentle manner . I 've seen him greeting colleagues with a shy smile at White House events . Mr Trump prides himself on never giving up , and he admires grit and determination in others - and found those traits in Mr Sessions . But now he is driving President Trump crazy . Mr Sessions is just as determined as Mr Trump is - and also refuses to back down . Only Mr Sessions is guided by a set of bedrock conservative principles , rather than the egotism and quicksilver impulses that fuel Mr Trump 's tweets and , increasingly , his TV interviews . For these reasons Mr Sessions is a formidable enemy , and the battle between these two men could be long . Mr Sessions made his statement during a fraught week for the White House . Two days ago , in the most dramatic developments yet linked to the Russia inquiry , former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was found guilty of tax and bank fraud and Mr Trump 's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to crimes including tax evasion , bank fraud and campaign finance violations . Under oath , Cohen said he had been directed by Mr Trump to organise secret payments to silence two women who claimed they had affairs with the then Republican presidential candidate , violating campaign finance laws . Mr Trump has denied he broke the law . The sense that the president 's legal troubles are growing were not dampened by Thursday 's US media reports that prosecutors in the Cohen case had granted immunity from prosecution to the chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer , David Pecker , a friend of Mr Trump . In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election , Playboy model Karen McDougal sold her story of her alleged affair with Mr Trump to the Enquirer . The contract she signed gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair . The story was never published . Despite the sense of crisis , it is generally believed that the Department of Justice is very unlikely to bring charges against a sitting president . And correspondents say it is unlikely Mr Trump 's opponents would try to impeach him before the mid-term elections . Mr Trump 's most fervent supporters , what he refers to as his `` base '' outside the political cauldron of Washington DC , seem unfazed by the latest developments . During the Fox News interview that was aired on Thursday , the president : Responded to speculation that he might be impeached by warning that any such move would damage the economy Insisted that payments to two women alleging they had affairs with him had not broken election campaign rules Attacked the `` flipping '' process - whereby prosecutors promise a suspect a short sentence in exchange for co-operation - as `` not fair '' and something that `` almost ought to be outlawed '' Claimed that Cohen avoided up to 20 years in jail because `` if you can say something bad about Donald Trump ... you 'll go down to two years or three years , which is the deal he made '' Said he would award himself an `` A-plus '' grade for his work as president so far .

Image copyright AFP Image caption Jeff Sessions has been a frequent target of Mr Trump's very public ire US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has responded to Donald Trump's latest attack on him by insisting that the justice department he heads will not bend to political pressure. The apparent rebuke of Mr Trump came after the president said Mr Sessions was not in control of his department. Mr Trump has been vociferous in his criticism of the Department of Justice. He has been particularly riled by its handling of the inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mr Sessions, an early supporter of Mr Trump's campaign, has stepped aside from that inquiry to avoid a potential conflict of interest and handed control to his deputy, Rod Rosenstein. That decision by Mr Sessions, and the ongoing progress of the inquiry under special counsel Robert Mueller - which is also reportedly now looking into whether Mr Trump has attempted to obstruct justice - have provoked frequent outbursts from the president, both in person and on his Twitter feed. The president remains insistent that there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russian government, and denies he has attempted to obstruct justice. After the latest exchanges, two key Republican senators signalled that they would support Mr Trump if he were to fire Mr Sessions after the November mid-term elections. However, other Republicans told Politico they thought this would be a bad move and said they were standing by the attorney general. What did Sessions say? "I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in," the attorney general said in a statement. "While I am attorney general, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. "I demand the highest standards, and where they are not met, I take action." He added: "No nation has a more talented, more dedicated group of law enforcement investigators and prosecutors than the United States. "I am proud to serve with them and proud of the work we have done in successfully advancing the rule of law." Previously, Mr Sessions had been largely non-committal following criticism of him by the president, who appears to believe that Mr Sessions should have shown him greater loyalty instead of recusing himself from the Russia inquiry. What did Trump say about Sessions? In an earlier interview with the Fox and Friends programme, Mr Trump said: "I put in an attorney general that never took control of the justice department. Jeff Sessions never took control of the justice department and it's a sort of an incredible thing." Turning to the Russia inquiry, the president said: "Jeff Sessions recused himself, which he shouldn't have done. Or he should have told me [before I appointed him]. "Even my enemies say that Jeff Sessions should have told you that he was going to recuse himself, and then you wouldn't have put him in. He took the job and then he said I'm going to recuse myself. I said: 'What kind of a man is this?' "You know the only reason I gave him the job? Because I felt loyalty, he was an original supporter. He was on the campaign. He knows there was no collusion." A formidable enemy By Tara McKelvey, White House reporter Jeff Sessions was originally brought into the Trump campaign because of his hardline views on immigration. A stubborn man, Mr Sessions fought for decades for anti-immigration policies. Still, he has a gentle manner. I've seen him greeting colleagues with a shy smile at White House events. Mr Trump prides himself on never giving up, and he admires grit and determination in others - and found those traits in Mr Sessions. But now he is driving President Trump crazy. Mr Sessions is just as determined as Mr Trump is - and also refuses to back down. Only Mr Sessions is guided by a set of bedrock conservative principles, rather than the egotism and quicksilver impulses that fuel Mr Trump's tweets and, increasingly, his TV interviews. For these reasons Mr Sessions is a formidable enemy, and the battle between these two men could be long. Why now? Mr Sessions made his statement during a fraught week for the White House. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption A law professor outlines President Trump's perilous legal situation Two days ago, in the most dramatic developments yet linked to the Russia inquiry, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was found guilty of tax and bank fraud and Mr Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations. Under oath, Cohen said he had been directed by Mr Trump to organise secret payments to silence two women who claimed they had affairs with the then Republican presidential candidate, violating campaign finance laws. Mr Trump has denied he broke the law. The sense that the president's legal troubles are growing were not dampened by Thursday's US media reports that prosecutors in the Cohen case had granted immunity from prosecution to the chairman of the company that publishes the National Enquirer, David Pecker, a friend of Mr Trump. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, Playboy model Karen McDougal sold her story of her alleged affair with Mr Trump to the Enquirer. The contract she signed gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair. The story was never published. Despite the sense of crisis, it is generally believed that the Department of Justice is very unlikely to bring charges against a sitting president. And correspondents say it is unlikely Mr Trump's opponents would try to impeach him before the mid-term elections. Mr Trump's most fervent supporters, what he refers to as his "base" outside the political cauldron of Washington DC, seem unfazed by the latest developments. What else did Trump say in his interview? During the Fox News interview that was aired on Thursday, the president: Responded to speculation that he might be impeached by warning that any such move would damage the economy Insisted that payments to two women alleging they had affairs with him had not broken election campaign rules Attacked the "flipping" process - whereby prosecutors promise a suspect a short sentence in exchange for co-operation - as "not fair" and something that "almost ought to be outlawed" Claimed that Cohen avoided up to 20 years in jail because "if you can say something bad about Donald Trump... you'll go down to two years or three years, which is the deal he made" Said he would award himself an "A-plus" grade for his work as president so far.

www.bbc.com

center

7NIa14RDcapmUEOh

test

fPffVeLsY9KLslia

opioid_crisis

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-judge-set-reach-decision-latest-major-opioid/story?id=65193231&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed

Oklahoma judge orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $572M in opioid suit

An Oklahoma judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay in excess of $ 572 million as part of a lawsuit about the spread of the opioid epidemic in the state . Interested in Opioid Epidemic ? Add Opioid Epidemic as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Opioid Epidemic news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest The settlement order is a landmark decision , coming months after a different pharmaceutical company was ordered to pay $ 270 million for their role in the crisis . On Monday , Cleveland County Judge Thad Balkman made his judgment in the lawsuit brought by the Oklahoma attorney general against the company for what the state alleges it did to fuel the U.S. opioid crisis . In reading out his settlement decision , Balman said that `` the opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma . '' The nine-figure settlement , while hefty , pales in comparison to what the attorney general 's office originally asked for , as they reportedly asked for in excess of $ 17 billion in damages . Johnson & Johnson released a statement noting that the company plans to appeal the judgment . Johnson & Johnson has denied wrongdoing in the case . `` Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma , and neither the facts nor the law support this outcome , ” Michael Ullmann , an attorney for Johnson & Johnson said , referencing a subsidiary pharmaceutical company also named in the suit . `` We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected . We are working with partners to find ways to help those in need . '' Ullman went on to say that `` this judgment is a misapplication of public nuisance law that has already been rejected by judges in other states . '' `` The unprecedented award for the State ’ s ‘ abatement plan ’ has sweeping ramifications for many industries and bears no relation to the Company ’ s medicines or conduct , '' he said in the statement . Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter spoke to reporters briefly after the settlement was ordered . `` We 're very proud to be where we are today , '' Hunter told reporters . When asked if he viewed today as a day of reckoning because of the settlement , he said `` there 's no question about it . '' In a statement about the case in Jul about the case in July , Hunter said `` our case has revealed how corporate greed got in the way of responsible practices by Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries . '' `` Throughout trial our team repeatedly laid waste to the state 's case , which it built on misstatements and distortions , '' attorney John Sparks , who is representing Johnson & Johnson and their subsidiary , Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. , said after closing statements , according to The Associated Press . `` The facts are that Janssen appropriately provided essential pain treatment options to Oklahomans while balancing the inherent risks associated with these medicines , '' Sparks said , according to the AP . Hunter disagrees , saying in his July statement that the state 's evidence `` has shown how the company perpetuated the epidemic through the targeting of high prescribing doctors , repeatedly ignoring warnings to clean up its act by the federal government and its own scientific advisers and the myriad of other deceitful practices on its way to selling more highly addictive drugs to a vulnerable population . '' The case against Johnson & Johnson comes after Purdue Pharma settled with Oklahoma in March for $ 270 million . Of that settlement , $ 200 million was earmarked for the Oklahoma State University Center for Wellness and Recovery , which conducts treatment and research , with the remainder of the settlement going towards the state 's legal fees and local initiatives to fight the opioid epidemic .

An Oklahoma judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay in excess of $572 million as part of a lawsuit about the spread of the opioid epidemic in the state. Interested in Opioid Epidemic? Add Opioid Epidemic as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Opioid Epidemic news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The settlement order is a landmark decision, coming months after a different pharmaceutical company was ordered to pay $270 million for their role in the crisis. On Monday, Cleveland County Judge Thad Balkman made his judgment in the lawsuit brought by the Oklahoma attorney general against the company for what the state alleges it did to fuel the U.S. opioid crisis. In reading out his settlement decision, Balman said that "the opioid crisis has ravaged the state of Oklahoma." The nine-figure settlement, while hefty, pales in comparison to what the attorney general's office originally asked for, as they reportedly asked for in excess of $17 billion in damages. Johnson & Johnson released a statement noting that the company plans to appeal the judgment. Johnson & Johnson has denied wrongdoing in the case. "Janssen did not cause the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, and neither the facts nor the law support this outcome,” Michael Ullmann, an attorney for Johnson & Johnson said, referencing a subsidiary pharmaceutical company also named in the suit. "We recognize the opioid crisis is a tremendously complex public health issue and we have deep sympathy for everyone affected. We are working with partners to find ways to help those in need." Ullman went on to say that "this judgment is a misapplication of public nuisance law that has already been rejected by judges in other states." "The unprecedented award for the State’s ‘abatement plan’ has sweeping ramifications for many industries and bears no relation to the Company’s medicines or conduct," he said in the statement. Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter spoke to reporters briefly after the settlement was ordered. "We're very proud to be where we are today," Hunter told reporters. When asked if he viewed today as a day of reckoning because of the settlement, he said "there's no question about it." In a statement about the case in Jul about the case in July, Hunter said "our case has revealed how corporate greed got in the way of responsible practices by Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries." "Throughout trial our team repeatedly laid waste to the state's case, which it built on misstatements and distortions," attorney John Sparks, who is representing Johnson & Johnson and their subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., said after closing statements, according to The Associated Press. "The facts are that Janssen appropriately provided essential pain treatment options to Oklahomans while balancing the inherent risks associated with these medicines," Sparks said, according to the AP. Hunter disagrees, saying in his July statement that the state's evidence "has shown how the company perpetuated the epidemic through the targeting of high prescribing doctors, repeatedly ignoring warnings to clean up its act by the federal government and its own scientific advisers and the myriad of other deceitful practices on its way to selling more highly addictive drugs to a vulnerable population." The case against Johnson & Johnson comes after Purdue Pharma settled with Oklahoma in March for $270 million. Of that settlement, $200 million was earmarked for the Oklahoma State University Center for Wellness and Recovery, which conducts treatment and research, with the remainder of the settlement going towards the state's legal fees and local initiatives to fight the opioid epidemic.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

fPffVeLsY9KLslia

test

8KrJADq74sOk8kHB

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/12/tucker-carlson-trends-twitter-fox-news-backlash-black-lives-matter-comments-i-stand-with-tucker-carlson/

#IStandWithTuckerCarlson Trends On Twitter After Fox News Host Faces Backlash Over ‘Black Lives Matter’ Comments

2020-06-12

Many on Twitter rallied behind Fox News Host Tucker Carlson after his comments about “ Black Lives Matter ” sparked outrage earlier this week . The hashtag # IStandWithTucker trended Friday on Twitter , with prominent public figures voicing their support for the Fox News host . “ Tucker essentially proves the Papa Johns slogan every night , ” Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted Friday . The pizza chain is one of several companies that reportedly pulled advertisements from Carlson ’ s show last week . “ Better ingredients , Better Television . # IStandWithTucker ” Gaetz said . Tucker essentially proves the Papa Johns slogan every night . Better ingredients , Better Television . # IStandWithTucker https : //t.co/QEL3m9tHKy — Matt Gaetz ( @ mattgaetz ) June 12 , 2020 “ Rt if you stand with Tucker Carlson ! Do not let the radical left silence him ! ” tweeted Brigitte Gabriel , founder of the grassroots national security organization ACT for America . The post was retweeted more than 20,000 times . ( RELATED : Tucker Carlson Responds To The ‘ Mob ’ : Racism Accusations Are ‘ A Way To Control Disobedience ’ ) Rt if you stand with Tucker Carlson ! Do not let the radical left silence him ! — Brigitte Gabriel ( @ ACTBrigitte ) June 12 , 2020 The Left can ’ t handle the truth . Much less tolerate anything they disagree with . @ foxnews should just let ⁦ @ TuckerCarlson⁩ have a full uninterrupted hour . https : //t.co/r3Yusplo5M — Jenna Ellis ( @ JennaEllisEsq ) June 12 , 2020 I want to thank @ TuckerCarlson for speaking unpopular truth . He said what needed to be said , what silenced leaders in the black community have been trying to say for decades . Thank you , I ’ ve seen these con artists attack my race all my life . Thank you for standing against them . — Burgess Owens ( @ BurgessOwens ) June 12 , 2020 If ⁦ @ FoxNews⁩ drops Tucker , turn off Fox and don ’ t turn it back on . https : //t.co/lWBP7cDfD7 — David Reaboi ( @ davereaboi ) June 11 , 2020 The backlash began after Daily Beast contributing editor Justin Baragona posted a clip from Carlson ’ s show Monday in which the Fox News host said , “ This may be a lot of things , this moment we are living through , but it is definitely not about black lives and remember that when they come for you , and at this rate , they will . ” “ Anyone who has ever been subjected to the rage of the mob knows the feeling . It ’ s like being swarmed by hornets , ” Carlson added . Tucker Carlson : “ This may be a lot of things , this moment we are living through , but it is definitely not about black lives and remember that when they come for you , and at this rate , they will. ” pic.twitter.com/HMP3q8WgbQ — Justin Baragona ( @ justinbaragona ) June 9 , 2020 Many decried the comments as racist . Singer Richard Marx tweeted that “ racist Tucker Carlson ” said on his show that “ ‘ Black people are coming for you . ' ” George Takei , the actor that played Sulu in Star Trek , said “ he ’ s not even trying to hide it anymore , is he ? ” Tucker Carlson is not only a racist , but an idiot as well . https : //t.co/yDOg8dvYto — David Weissman ( @ davidmweissman ) June 9 , 2020 Wow , tucker carlson is such a Fucking racist https : //t.co/KmDZkz4bYp — Molly Jong-Fast ? ? ? ? ( @ MollyJongFast ) June 8 , 2020 Tucker Carlson is so racist he gets triggered watching puppets explain inequality https : //t.co/CoHeGtrhuE — Lauren Duca ( @ laurenduca ) June 10 , 2020 A Fox News spokesperson told The Washington Post that “ Tucker ’ s warning about ‘ when they come for you ’ was clearly referring to Democratic leaders and inner-city politicians . ” The clip posted by Baragona , which has now garnered nearly 6 million views , didn ’ t include the beginning of the dialogue when Carlson made a reference to politicians . “ If Democratic leaders cared about saving the lives of black people – and they should – they wouldn ’ t ignore the murder of thousands of young black men in their cities every year , ” he said before Baragona ’ s clip began . “ They wouldn ’ t out abortion clinics in black neighborhoods , ” Carlson said . “ They would instead do their very best to improve public schools and to encourage intact families , which we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is central to the life prospects of children . ” The viral Tweet that ’ s making the rounds of Tucker Carlson ’ s monologue tonight is about a minute long , and cuts out the majority of his speech . Here ’ s the full clip . They don ’ t want you to see this . pic.twitter.com/7wqscy6oMu — Ian Miles Cheong ( @ stillgray ) June 9 , 2020 Several companies said they would stop advertising on Carlson ’ s show , including T-Mobile , Papa John ’ s Pizza , and Disney , according to a CBS News report . When asked on Twitter if Carlson ’ s comments were “ the kind of message they support , ” T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said , “ It definitely is not . Bye-bye Tucker Carlson ! # BlackLivesMatter . ”

Many on Twitter rallied behind Fox News Host Tucker Carlson after his comments about “Black Lives Matter” sparked outrage earlier this week. The hashtag #IStandWithTucker trended Friday on Twitter, with prominent public figures voicing their support for the Fox News host. “Tucker essentially proves the Papa Johns slogan every night,” Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz tweeted Friday. The pizza chain is one of several companies that reportedly pulled advertisements from Carlson’s show last week. “Better ingredients, Better Television. #IStandWithTucker” Gaetz said. Tucker essentially proves the Papa Johns slogan every night. Better ingredients, Better Television. #IStandWithTucker https://t.co/QEL3m9tHKy — Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) June 12, 2020 “Rt if you stand with Tucker Carlson! Do not let the radical left silence him!” tweeted Brigitte Gabriel, founder of the grassroots national security organization ACT for America. The post was retweeted more than 20,000 times. (RELATED: Tucker Carlson Responds To The ‘Mob’: Racism Accusations Are ‘A Way To Control Disobedience’) Rt if you stand with Tucker Carlson! Do not let the radical left silence him! — Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) June 12, 2020 The Left can’t handle the truth. Much less tolerate anything they disagree with.@foxnews should just let ⁦@TuckerCarlson⁩ have a full uninterrupted hour. https://t.co/r3Yusplo5M — Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) June 12, 2020 I want to thank @TuckerCarlson for speaking unpopular truth. He said what needed to be said, what silenced leaders in the black community have been trying to say for decades. Thank you, I’ve seen these con artists attack my race all my life. Thank you for standing against them. — Burgess Owens (@BurgessOwens) June 12, 2020 If ⁦@FoxNews⁩ drops Tucker, turn off Fox and don’t turn it back on. https://t.co/lWBP7cDfD7 — David Reaboi (@davereaboi) June 11, 2020 The backlash began after Daily Beast contributing editor Justin Baragona posted a clip from Carlson’s show Monday in which the Fox News host said, “This may be a lot of things, this moment we are living through, but it is definitely not about black lives and remember that when they come for you, and at this rate, they will.” “Anyone who has ever been subjected to the rage of the mob knows the feeling. It’s like being swarmed by hornets,” Carlson added. Tucker Carlson: “This may be a lot of things, this moment we are living through, but it is definitely not about black lives and remember that when they come for you, and at this rate, they will.” pic.twitter.com/HMP3q8WgbQ — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) June 9, 2020 Many decried the comments as racist. Singer Richard Marx tweeted that “racist Tucker Carlson” said on his show that “‘Black people are coming for you.'” George Takei, the actor that played Sulu in Star Trek, said “he’s not even trying to hide it anymore, is he?” Tucker Carlson is not only a racist, but an idiot as well. https://t.co/yDOg8dvYto — David Weissman (@davidmweissman) June 9, 2020 Wow, tucker carlson is such a Fucking racist https://t.co/KmDZkz4bYp — Molly Jong-Fast???? (@MollyJongFast) June 8, 2020 Tucker Carlson is so racist he gets triggered watching puppets explain inequality https://t.co/CoHeGtrhuE — Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) June 10, 2020 A Fox News spokesperson told The Washington Post that “Tucker’s warning about ‘when they come for you’ was clearly referring to Democratic leaders and inner-city politicians.” The clip posted by Baragona, which has now garnered nearly 6 million views, didn’t include the beginning of the dialogue when Carlson made a reference to politicians. “If Democratic leaders cared about saving the lives of black people – and they should – they wouldn’t ignore the murder of thousands of young black men in their cities every year,” he said before Baragona’s clip began. “They wouldn’t out abortion clinics in black neighborhoods,” Carlson said. “They would instead do their very best to improve public schools and to encourage intact families, which we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is central to the life prospects of children.” The viral Tweet that’s making the rounds of Tucker Carlson’s monologue tonight is about a minute long, and cuts out the majority of his speech. Here’s the full clip. They don’t want you to see this. pic.twitter.com/7wqscy6oMu — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 9, 2020 Several companies said they would stop advertising on Carlson’s show, including T-Mobile, Papa John’s Pizza, and Disney, according to a CBS News report. When asked on Twitter if Carlson’s comments were “the kind of message they support,” T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said, “It definitely is not. Bye-bye Tucker Carlson! #BlackLivesMatter.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

8KrJADq74sOk8kHB

test

sAWQvXv5OWDl4uzs

national_defense

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-taliban/us-carries-out-first-airstrike-on-taliban-since-doha-deal-idUSKBN20R12R

U.S. carries out air strike on Taliban, calls for halt to 'needless attacks'

2020-03-05

Abdul Qadir Sediqi

KABUL ( ███ ) - The United States on Wednesday carried out its first air strike on Taliban fighters in Afghanistan since the two sides signed a troop withdrawal agreement on Saturday . A U.S. forces spokesman confirmed the incident in southern Helmand province , hours after President Donald Trump spoke by phone with chief Taliban negotiator Mullah Baradar Akhund on Tuesday , the first known conversation between a U.S. leader and a top Taliban official . The Taliban fighters “ were actively attacking an ( Afghan National Security Forces ) checkpoint . This was a defensive strike to disrupt the attack , ” Colonel Sonny Leggett , a spokesman for U.S . Forces , Afghanistan , said in a tweet . He said Washington was committed to peace but would defend Afghan forces if needed . “ Taliban leadership promised the ( international ) community they would reduce violence and not increase attacks . We call on the Taliban to stop needless attacks and uphold their commitments , ” he said . In a series of posts on Twitter late on Wednesday , U.S. Special Envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad did not refer to the U.S. strike , but said : “ Increasing violence is a threat to the peace agreement and must be reduced immediately . ” Khalilzad said the United States was committed to facilitating a prisoner exchange and would “ support each side to release significant numbers . ” Other U.S. officials appeared to play down the Taliban attacks . “ There is no attacks on 34 provincial capitals , there is no attacks in Kabul , there ’ s no high profile attacks , there ’ s no suicide bombers , there ’ s no vehicle borne suicide , no attack against the U.S. forces , no attack against coalition , ” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said during a hearing . “ Yes , there were significant numbers of attacks , small attacks . They were all beaten back , ” Milley said . The air strike was the first by the United States against the Taliban in 11 days , when a reduction in violence agreement had begun between the sides in the lead up to Saturday ’ s pact . Afghan National Army ( ANA ) soldiers stand at a checkpost , where last night clashes took place between Taliban and Afghan forces in Kunduz , Afghanistan March 4 , 2020 ███/Stringer Since the signing , the Taliban had decided on Monday to resume normal operations against Afghan forces , though sources have said they will continue to hold back on attacks on foreign forces . The Taliban has declined to confirm or deny responsibility for any of the attacks . Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said in a Tweet that “ according to the plan ( the Taliban ) is implementing all parts of the agreement one after another in order to keep the fighting reduced . ” A senior Taliban commander in Helmand who declined to be named said that a drone had targeted their position . “ As far as I know we didn ’ t suffer any human losses but we are working on it and sent our team to the area , ” he told ███ , adding that the group ’ s senior leadership in Afghanistan had called an emergency meeting to discuss what he described as a “ major violation ” of the agreement . Experts said the public agreement was vague on details around ongoing violence in the country , but that the air strike and comments from U.S. officials suggested the United States had a plan to ensure reduced violence against Afghan forces and civilians . “ It is significant . I don ’ t think it signals the collapse of the whole U.S.-Taliban agreement ... ( but ) you can easily see how things could spiral , ” said Andrew Watkins , a senior analyst covering Afghanistan at International Crisis Group . A spokesman for Helmand ’ s provincial governor said the Taliban had attacked a security checkpoint in Washer district - a different district to the one in which the U.S. carried out its air strike - on Tuesday evening , killing two police officers . An interior ministry spokesman , Nasrat Rahimi , said on Wednesday the Taliban had conducted 30 attacks in 15 provinces in the previous 24 hours , killing four civilians and 11 security and defense force members . Seventeen Taliban members had been killed , he said . The weekend agreement envisages a full withdrawal of all U.S. and coalition forces within 14 months , dependent on security guarantees by the Taliban , but faces a number of hurdles as the United States tries to shepherd the Taliban and Afghan government towards talks . In Washington , a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives said secret annexes of the accord contained conditions for the U.S. withdrawal and questioned why they were classified . “ The administration is telling a terrorist group the conditions ( such as they are ) of our withdrawal from Afghanistan , but not telling the American people , ” Tom Malinowski , formerly the State Department ’ s top official for human rights , wrote on Twitter . “ This is wrong . And serves no national security purpose . ”

KABUL (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday carried out its first air strike on Taliban fighters in Afghanistan since the two sides signed a troop withdrawal agreement on Saturday. A U.S. forces spokesman confirmed the incident in southern Helmand province, hours after President Donald Trump spoke by phone with chief Taliban negotiator Mullah Baradar Akhund on Tuesday, the first known conversation between a U.S. leader and a top Taliban official. The Taliban fighters “were actively attacking an (Afghan National Security Forces) checkpoint. This was a defensive strike to disrupt the attack,” Colonel Sonny Leggett, a spokesman for U.S. Forces, Afghanistan, said in a tweet. He said Washington was committed to peace but would defend Afghan forces if needed. “Taliban leadership promised the (international) community they would reduce violence and not increase attacks. We call on the Taliban to stop needless attacks and uphold their commitments,” he said. In a series of posts on Twitter late on Wednesday, U.S. Special Envoy for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad did not refer to the U.S. strike, but said: “Increasing violence is a threat to the peace agreement and must be reduced immediately.” Khalilzad said the United States was committed to facilitating a prisoner exchange and would “support each side to release significant numbers.” Other U.S. officials appeared to play down the Taliban attacks. “There is no attacks on 34 provincial capitals, there is no attacks in Kabul, there’s no high profile attacks, there’s no suicide bombers, there’s no vehicle borne suicide, no attack against the U.S. forces, no attack against coalition,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said during a hearing. “Yes, there were significant numbers of attacks, small attacks. They were all beaten back,” Milley said. The air strike was the first by the United States against the Taliban in 11 days, when a reduction in violence agreement had begun between the sides in the lead up to Saturday’s pact. Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers stand at a checkpost, where last night clashes took place between Taliban and Afghan forces in Kunduz, Afghanistan March 4, 2020 REUTERS/Stringer Since the signing, the Taliban had decided on Monday to resume normal operations against Afghan forces, though sources have said they will continue to hold back on attacks on foreign forces. The Taliban has declined to confirm or deny responsibility for any of the attacks. Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said in a Tweet that “according to the plan (the Taliban) is implementing all parts of the agreement one after another in order to keep the fighting reduced.” A senior Taliban commander in Helmand who declined to be named said that a drone had targeted their position. “As far as I know we didn’t suffer any human losses but we are working on it and sent our team to the area,” he told Reuters, adding that the group’s senior leadership in Afghanistan had called an emergency meeting to discuss what he described as a “major violation” of the agreement. “THINGS COULD SPIRAL” Experts said the public agreement was vague on details around ongoing violence in the country, but that the air strike and comments from U.S. officials suggested the United States had a plan to ensure reduced violence against Afghan forces and civilians. “It is significant. I don’t think it signals the collapse of the whole U.S.-Taliban agreement ... (but) you can easily see how things could spiral,” said Andrew Watkins, a senior analyst covering Afghanistan at International Crisis Group. A spokesman for Helmand’s provincial governor said the Taliban had attacked a security checkpoint in Washer district - a different district to the one in which the U.S. carried out its air strike - on Tuesday evening, killing two police officers. An interior ministry spokesman, Nasrat Rahimi, said on Wednesday the Taliban had conducted 30 attacks in 15 provinces in the previous 24 hours, killing four civilians and 11 security and defense force members. Seventeen Taliban members had been killed, he said. The weekend agreement envisages a full withdrawal of all U.S. and coalition forces within 14 months, dependent on security guarantees by the Taliban, but faces a number of hurdles as the United States tries to shepherd the Taliban and Afghan government towards talks. Slideshow (5 Images) In Washington, a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives said secret annexes of the accord contained conditions for the U.S. withdrawal and questioned why they were classified. “The administration is telling a terrorist group the conditions (such as they are) of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, but not telling the American people,” Tom Malinowski, formerly the State Department’s top official for human rights, wrote on Twitter. “This is wrong. And serves no national security purpose.”

www.reuters.com

center

sAWQvXv5OWDl4uzs

test

PwQYPkxI8kkZGydt

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Texas-governor-Davis-Abbott/2014/10/13/id/600312/

Wendy Davis Stands By Cringeworthy Wheelchair Ad

2014-10-13

Sandy Fitzgerald

Low road “ @ brandondarby : Wendy Davis Ad Uses Empty Wheelchair to Attack Paraplegic Greg Abbott http : //t.co/hNqdOkqhzR ” — JohnCornyn ( @ JohnCornyn ) October 10 , 2014 Really sad to see Wendy Davis stoop to such nasty and tasteless attacks on my friend @ GregAbbott_TX http : //t.co/GMY58jwneI — Ted Cruz ( @ tedcruz ) October 12 , 2014 . @ GregAbbott_TX campaigns on issues and future of TX while @ WendyDavisTexas campaigns on personal attacks and desperation . Choice is clear . — Rick Perry ( @ GovernorPerry ) October 11 , 2014 Plenty of people , like `` Morning Joe '' co-host Mika Brzezinski , are `` cringing '' over Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis ' ad that focuses on GOP challenger Greg Abbott and the accident that left him in a wheelchair , but she says she is not pulling the spot down.The 30-second spot , called `` Justice , '' was released on Friday and notes that Abbott received millions of dollars in a lawsuit after he was injured back in 1984 , but accuses him of not siding with victims like himself during his time in the state Supreme Court or as the Texas attorney general.Brzezinski , while discussing the ad Monday morning on the MSNBC program , said that she objects to `` everything from the production of it to the looming voice to the accused…yikes , I cringed watching that . `` Further , she said that Davis is going against her `` brand '' by running such an ad . `` This is not her , what her brand is turning out to be , '' said Brzezinski . `` She should be appealing to women and she should be inspiring them and having a positive message . `` Davis , though , says she backs the ad , and that Abbott has tried to block cases that are similar to his own . `` He rightfully had an opportunity to access the justice system when he was at the receiving end of a tragic accident , '' Davis told CNN affiliate KSAT in San Antonio over the weekend . `` But ever since he 's been actively fighting to close that door and deny access to others who have been wronged and who deserve to have their day in court . `` And her pollster , Joel Benenson , who also was the pollster for President Barack Obama , joined in to fight back against criticism that the ad went too far against Abbott , who has been in a wheelchair since the 1980s . `` We 're confident that this ad is effective and is going to continue to be effective because it 's executing basically the same strategy we 've had since Day 1 , '' Benenson told The Houston Chronicle Sunday . `` We 've always planned to use it in laying out a set of ads that showed him siding with insiders against average Texans , and that 's where we are today . `` But the ad is already backfiring , say Republican strategists . Abbott 's camp put out a video Monday about the mounting complaints on Davis ' ad , saying that she is `` unfit to be governor . `` Dorian Warren , an associate professor at Columbia University , told `` The Morning Joe '' show Monday that he believes the ad `` is a huge blunder , '' as Davis , who is losing to Abbott by double digits in state and national polls , is trying to attract voters . `` What Wendy Davis needs is to increase voter turnout , '' Warren said . `` Negative ads depress voter turnout . She needs many new voters to come out , and this will not motivate her voters to come out . `` Abbott told The San Antonio Express News Sunday that the ad is `` offensive '' and `` shows the tenor of the campaign . `` `` If you look at my ads , I focused on what I 'm going to be doing as governor , and my opponent spends all her time in ads attacking me , as I 'm attacking the challenges that fellow Texans deal with , '' Abbott said.He also expects the strategy to backfire . `` It 's her choice if she wants to attack a guy in a wheelchair , '' said Abbott . `` I do n't think it 's going to sell too well . `` Abbott 's fellow Texas Republican lawmakers were also angered by the ad , taking to Twitter to voice their outrage.Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn tweeted that Davis took `` the low road '' : Cornyn later posted a statement on his own campaign website demanding Davis apologize and pull down the ad . `` Everyone knows that politics can be a tough business but sometimes certain things are way over the line and running an attack ad on a serious medical accident suffered by your opponent is one of them , '' said Cornyn.Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted that the ad was `` tasteless '' : And outgoing Gov . Rick Perry called the ad an attack of `` desperation : '' Meanwhile , Republican media strategist Rick Wilson told Breitbart Texas that the ad `` makes even Todd Akin look like a political genius , '' referring to the Missouri GOP candidate and his controversial comments about `` legitimate rape '' and pregnancy that cost him his election .

Low road “@brandondarby: Wendy Davis Ad Uses Empty Wheelchair to Attack Paraplegic Greg Abbott http://t.co/hNqdOkqhzR” — JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) October 10, 2014 Really sad to see Wendy Davis stoop to such nasty and tasteless attacks on my friend @GregAbbott_TX http://t.co/GMY58jwneI — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 12, 2014 .@GregAbbott_TX campaigns on issues and future of TX while @WendyDavisTexas campaigns on personal attacks and desperation. Choice is clear. — Rick Perry (@GovernorPerry) October 11, 2014 Plenty of people, like "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski, are "cringing" over Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis' ad that focuses on GOP challenger Greg Abbott and the accident that left him in a wheelchair, but she says she is not pulling the spot down.The 30-second spot, called "Justice," was released on Friday and notes that Abbott received millions of dollars in a lawsuit after he was injured back in 1984, but accuses him of not siding with victims like himself during his time in the state Supreme Court or as the Texas attorney general.Brzezinski, while discussing the ad Monday morning on the MSNBC program, said that she objects to "everything from the production of it to the looming voice to the accused…yikes, I cringed watching that."Further, she said that Davis is going against her "brand" by running such an ad."This is not her, what her brand is turning out to be," said Brzezinski. "She should be appealing to women and she should be inspiring them and having a positive message."Davis, though, says she backs the ad, and that Abbott has tried to block cases that are similar to his own."He rightfully had an opportunity to access the justice system when he was at the receiving end of a tragic accident," Davis told CNN affiliate KSAT in San Antonio over the weekend. "But ever since he's been actively fighting to close that door and deny access to others who have been wronged and who deserve to have their day in court."And her pollster, Joel Benenson, who also was the pollster for President Barack Obama, joined in to fight back against criticism that the ad went too far against Abbott, who has been in a wheelchair since the 1980s."We're confident that this ad is effective and is going to continue to be effective because it's executing basically the same strategy we've had since Day 1," Benenson told The Houston Chronicle Sunday. "We've always planned to use it in laying out a set of ads that showed him siding with insiders against average Texans, and that's where we are today."But the ad is already backfiring, say Republican strategists. Abbott's camp put out a video Monday about the mounting complaints on Davis' ad, saying that she is "unfit to be governor."Dorian Warren, an associate professor at Columbia University, told "The Morning Joe" show Monday that he believes the ad "is a huge blunder," as Davis, who is losing to Abbott by double digits in state and national polls, is trying to attract voters."What Wendy Davis needs is to increase voter turnout," Warren said. "Negative ads depress voter turnout. She needs many new voters to come out, and this will not motivate her voters to come out."Abbott told The San Antonio Express News Sunday that the ad is "offensive" and "shows the tenor of the campaign.""If you look at my ads, I focused on what I'm going to be doing as governor, and my opponent spends all her time in ads attacking me, as I'm attacking the challenges that fellow Texans deal with," Abbott said.He also expects the strategy to backfire."It's her choice if she wants to attack a guy in a wheelchair," said Abbott. "I don't think it's going to sell too well."Abbott's fellow Texas Republican lawmakers were also angered by the ad, taking to Twitter to voice their outrage.Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn tweeted that Davis took "the low road":Cornyn later posted a statement on his own campaign website demanding Davis apologize and pull down the ad."Everyone knows that politics can be a tough business but sometimes certain things are way over the line and running an attack ad on a serious medical accident suffered by your opponent is one of them," said Cornyn.Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted that the ad was "tasteless":And outgoing Gov. Rick Perry called the ad an attack of "desperation:"Meanwhile, Republican media strategist Rick Wilson told Breitbart Texas that the ad "makes even Todd Akin look like a political genius," referring to the Missouri GOP candidate and his controversial comments about "legitimate rape" and pregnancy that cost him his election.

www.newsmax.com

right

PwQYPkxI8kkZGydt

test

AbOqbr6PV5YG80wJ

banking_and_finance

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/7454e80dbc04e723bb6586b7dbb0aec2

The oil market meltdown and its global impact

2020-03-09

David Mchugh

FILE - In this Thursday , Aug. 31 , 2017 , file photo , a flame burns at the Shell Deer Park oil refinery in Deer Park , Texas . Oil prices are plunging Sunday , March 8 , 2020 , amid worries that an OPEC dispute will lead a virus-weakened economy to be awash in an oversupply of crude . ( AP Photo/Gregory Bull , File ) FILE - In this Thursday , Aug. 31 , 2017 , file photo , a flame burns at the Shell Deer Park oil refinery in Deer Park , Texas . Oil prices are plunging Sunday , March 8 , 2020 , amid worries that an OPEC dispute will lead a virus-weakened economy to be awash in an oversupply of crude . ( AP Photo/Gregory Bull , File ) FRANKFURT , Germany ( AP ) — A clash of two oil titans - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is sending shock waves through energy markets , with wide-ranging implications for consumers and oil companies , including those in the No . 1 producing country , the United States . The spat between these vital oil suppliers comes at a critical moment ; the coronavirus outbreak is squeezing economies around the globe to the point where world oil demand is forecast to shrink in 2020 for the first time since 2009 . Oil prices fell Monday by the most in one day since the 1991 Gulf War . The price of U.S. crude fell as much as 34 % to $ 27.34 a barrel , a stunning drop for one day and the lowest price since early 2016 . The decline followed Russia ’ s refusal last week to join the OPEC oil cartel in proposed production cuts aimed at supporting prices . Thwarted in its search for cuts , Saudi Arabia , the leading OPEC member , sharply changed course over the weekend by cutting prices and signaling it will ramp up production . Here is a look at the oil price war and what it could mean over the longer term in the industry as well as for consumers at the gas pump . A : First came the coronavirus outbreak , which reduced travel and transport , sharply reducing demand for fuel . The international Brent benchmark had fallen from $ 69 at the start of the year to around $ 50 last week . Then came last week ’ s meeting between OPEC and non-member countries . On the agenda : a production cut of 1.5 million barrels a day , or about 1.5 % of global production . The idea was to keep prices from sagging even more as demand is expected to fall this year . Saudi Arabia , the world ’ s No . 2 oil producer , wanted No . 3 Russia and other nonmembers to take 500,000 barrels per day of the cuts . Since 2016 , the Saudis and the Russians have worked together on production issues . But this time the Russians balked . They refused to join new cuts , or even to extend previous production cuts that were due to expire at the end of March . And the Saudis hit back , telling customers that they were going to ramp up production and slash prices for Asian customers . A : First , protecting market share . Both Saudi Arabia and Russia have seen U.S. producers take a chunk of their market , and falling prices help keep customers on board . Second , Saudi Arabia may hope that the pain of low prices will force a Russian rethink . “ Saudi Arabia has de facto launched a price war against Russia , promising to sell its oil at a discount in order to maximize its oil revenues , ” say analysts at UniCredit bank . “ It appears Saudi Arabia wants to cement its position as the world ’ s top oil exporter and to persuade Moscow to return to the negotiating table . ” A : Russia may have seen no point in cutting production only to lose market share as U.S. shale producers in Texas and New Mexico take up the slack . Analysts say Saudi Arabia may be underestimating Russia ’ s ability to weather low prices . Both countries are heavily dependent on oil revenues for their state budgets . But Russia says it can balance its budget at around $ 42 a barrel for its own benchmark crude . Saudi Arabia , whose economy is less diverse , needs more than $ 80 per barrel , according to the International Monetary Fund , even though its costs are much lower than Russia ’ s . What Saudi Arabia has done is to send prices so low that both will feel a serious crunch . And Russia may have a longer-term target : the U.S. oil industry . “ The Russians are doing this out of long-term strategic considerations , ” said Tom Adshead , research director for the Macro-Advisory consulting firm in Moscow . “ Their view is that by doing this they can damage the financial health of U.S. shale-oil producers and that by doing this they can take a lot of U.S. capacity offline and thereby remove U.S. producers as a source of competition . The other thing that is on their mind in all this is that if they cut then that will also primarily benefit U.S. producers . ” “ So they ’ ve decided they ’ re going to take some short-term pain in order to inflict damage on one of their major competitors , ” Adshead said . Stephen Innes , chief market strategist at financial services firm AxiCorp. , says Russian President Vladimir Putin may also have decided to hit back at the U.S. industry after Washington placed sanctions on Russian state oil company Rosneft for marketing Venezuela ’ s oil . A : The current low prices could constrain activity in the American shale oil industry . A downturn in oil prices in 2014-2016 hurt companies in places like the Permian Basin in west Texas and eastern New Mexico . According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas , $ 50 per barrel is the price at which it becomes profitable to drill a new well in the U.S. Large producers such as Exxon have already scaled back with prices at $ 50 a barrel . In Texas , the number of active rigs fell from 553 in October 2018 to 398 in January 2020 . Around the same time , the oil industry in Texas shed about 14,000 jobs “ With the growth phase of the shale boom grinding to a halt due to the lack of investment in the industry , now U.S. shale oil could find itself running into a brick wall , ” says Innes from AxiCorp . The head of the International Energy Agency , Fatih Birol , believes the U.S. shale industry will survive but the risks are high . He warned countries against being rash with big production decisions : “ This is not a Russian roulette . ” A : Most of the price of gasoline in the United States simply reflects the price of oil , so lower crude prices should mean lower pump prices with a lag of about six weeks . Right now , they ’ re at $ 2.42 according to the U.S Energy Information Administration . When crude fell to $ 36 in 2016 , prices at the pump averaged $ 2.15 . Lower pump prices mean people have more to spend on other goods . The impact is less pronounced in Europe since most of the price is made up of taxes . Currently , gasoline costs 1.32 euros per liter in Germany , or about $ 5.70 per gallon .

FILE - In this Thursday, Aug. 31, 2017, file photo, a flame burns at the Shell Deer Park oil refinery in Deer Park, Texas. Oil prices are plunging Sunday, March 8, 2020, amid worries that an OPEC dispute will lead a virus-weakened economy to be awash in an oversupply of crude. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File) FILE - In this Thursday, Aug. 31, 2017, file photo, a flame burns at the Shell Deer Park oil refinery in Deer Park, Texas. Oil prices are plunging Sunday, March 8, 2020, amid worries that an OPEC dispute will lead a virus-weakened economy to be awash in an oversupply of crude. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File) FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — A clash of two oil titans - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is sending shock waves through energy markets, with wide-ranging implications for consumers and oil companies, including those in the No. 1 producing country, the United States. The spat between these vital oil suppliers comes at a critical moment; the coronavirus outbreak is squeezing economies around the globe to the point where world oil demand is forecast to shrink in 2020 for the first time since 2009. Oil prices fell Monday by the most in one day since the 1991 Gulf War. The price of U.S. crude fell as much as 34% to $27.34 a barrel, a stunning drop for one day and the lowest price since early 2016. The decline followed Russia’s refusal last week to join the OPEC oil cartel in proposed production cuts aimed at supporting prices. Thwarted in its search for cuts, Saudi Arabia, the leading OPEC member, sharply changed course over the weekend by cutting prices and signaling it will ramp up production. Here is a look at the oil price war and what it could mean over the longer term in the industry as well as for consumers at the gas pump. ___ Q: WHY ARE OIL PRICES FALLING? A: First came the coronavirus outbreak , which reduced travel and transport, sharply reducing demand for fuel. The international Brent benchmark had fallen from $69 at the start of the year to around $50 last week. Then came last week’s meeting between OPEC and non-member countries . On the agenda: a production cut of 1.5 million barrels a day, or about 1.5% of global production. The idea was to keep prices from sagging even more as demand is expected to fall this year. Saudi Arabia, the world’s No. 2 oil producer, wanted No. 3 Russia and other nonmembers to take 500,000 barrels per day of the cuts. Since 2016, the Saudis and the Russians have worked together on production issues. But this time the Russians balked. They refused to join new cuts, or even to extend previous production cuts that were due to expire at the end of March. And the Saudis hit back, telling customers that they were going to ramp up production and slash prices for Asian customers. ___ Q: WHAT IS SAUDI ARABIA’S GOAL? A: First, protecting market share. Both Saudi Arabia and Russia have seen U.S. producers take a chunk of their market, and falling prices help keep customers on board. Second, Saudi Arabia may hope that the pain of low prices will force a Russian rethink. “Saudi Arabia has de facto launched a price war against Russia, promising to sell its oil at a discount in order to maximize its oil revenues,” say analysts at UniCredit bank. “It appears Saudi Arabia wants to cement its position as the world’s top oil exporter and to persuade Moscow to return to the negotiating table.” ___ Q: WHAT’S BEHIND RUSSIA’S REFUSAL? A: Russia may have seen no point in cutting production only to lose market share as U.S. shale producers in Texas and New Mexico take up the slack. Analysts say Saudi Arabia may be underestimating Russia’s ability to weather low prices. Both countries are heavily dependent on oil revenues for their state budgets. But Russia says it can balance its budget at around $42 a barrel for its own benchmark crude. Saudi Arabia, whose economy is less diverse, needs more than $80 per barrel, according to the International Monetary Fund, even though its costs are much lower than Russia’s. What Saudi Arabia has done is to send prices so low that both will feel a serious crunch. And Russia may have a longer-term target: the U.S. oil industry. “The Russians are doing this out of long-term strategic considerations,” said Tom Adshead, research director for the Macro-Advisory consulting firm in Moscow. “Their view is that by doing this they can damage the financial health of U.S. shale-oil producers and that by doing this they can take a lot of U.S. capacity offline and thereby remove U.S. producers as a source of competition. The other thing that is on their mind in all this is that if they cut then that will also primarily benefit U.S. producers.” “So they’ve decided they’re going to take some short-term pain in order to inflict damage on one of their major competitors,” Adshead said. Stephen Innes, chief market strategist at financial services firm AxiCorp., says Russian President Vladimir Putin may also have decided to hit back at the U.S. industry after Washington placed sanctions on Russian state oil company Rosneft for marketing Venezuela’s oil. Full Coverage: Financial markets Q: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US PRODUCERS? A: The current low prices could constrain activity in the American shale oil industry. A downturn in oil prices in 2014-2016 hurt companies in places like the Permian Basin in west Texas and eastern New Mexico. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, $50 per barrel is the price at which it becomes profitable to drill a new well in the U.S. Large producers such as Exxon have already scaled back with prices at $50 a barrel. In Texas, the number of active rigs fell from 553 in October 2018 to 398 in January 2020. Around the same time, the oil industry in Texas shed about 14,000 jobs “With the growth phase of the shale boom grinding to a halt due to the lack of investment in the industry, now U.S. shale oil could find itself running into a brick wall,” says Innes from AxiCorp. The head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, believes the U.S. shale industry will survive but the risks are high. He warned countries against being rash with big production decisions: “This is not a Russian roulette.” Q: WHAT’S IT MEAN FOR PRICES AT THE PUMP? A: Most of the price of gasoline in the United States simply reflects the price of oil, so lower crude prices should mean lower pump prices with a lag of about six weeks. Right now, they’re at $2.42 according to the U.S Energy Information Administration. When crude fell to $36 in 2016, prices at the pump averaged $2.15. Lower pump prices mean people have more to spend on other goods. The impact is less pronounced in Europe since most of the price is made up of taxes. Currently, gasoline costs 1.32 euros per liter in Germany, or about $5.70 per gallon. ___ Jim Heintz in Moscow, Jon Gambrell in Dubai, Angela Charlton in Paris and Cathy Bussewitz in New York contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

AbOqbr6PV5YG80wJ

test

USOeahYZfiblp8Pt

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/september/paul-manafort-expected-to-plead-guilty-in-mueller-probe

Paul Manafort Expected to Plead Guilty in Mueller Probe

2018-09-14

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort agreed Friday to cooperate with the special counsel ’ s Russia investigation as he pleaded guilty to federal charges and avoided a second trial that could have exposed him to even greater punishment . The deal gives special counsel Robert Mueller a key cooperator who led the Trump election effort for a crucial stretch during the 2016 presidential campaign , though the White House quickly said the outcome had nothing to do with that . The result also ensures that the investigation will extend far beyond the November congressional elections despite entreaties from the president ’ s lawyer that Mueller bring his probe to a close . Manafort ’ s plea , to charges tied to his Ukrainian political consulting work and unrelated to his time with the campaign , came just three days before he was to have stood trial for a second time . Manafort , 69 , entered the courtroom with a broad smile , wearing a dark suit and red tie , and mouthed a kiss to his wife . When it came time to face the judge , he responded to her questions in a low voice with brief answers . He was convicted last month of eight financial crimes in a separate trial in Virginia and faces seven to 10 years in prison in that case . The two conspiracy counts he pleaded guilty to on Friday carry up to five years in prison , though Manafort ’ s sentence will ultimately depend on his cooperation . On Friday , prosecutor Andrew Weissman said in court that Manafort had struck a “ cooperation agreement ” and would plead guilty to charges related to his Ukrainian political consulting work . “ He wanted to make sure that his family was able to remain safe and live a good life . He ’ s accepted responsibility . This is for conduct that dates back many years and everybody should remember that , ” said attorney Kevin Downing . It is unclear what information Manafort is prepared to provide to investigators about Trump or that could aid Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election . But he could be a key witness for the government . He participated in a 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians where he expected to receive derogatory information about Democrat Hillary Clinton . A grand jury used by Mueller has heard testimony about the meeting . He was also a close business associate of a man who U.S. intelligence believes has ties to Russian intelligence . White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the Manafort case was unrelated to President Donald Trump . “ This had absolutely nothing to do with the president or his victorious 2016 presidential campaign . It is totally unrelated . ” “ Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign , ” Giuliani said . Under the terms of Friday ’ s plea deal , prosecutors dropped the bulk of the charges against Manafort , filing new paperwork that includes just two counts that resemble in many ways the original allegations made in an indictment last year . The charges include conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice . It ’ s unclear how the possible deal might affect Manafort ’ s pursuit of a pardon from Trump . The president has signaled that he ’ s sympathetic to Manafort ’ s cause . In comments to Politico before Friday ’ s plea deal , Giuliani said a plea without a cooperation agreement wouldn ’ t foreclose the possibility of a pardon . Manafort had aggressively fought the charges against him and taken shots at his co-defendant , Rick Gates , who cut a deal with prosecutors earlier this year that included a cooperation agreement . At the time of Gates ’ plea , Manafort issued a statement saying he “ had hoped and expected my business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence. ” And during his Virginia trial in August , Manafort ’ s lawyers spent considerable time painting Gates as a liar , embezzler , philanderer and turncoat who would say anything to get a lighter prison sentence . Pleading guilty allows Manafort to avoid a trial that was expected to last at least three weeks and posed the potential of adding years to the time he is already facing under federal sentencing guidelines from his conviction in Virginia . A jury in that earlier trial found Manafort guilty of eight counts of tax evasion , failing to report foreign bank accounts and bank fraud . Jurors deadlocked on 10 other counts . In the current Washington case , prosecutors were expected to lay out in detail Manafort ’ s political consulting and lobbying work on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the pro-Russian Party of Regions . Prosecutors say that Manafort directed a large scale lobbying operation in the U.S. for Ukrainian interests without registering with the Justice Department as required by the federal Foreign Agents Registration Act , or FARA . Manafort was accused of concealing from the IRS tens of millions of dollars in proceeds from his Ukrainian patrons and conspiring to launder that money through offshore accounts in Cyprus and elsewhere . Manafort had denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty . Even after his indictment last October , though , prosecutors say he continued to commit crimes by tampering with witnesses . The discovery of his witness contacts led to a superseding indictment in June and Manafort ’ s jailing ahead of his trial . In addition to the witness tampering counts , Manafort had been formally charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent , conspiring to launder money and lying to the FBI and Justice Department about the nature of his work . Court papers indicated that he could have faced between 15 and 19 1/2 years in prison under federal guidelines .

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort agreed Friday to cooperate with the special counsel’s Russia investigation as he pleaded guilty to federal charges and avoided a second trial that could have exposed him to even greater punishment. The deal gives special counsel Robert Mueller a key cooperator who led the Trump election effort for a crucial stretch during the 2016 presidential campaign, though the White House quickly said the outcome had nothing to do with that. The result also ensures that the investigation will extend far beyond the November congressional elections despite entreaties from the president’s lawyer that Mueller bring his probe to a close. Manafort’s plea, to charges tied to his Ukrainian political consulting work and unrelated to his time with the campaign, came just three days before he was to have stood trial for a second time. Manafort, 69, entered the courtroom with a broad smile, wearing a dark suit and red tie, and mouthed a kiss to his wife. When it came time to face the judge, he responded to her questions in a low voice with brief answers. He was convicted last month of eight financial crimes in a separate trial in Virginia and faces seven to 10 years in prison in that case. The two conspiracy counts he pleaded guilty to on Friday carry up to five years in prison, though Manafort’s sentence will ultimately depend on his cooperation. On Friday, prosecutor Andrew Weissman said in court that Manafort had struck a “cooperation agreement” and would plead guilty to charges related to his Ukrainian political consulting work. “He wanted to make sure that his family was able to remain safe and live a good life. He’s accepted responsibility. This is for conduct that dates back many years and everybody should remember that,” said attorney Kevin Downing. It is unclear what information Manafort is prepared to provide to investigators about Trump or that could aid Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. But he could be a key witness for the government. He participated in a 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russians where he expected to receive derogatory information about Democrat Hillary Clinton. A grand jury used by Mueller has heard testimony about the meeting. He was also a close business associate of a man who U.S. intelligence believes has ties to Russian intelligence. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the Manafort case was unrelated to President Donald Trump. “This had absolutely nothing to do with the president or his victorious 2016 presidential campaign. It is totally unrelated.” Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, echoed that. “Once again an investigation has concluded with a plea having nothing to do with President Trump or the Trump campaign,” Giuliani said. Under the terms of Friday’s plea deal, prosecutors dropped the bulk of the charges against Manafort, filing new paperwork that includes just two counts that resemble in many ways the original allegations made in an indictment last year. The charges include conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice. It’s unclear how the possible deal might affect Manafort’s pursuit of a pardon from Trump. The president has signaled that he’s sympathetic to Manafort’s cause. In comments to Politico before Friday’s plea deal, Giuliani said a plea without a cooperation agreement wouldn’t foreclose the possibility of a pardon. Manafort had aggressively fought the charges against him and taken shots at his co-defendant, Rick Gates, who cut a deal with prosecutors earlier this year that included a cooperation agreement. At the time of Gates’ plea, Manafort issued a statement saying he “had hoped and expected my business colleague would have had the strength to continue the battle to prove our innocence.” And during his Virginia trial in August, Manafort’s lawyers spent considerable time painting Gates as a liar, embezzler, philanderer and turncoat who would say anything to get a lighter prison sentence. Pleading guilty allows Manafort to avoid a trial that was expected to last at least three weeks and posed the potential of adding years to the time he is already facing under federal sentencing guidelines from his conviction in Virginia. A jury in that earlier trial found Manafort guilty of eight counts of tax evasion, failing to report foreign bank accounts and bank fraud. Jurors deadlocked on 10 other counts. In the current Washington case, prosecutors were expected to lay out in detail Manafort’s political consulting and lobbying work on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the pro-Russian Party of Regions. Prosecutors say that Manafort directed a large scale lobbying operation in the U.S. for Ukrainian interests without registering with the Justice Department as required by the federal Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. Manafort was accused of concealing from the IRS tens of millions of dollars in proceeds from his Ukrainian patrons and conspiring to launder that money through offshore accounts in Cyprus and elsewhere. Manafort had denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Even after his indictment last October, though, prosecutors say he continued to commit crimes by tampering with witnesses. The discovery of his witness contacts led to a superseding indictment in June and Manafort’s jailing ahead of his trial. In addition to the witness tampering counts, Manafort had been formally charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent, conspiring to launder money and lying to the FBI and Justice Department about the nature of his work. Court papers indicated that he could have faced between 15 and 19 1/2 years in prison under federal guidelines. Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

www1.cbn.com

right

USOeahYZfiblp8Pt

test

bhZ1iNWTDreY3Sai

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/will-trump-call-californias-bluff/

Will Trump Call California’s Bluff?

Steven Greenhut, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

Believe it or not , but the incoming Trump administration is a godsend for California ’ s increasingly left-wing political leadership . Note how Democratic elected officials are tripping all over themselves , competing to make the most outrageous attention-grabbing boasts about their plans to fight against the new GOP presidency . Suddenly , these legislators face the prospect of relevancy , real or rhetorical . Until Trump ’ s ascension , California ’ s pols could hardly get much attention — except as weird left-coast folks determined to send their tax base to Texas . Even President Obama sometimes treated California the way one would treat a precocious child . But now things could become contentious as the nation ’ s most populous and liberal state becomes the test case for the fundamentally conservative idea that states are free to stand up to the federal behemoth . “ Donald Trump ’ s election was a shocking mistake of historical proportions . His dangerous ideas and policies threaten the freedom , the safety and the prosperity of every American , ” said Tom Steyer , the billionaire Democratic donor and possible gubernatorial hopeful at a California Democratic Party confab earlier in the month . “ This is our moment . We will rise to the occasion because there is no one else . ” Not to be outdone , Gov . Jerry Brown told the New York Times : “ I wouldn ’ t underestimate California ’ s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction . Yes , we will take action. ” Brown said our state will launch its “ own damn satellites ” if necessary . “ We ’ ve got the scientists , we ’ ve got the lawyers and we ’ re ready to fight , ” he told the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco . Senate Majority Leader Kevin de Leon , D-Los Angeles , has vowed to fight Trump on stepped-up efforts to deport illegal immigrants . And local politicians have been rushing to pass “ sanctuary city ” resolutions that would limit the ability of police agencies to cooperate with the federal authorities . Some cities already do this , but others are joining the fray . One of the driving forces of the state ’ s progressive politics is the idea that California is a special place where high-minded experts can implement policies that would be verboten in the rest of America ’ s rube-infested backwaters . I ’ ve listened to countless Assembly and Senate floor speeches , where legislators invoke California ’ s role as a world leader . Indeed , its first-in-the-nation cap-and-trade system wasn ’ t designed to improve the Earth ’ s climate , but to prod other states and nations into embracing similar policies . This attitude isn ’ t new , but it works best when there ’ s some outside enemy . Gov . Hiram Johnson , elected in 1906 , instituted our far-reaching brand of direct democracy to take on the railroads and robber barons , and his progressive vision has been a backdrop to our politics ever since . In fact , the more we go our own way the happier our politicians seem to be . Officials in many other states are eager to build new highways and infrastructure to meet a growing population . Years ago , I recall Gov . Gray Davis boasting that the era of freeway building is over . As our traditional infrastructure becomes overburdened and downright dangerous , the state ’ s leaders are focused on spending more than $ 68 billion on a High Speed Rail boondoggle even though we already have a quick , inexpensive , and simple way to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco and other cities ( Southwest Airlines ) . So we get to watch the Brown administration push forward a “ bullet train ” that won ’ t be particularly fast ( it is now planned to share rail lines with commuter trains in the L.A. basin and the Bay Area ) and doesn ’ t live up to most of the promises made to voters , who approved initial bond funding for the project in a 2008 initiative . But no matter . That ’ s the progressive way — the wise leaders know what ’ s best . If the citizenry complains about broken promises , then there ’ s always a way to overrule them through the bureaucracy or court system . Obviously , California isn ’ t the only place where elected officials — Democrat and Republican — run roughshod over the lowly taxpayers , but we have elevated it to an art form here . The state is so large ( nearly 800 miles from Baja California to Oregon ) , populous ( 38.5 million people and growing ) , and economically powerful ( sixth in global ranking ) that its leaders often act as if they are leaders of a country rather than a mere state . Now they relish their chance to stand up to a hostile administration in Washington , D.C . National publications have made sport of the Cal-Exit plan , but that ’ s just silliness . A group of progressives has been pushing a secession movement — an effort to actually break away from the United States and form a new country . That began before Trump , but the election has given it new impetus and attention . But there ’ s no way this is going to happen . Their proposed 2018 initiative wouldn ’ t be binding . Congress isn ’ t going to allow an exit from the United States under any scenario . Plans to break California into two or more states aren ’ t so crazy , from a policy standpoint . There ’ s nothing sacrosanct about our current arbitrarily created borders , and there have been myriad such proposals since California became a state in 1850 . But such ideas are not politically feasible . I doubt Congress would approve several new senators from the states formerly known as California , to mention just one major obstacle . Following the inauguration , California will continue to go its own way legislatively . A list of new laws for the new year include many of the various progressive fixations — more gun control , more aggressive climate-change targets , higher minimum wages and more employer mandates , new rules regarding bathrooms for transgendered people , higher smoking ages , etc . Expect more of the same , except that Democrats will have an easier time of things now that they control supermajorities in both houses . None of that is anything new , but we could see some serious showdowns between the Trump administration and the newly energized California Democratic leadership over immigration policies and climate-change rules . The question is whether the new president will call California ’ s bluff . If he does , the face-offs could become entertaining . Will Brown and company stand firm if there ’ s a price to pay ? Will the state ’ s leaders be willing to lose federal immigration or transportation funding if they choose to thumb their nose at the feds ? Will federal immigration enforcement insist on having access to , say , gang databases and other records ? If so , might we see county sheriffs — or even Gov . Brown — standing on courthouse or jailhouse steps refusing access to federal agents ? The possibilities are endless . I wouldn ’ t bet on any profiles in courage here in Sacramento , but our state might find itself in the center of the national political conversation for the first time in years .

Sacramento Believe it or not, but the incoming Trump administration is a godsend for California’s increasingly left-wing political leadership. Note how Democratic elected officials are tripping all over themselves, competing to make the most outrageous attention-grabbing boasts about their plans to fight against the new GOP presidency. Suddenly, these legislators face the prospect of relevancy, real or rhetorical. Until Trump’s ascension, California’s pols could hardly get much attention — except as weird left-coast folks determined to send their tax base to Texas. Even President Obama sometimes treated California the way one would treat a precocious child. But now things could become contentious as the nation’s most populous and liberal state becomes the test case for the fundamentally conservative idea that states are free to stand up to the federal behemoth. “Donald Trump’s election was a shocking mistake of historical proportions. His dangerous ideas and policies threaten the freedom, the safety and the prosperity of every American,” said Tom Steyer, the billionaire Democratic donor and possible gubernatorial hopeful at a California Democratic Party confab earlier in the month. “This is our moment. We will rise to the occasion because there is no one else.” Not to be outdone, Gov. Jerry Brown told the New York Times: “I wouldn’t underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.” Brown said our state will launch its “own damn satellites” if necessary. “We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers and we’re ready to fight,” he told the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. Senate Majority Leader Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, has vowed to fight Trump on stepped-up efforts to deport illegal immigrants. And local politicians have been rushing to pass “sanctuary city” resolutions that would limit the ability of police agencies to cooperate with the federal authorities. Some cities already do this, but others are joining the fray. One of the driving forces of the state’s progressive politics is the idea that California is a special place where high-minded experts can implement policies that would be verboten in the rest of America’s rube-infested backwaters. I’ve listened to countless Assembly and Senate floor speeches, where legislators invoke California’s role as a world leader. Indeed, its first-in-the-nation cap-and-trade system wasn’t designed to improve the Earth’s climate, but to prod other states and nations into embracing similar policies. This attitude isn’t new, but it works best when there’s some outside enemy. Gov. Hiram Johnson, elected in 1906, instituted our far-reaching brand of direct democracy to take on the railroads and robber barons, and his progressive vision has been a backdrop to our politics ever since. In fact, the more we go our own way the happier our politicians seem to be. Officials in many other states are eager to build new highways and infrastructure to meet a growing population. Years ago, I recall Gov. Gray Davis boasting that the era of freeway building is over. As our traditional infrastructure becomes overburdened and downright dangerous, the state’s leaders are focused on spending more than $68 billion on a High Speed Rail boondoggle even though we already have a quick, inexpensive, and simple way to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco and other cities (Southwest Airlines). So we get to watch the Brown administration push forward a “bullet train” that won’t be particularly fast (it is now planned to share rail lines with commuter trains in the L.A. basin and the Bay Area) and doesn’t live up to most of the promises made to voters, who approved initial bond funding for the project in a 2008 initiative. But no matter. That’s the progressive way — the wise leaders know what’s best. If the citizenry complains about broken promises, then there’s always a way to overrule them through the bureaucracy or court system. Obviously, California isn’t the only place where elected officials — Democrat and Republican — run roughshod over the lowly taxpayers, but we have elevated it to an art form here. The state is so large (nearly 800 miles from Baja California to Oregon), populous (38.5 million people and growing), and economically powerful (sixth in global ranking) that its leaders often act as if they are leaders of a country rather than a mere state. Now they relish their chance to stand up to a hostile administration in Washington, D.C. National publications have made sport of the Cal-Exit plan, but that’s just silliness. A group of progressives has been pushing a secession movement — an effort to actually break away from the United States and form a new country. That began before Trump, but the election has given it new impetus and attention. But there’s no way this is going to happen. Their proposed 2018 initiative wouldn’t be binding. Congress isn’t going to allow an exit from the United States under any scenario. Plans to break California into two or more states aren’t so crazy, from a policy standpoint. There’s nothing sacrosanct about our current arbitrarily created borders, and there have been myriad such proposals since California became a state in 1850. But such ideas are not politically feasible. I doubt Congress would approve several new senators from the states formerly known as California, to mention just one major obstacle. Following the inauguration, California will continue to go its own way legislatively. A list of new laws for the new year include many of the various progressive fixations — more gun control, more aggressive climate-change targets, higher minimum wages and more employer mandates, new rules regarding bathrooms for transgendered people, higher smoking ages, etc. Expect more of the same, except that Democrats will have an easier time of things now that they control supermajorities in both houses. None of that is anything new, but we could see some serious showdowns between the Trump administration and the newly energized California Democratic leadership over immigration policies and climate-change rules. The question is whether the new president will call California’s bluff. If he does, the face-offs could become entertaining. Will Brown and company stand firm if there’s a price to pay? Will the state’s leaders be willing to lose federal immigration or transportation funding if they choose to thumb their nose at the feds? Will federal immigration enforcement insist on having access to, say, gang databases and other records? If so, might we see county sheriffs — or even Gov. Brown — standing on courthouse or jailhouse steps refusing access to federal agents? The possibilities are endless. I wouldn’t bet on any profiles in courage here in Sacramento, but our state might find itself in the center of the national political conversation for the first time in years.

www.spectator.org

right

bhZ1iNWTDreY3Sai

test

GhzMQhEiIwETEXgZ

lgbt_rights

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/24/south-dakota-bill-to-protect-children-from-hormone-treatment-sex-change-surgery-advances/

South Dakota: Bill to Protect Children from Hormone Treatment, Sex Change Surgery Advances

2020-01-24

Penny Starr

Legislation in South Dakota to protect children from hormone treatment and ‘ sex reassignment ’ surgery cleared a committee vote on Wednesday . Republican Rep. Fred Deutsch , who sponsored the bill , said hormone treatment and sex-reassignment surgery isn ’ t health care for children and should be considered “ criminal acts ” that are “ deeply harmful . ” Deutsch and others who support the bill believe children are too young to make decisions that could permanently alter them physically while those who are against it argue giving transgender treatment can “ ease emotional distress for teens dealing with gender dysphoria . ” The bill makes it a misdemeanor for doctors to provide puberty blockers or other treatments affecting gender expression to people under the age of 16 , carrying a maximum one year in jail and a fine of up to $ 2,000 . The nearly four-hour hearing ended with an 8-5 vote of the House State Affairs Committee , with three Republicans breaking with their party to oppose the bill . Lawmakers in several other states are hoping to follow suit with bills that punish doctors , and in some cases parents , who provide treatments for transgender or non-binary youths , with legislation pending in South Carolina , Colorado , Florida , Oklahoma and Missouri . Some of the bills equate providing the medical treatments to child abuse , allowing parents to be reported to child welfare agencies and doctors ’ licenses to be suspended or revoked . State lawmakers in Kentucky , Georgia , and Texas also announced plans to file bills that limit medical options for transgender youths . SF Gate calls South Dakota a “ testing ground ” for this kind of legislation because Republicans have a supermajority in the state , and the media outlet notes that it was one of the first states to pass a law to keep bathrooms limited to one ’ s biological sex even if it was vetoed by the governor in 2016 . Deutsch had connected with people on social media who claim they were hurt by transgender treatments and wants to prevent children from suffering , SF Gate noted . The news outlet chided Deutsch for consulting with conservative groups such as the Liberty Council and for attending a “ right-wing ” Heritage Foundation event in Washington , DC , on the sexualization of children . At the hearing , “ Both sides brought in doctors and pediatricians , who provided contradictory testimony about whether the affects of the hormones are reversible or did damage to teens ’ bodies . ” Glenn Ridder , a family physician from Sioux Falls , said that changing someones gender is “ medically impossible . ” “ Instead , they ’ re being chemically castrated and sterilized surgically , mutilated by surgeons , according to only ideology – no science – which in any other situation would be considered criminal , ” Ridder said . Kara Dansky is an attorney with Women ’ s Liberation Front , or WoLF , who testified in support the bill . She said transgender medical treatment is “ a multibillion industry , ” not a “ civil rights movement . ’ ” “ The group has become increasingly vocal in opposition of transgender rights , ” SF Gate reported .

Legislation in South Dakota to protect children from hormone treatment and ‘sex reassignment’ surgery cleared a committee vote on Wednesday. Republican Rep. Fred Deutsch, who sponsored the bill, said hormone treatment and sex-reassignment surgery isn’t health care for children and should be considered “criminal acts” that are “deeply harmful.” Deutsch and others who support the bill believe children are too young to make decisions that could permanently alter them physically while those who are against it argue giving transgender treatment can “ease emotional distress for teens dealing with gender dysphoria.” SF Gate reported on the South Dakota legislation: The bill makes it a misdemeanor for doctors to provide puberty blockers or other treatments affecting gender expression to people under the age of 16, carrying a maximum one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. The nearly four-hour hearing ended with an 8-5 vote of the House State Affairs Committee, with three Republicans breaking with their party to oppose the bill. Lawmakers in several other states are hoping to follow suit with bills that punish doctors, and in some cases parents, who provide treatments for transgender or non-binary youths, with legislation pending in South Carolina, Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma and Missouri. Some of the bills equate providing the medical treatments to child abuse, allowing parents to be reported to child welfare agencies and doctors’ licenses to be suspended or revoked. State lawmakers in Kentucky, Georgia, and Texas also announced plans to file bills that limit medical options for transgender youths. SF Gate calls South Dakota a “testing ground” for this kind of legislation because Republicans have a supermajority in the state, and the media outlet notes that it was one of the first states to pass a law to keep bathrooms limited to one’s biological sex even if it was vetoed by the governor in 2016. Deutsch had connected with people on social media who claim they were hurt by transgender treatments and wants to prevent children from suffering, SF Gate noted. The news outlet chided Deutsch for consulting with conservative groups such as the Liberty Council and for attending a “right-wing” Heritage Foundation event in Washington, DC, on the sexualization of children. At the hearing, “Both sides brought in doctors and pediatricians, who provided contradictory testimony about whether the affects of the hormones are reversible or did damage to teens’ bodies.” Glenn Ridder, a family physician from Sioux Falls, said that changing someones gender is “medically impossible.” “Instead, they’re being chemically castrated and sterilized surgically, mutilated by surgeons, according to only ideology – no science – which in any other situation would be considered criminal,” Ridder said. Kara Dansky is an attorney with Women’s Liberation Front, or WoLF, who testified in support the bill. She said transgender medical treatment is “a multibillion industry,” not a “civil rights movement.’” “The group has become increasingly vocal in opposition of transgender rights,” SF Gate reported. Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

www.breitbart.com

right

GhzMQhEiIwETEXgZ

test

bOvZyM5CY0X5xsJB

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump-racism/trump-says-im-not-a-racist-keeps-door-open-for-daca-deal-idUSKBN1F403G

Trump says 'I'm not a racist,' keeps door open for DACA deal

2018-01-15

Steve Holland

WEST PALM BEACH , Fla. ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump insisted on Sunday “ I ’ m not a racist ” in response to reports that he had described immigrants from Haiti and African countries as coming from “ shithole countries . ” Trump also said he was “ ready , willing and able ” to reach a deal to protect illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children from being deported but that he did not believe Democrats wanted an agreement . He tweeted earlier on Sunday that the existing program would “ probably ” be discontinued . The debate over immigration policy became increasingly acrimonious after it was reported on Thursday that the Republican president used the word “ shithole ” to describe Haiti and African countries in a private meeting with lawmakers . The comments led to harsh recriminations from Democrats and Republicans alike , with some critics accusing Trump of racism , even as bipartisan talks continued in the U.S. Congress to seek a bipartisan compromise to salvage the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , or DACA . Asked by a reporter in Florida whether he was a racist , Trump said : “ No . I ’ m not a racist . I ’ m the least racist person you have ever interviewed . ” Trump has threatened to end DACA , but he seemed to keep the door open for a deal when he told reporters before dinner on Sunday night : “ We ’ re ready , willing and able to make a deal on DACA , but I don ’ t think the Democrats want to make a deal… . The Democrats are the ones that aren ’ t going to make a deal . ” Efforts to extend the program are further complicated because it could make a funding bill to avert a government shutdown due Friday more difficult . “ DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don ’ t really want it , they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our military , ” Trump said earlier on Twitter . A U.S. judge ruled last Tuesday that DACA should remain in effect until legal challenges brought in multiple courts are resolved . “ I hope that we are actually going to work on fixing DACA , ” said Representative Mia Love on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union ” program on Sunday . “ We can not let this derail us . ” Love , whose parents are from Haiti , had criticized Trump for his remarks and called on him to apologize . Trump denied making the disparaging remarks on Friday , although U.S . Senator Richard Durbin , who was in the White House meeting , said the president had used the term . One participant at the meeting on Sunday denied that Trump used the term and another said he did not recall Trump making such comments . Asked on Sunday whether his inflammatory remarks made it harder to get a DACA deal , Trump said : “ Did you see what various senators in the room say about my comments ? They weren ’ t bad . ” Lawmakers hope to reach an immigration deal before Jan. 19 , when Congress must pass a funding bill or the government will shut down . Some Democrats insist that the DACA question be addressed by then . Lawmakers are trying to combine some form of relief for DACA immigrants along with enhanced border security , including a wall along the Mexican border , sought by Trump . The president ’ s inflammatory comments left lawmakers struggling to find a path forward . “ I hope we can move beyond that . What was reported was unacceptable . But what we have to do is not let that define this moment , ” said Republican Senator Cory Gardner on CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation ” program . Republican Senator David Perdue , who was at the same White House meeting and had said he did not recall whether Trump made the comment , was more explicit on Sunday . He called the new stories a “ gross misrepresentation . ” “ I ’ m telling you , he did not use that word , ” he said on ABC ’ s “ This Week ” program . However , Republicans and Democrats have both said they either heard Trump say it , or heard directly from colleagues who did . Republican Senator Jeff Flake said on Sunday he was told about the remarks by colleagues who attended the meeting , before the news reports emerged . U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as he and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy arrive for dinner at Trump 's golf club in West Palm Beach , Florida , U.S. , January 14 , 2018 . ███/Kevin Lamarque “ I heard that account before the account even went public , ” he said on “ This Week . ” One of Trump ’ s top advisers , Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen , said on “ Fox News Sunday ” she did not recall if Trump used “ that specific phrase . ” She also appeared to rebut Trump ’ s remarks from earlier in the day . “ DACA is not dead , ” she said .

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump insisted on Sunday “I’m not a racist” in response to reports that he had described immigrants from Haiti and African countries as coming from “shithole countries.” Trump also said he was “ready, willing and able” to reach a deal to protect illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children from being deported but that he did not believe Democrats wanted an agreement. He tweeted earlier on Sunday that the existing program would “probably” be discontinued. The debate over immigration policy became increasingly acrimonious after it was reported on Thursday that the Republican president used the word “shithole” to describe Haiti and African countries in a private meeting with lawmakers. The comments led to harsh recriminations from Democrats and Republicans alike, with some critics accusing Trump of racism, even as bipartisan talks continued in the U.S. Congress to seek a bipartisan compromise to salvage the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Asked by a reporter in Florida whether he was a racist, Trump said: “No. I’m not a racist. I’m the least racist person you have ever interviewed.” Trump has threatened to end DACA, but he seemed to keep the door open for a deal when he told reporters before dinner on Sunday night: “We’re ready, willing and able to make a deal on DACA, but I don’t think the Democrats want to make a deal…. The Democrats are the ones that aren’t going to make a deal.” Efforts to extend the program are further complicated because it could make a funding bill to avert a government shutdown due Friday more difficult. “DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our military,” Trump said earlier on Twitter. CONTROVERSY SIMMERS A U.S. judge ruled last Tuesday that DACA should remain in effect until legal challenges brought in multiple courts are resolved. “I hope that we are actually going to work on fixing DACA,” said Representative Mia Love on CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Sunday. “We cannot let this derail us.” Love, whose parents are from Haiti, had criticized Trump for his remarks and called on him to apologize. Trump denied making the disparaging remarks on Friday, although U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, who was in the White House meeting, said the president had used the term. One participant at the meeting on Sunday denied that Trump used the term and another said he did not recall Trump making such comments. Asked on Sunday whether his inflammatory remarks made it harder to get a DACA deal, Trump said: “Did you see what various senators in the room say about my comments? They weren’t bad.” Lawmakers hope to reach an immigration deal before Jan. 19, when Congress must pass a funding bill or the government will shut down. Some Democrats insist that the DACA question be addressed by then. Lawmakers are trying to combine some form of relief for DACA immigrants along with enhanced border security, including a wall along the Mexican border, sought by Trump. The president’s inflammatory comments left lawmakers struggling to find a path forward. “I hope we can move beyond that. What was reported was unacceptable. But what we have to do is not let that define this moment,” said Republican Senator Cory Gardner on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program. Republican Senator David Perdue, who was at the same White House meeting and had said he did not recall whether Trump made the comment, was more explicit on Sunday. He called the new stories a “gross misrepresentation.” “I’m telling you, he did not use that word,” he said on ABC’s “This Week” program. However, Republicans and Democrats have both said they either heard Trump say it, or heard directly from colleagues who did. Republican Senator Jeff Flake said on Sunday he was told about the remarks by colleagues who attended the meeting, before the news reports emerged. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks as he and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy arrive for dinner at Trump's golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., January 14, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque “I heard that account before the account even went public,” he said on “This Week.” One of Trump’s top advisers, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, said on “Fox News Sunday” she did not recall if Trump used “that specific phrase.” She also appeared to rebut Trump’s remarks from earlier in the day. “DACA is not dead,” she said.

www.reuters.com

center

bOvZyM5CY0X5xsJB

test

SpBjjcciRgMog9ld

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cohen/ex-trump-lawyer-cohen-to-be-sentenced-for-hush-money-payments-idUSKBN1OB16H

Ex-Trump lawyer Cohen to be sentenced for hush money payments

2018-12-13

Brendan Pierson

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump ’ s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison on Wednesday for crimes including orchestrating hush payments to women in violation of campaign laws before the 2016 election , and he promised to keep cooperating with the U.S. government against his former boss . The sentence , which capped a stunning about-face by a lawyer who once vowed to “ take a bullet ” for Trump , was handed down by a judge in New York on the same day as news that the publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid had struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid charges over its role in one of two hush payments involving Trump . The publisher admitted the payment was aimed at influencing the 2016 election , contradicting Trump ’ s statements . The twin developments highlighted the growing political and legal risks for Trump from a months-long investigation into the payments by federal prosecutors . Some legal experts said Trump could be charged after leaving office . Justice Department policy is not to indict a sitting president . “ These prosecutors have charged or reached agreement with everyone involved in this process save one notable exception , ” said Jonathan Turley , a law professor at George Washington University . “ It seems likely that this effort is directed at building a larger case against Donald Trump . ” Cohen had said in a guilty plea in August that he was directed by Trump to arrange a payment to Playboy model Karen McDougal , and personally pay adult-film star Stormy Daniels . Prosecutors in New York confirmed last week in a court filing that they believed the president ordered the payments to protect his campaign . Trump has denied the affairs and argues the payments to the two women were not campaign contributions . “ If it were , it ’ s only civil , and even if it ’ s only civil , there was no violation based on what we did , ” Trump said in an interview on Tuesday . “ From the president ’ s point of view , it was to protect his family , ” Trump ’ s lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , told ███ . In the Manhattan courtroom , Cohen told U.S. District Judge William Pauley that “ blind loyalty ” led him to cover up for Trump . Cohen said he was ready to provide “ as much information as I truthfully possess ” on the president . “ I am committed to proving my integrity and ensuring that history will not remember me as the villain of his story , ” Cohen said , choking up at times while giving his statement . “ I am truly sorry and I promise I will be better . ” Pauley sentenced Cohen to three years for the payments , and unrelated crimes of tax evasion and misleading banks . He gave Cohen two months for lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower project in Russia . The judge said the two terms would run simultaneously and he set March 6 for Cohen ’ s surrender . While the sentence was a modest reduction from the four to five years recommended under federal guidelines , Pauley described Cohen ’ s crimes as a “ smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct ” marked by deception and “ motivated by personal greed. ” He ordered Cohen to forfeit $ 500,000 and pay restitution of nearly $ 1.4 million . Cohen , 52 , walked into court with his wife , son and daughter amid a crowd of photographers and reporters . His 23-year-old daughter , Samantha , and 19-year-old son , Jake , both wept silently in the courtroom , the son wiping his eyes with his jacket sleeve . Cohen ’ s father , Maurice , a Holocaust survivor who helped convince his son to cooperate with prosecutors against Trump , showed little emotion during the hearing but later told reporters : “ My heart is ripped . ” Michael Cohen , U.S. President Donald Trump 's former attorney , exits the United States Court house after his sentencing , in the Manhattan borough of New York City , New York , U.S. , December 12 , 2018 . ███/Jeenah Moon Pauley sentenced Cohen for two cases - one involving the financial crimes prosecuted by attorneys in the Southern District of New York and the other for lying to Congress brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller . The Special Counsel is investigating Russia ’ s role in the 2016 election and possible coordination between Trump ’ s campaign and Moscow . Russia denies U.S. allegations of election interference and Trump denies collusion . Prosecutors have said Cohen , just before the November 2016 election , paid Daniels $ 130,000 and helped arrange the $ 150,000 payment to McDougal so the women would keep quiet . Federal law requires that the contribution of “ anything of value ” to a campaign must be disclosed , and an individual donation can not exceed $ 2,700 . “ It was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose a path of darkness over light , ” Cohen told the judge during the sentencing hearing , referring to Trump . “ I felt it was my duty to cover up his own dirty deeds , ” Cohen added . The Mueller investigation represents a threat to Trump ’ s presidency . Mueller , who also is examining whether the president has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe , has secured guilty pleas from several former Trump aides including his former campaign chairman and national security adviser , and has indicted several Russia individuals and entities . One of Mueller ’ s prosecutors praised Cohen ’ s cooperation , arguing it should be a mitigating factor in his defense . “ He has provided valuable information , investigative information , to us , ” attorney Jeannie Rhee told the judge . Cohen ’ s lawyer likened the political storm that engulfed his client to Watergate , the 1970 ’ s scandal in which the testimony of White House counsel John Dean helped bring down the Nixon presidency , as a way of emphasizing the pressures he faced . “ He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in the country , ” Guy Petrillo told the court in a bid for leniency . Lanny Davis , a lawyer who is advising Cohen on his media strategy , said his client wanted to testify in front of Congress after Mueller completes his investigation and issues a report , which is expected in the coming months . “ I look forward to assisting Michael to state publicly all he knows about Mr. Trump - and that includes any appropriate congressional committee interested in the search for truth and the difference between facts and lies , ” Davis said in a statement . Cohen was part of Trump ’ s inner circle who in the past called himself the president ’ s “ fixer. ” After Cohen pleaded guilty to the Mueller charges on Nov. 29 , Trump called his former lawyer a liar , “ a weak person and not a very smart person . ” Michael Avenatti , Daniels ’ lawyer , attended the sentencing and told reporters outside the courthouse , “ Michael Cohen is neither a hero nor a patriot . He lied for months about his conduct . ... Michael Cohen was sentenced today , President Trump is next . ” Trump has accused Mueller ’ s team of pressuring his former aides to lie about him , his campaign and his business dealings .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison on Wednesday for crimes including orchestrating hush payments to women in violation of campaign laws before the 2016 election, and he promised to keep cooperating with the U.S. government against his former boss. The sentence, which capped a stunning about-face by a lawyer who once vowed to “take a bullet” for Trump, was handed down by a judge in New York on the same day as news that the publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid had struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid charges over its role in one of two hush payments involving Trump. The publisher admitted the payment was aimed at influencing the 2016 election, contradicting Trump’s statements. The twin developments highlighted the growing political and legal risks for Trump from a months-long investigation into the payments by federal prosecutors. Some legal experts said Trump could be charged after leaving office. Justice Department policy is not to indict a sitting president. “These prosecutors have charged or reached agreement with everyone involved in this process save one notable exception,” said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “It seems likely that this effort is directed at building a larger case against Donald Trump.” Cohen had said in a guilty plea in August that he was directed by Trump to arrange a payment to Playboy model Karen McDougal, and personally pay adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors in New York confirmed last week in a court filing that they believed the president ordered the payments to protect his campaign. Trump has denied the affairs and argues the payments to the two women were not campaign contributions. “If it were, it’s only civil, and even if it’s only civil, there was no violation based on what we did,” Trump said in an interview on Tuesday. “From the president’s point of view, it was to protect his family,” Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told Reuters. In the Manhattan courtroom, Cohen told U.S. District Judge William Pauley that “blind loyalty” led him to cover up for Trump. Cohen said he was ready to provide “as much information as I truthfully possess” on the president. “I am committed to proving my integrity and ensuring that history will not remember me as the villain of his story,” Cohen said, choking up at times while giving his statement. “I am truly sorry and I promise I will be better.” Pauley sentenced Cohen to three years for the payments, and unrelated crimes of tax evasion and misleading banks. He gave Cohen two months for lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower project in Russia. The judge said the two terms would run simultaneously and he set March 6 for Cohen’s surrender. While the sentence was a modest reduction from the four to five years recommended under federal guidelines, Pauley described Cohen’s crimes as a “smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct” marked by deception and “motivated by personal greed.” He ordered Cohen to forfeit $500,000 and pay restitution of nearly $1.4 million. Cohen, 52, walked into court with his wife, son and daughter amid a crowd of photographers and reporters. His 23-year-old daughter, Samantha, and 19-year-old son, Jake, both wept silently in the courtroom, the son wiping his eyes with his jacket sleeve. Cohen’s father, Maurice, a Holocaust survivor who helped convince his son to cooperate with prosecutors against Trump, showed little emotion during the hearing but later told reporters: “My heart is ripped.” Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump's former attorney, exits the United States Court house after his sentencing, in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., December 12, 2018. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon ‘DIRTY DEEDS’ Pauley sentenced Cohen for two cases - one involving the financial crimes prosecuted by attorneys in the Southern District of New York and the other for lying to Congress brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Special Counsel is investigating Russia’s role in the 2016 election and possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and Moscow. Russia denies U.S. allegations of election interference and Trump denies collusion. Prosecutors have said Cohen, just before the November 2016 election, paid Daniels $130,000 and helped arrange the $150,000 payment to McDougal so the women would keep quiet. Federal law requires that the contribution of “anything of value” to a campaign must be disclosed, and an individual donation cannot exceed $2,700. “It was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose a path of darkness over light,” Cohen told the judge during the sentencing hearing, referring to Trump. “I felt it was my duty to cover up his own dirty deeds,” Cohen added. The Mueller investigation represents a threat to Trump’s presidency. Mueller, who also is examining whether the president has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe, has secured guilty pleas from several former Trump aides including his former campaign chairman and national security adviser, and has indicted several Russia individuals and entities. One of Mueller’s prosecutors praised Cohen’s cooperation, arguing it should be a mitigating factor in his defense. “He has provided valuable information, investigative information, to us,” attorney Jeannie Rhee told the judge. ‘MOST POWERFUL PERSON’ Cohen’s lawyer likened the political storm that engulfed his client to Watergate, the 1970’s scandal in which the testimony of White House counsel John Dean helped bring down the Nixon presidency, as a way of emphasizing the pressures he faced. “He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in the country,” Guy Petrillo told the court in a bid for leniency. Lanny Davis, a lawyer who is advising Cohen on his media strategy, said his client wanted to testify in front of Congress after Mueller completes his investigation and issues a report, which is expected in the coming months. “I look forward to assisting Michael to state publicly all he knows about Mr. Trump - and that includes any appropriate congressional committee interested in the search for truth and the difference between facts and lies,” Davis said in a statement. Cohen was part of Trump’s inner circle who in the past called himself the president’s “fixer.” After Cohen pleaded guilty to the Mueller charges on Nov. 29, Trump called his former lawyer a liar, “a weak person and not a very smart person.” Slideshow (10 Images) Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ lawyer, attended the sentencing and told reporters outside the courthouse, “Michael Cohen is neither a hero nor a patriot. He lied for months about his conduct. ... Michael Cohen was sentenced today, President Trump is next.” Trump has accused Mueller’s team of pressuring his former aides to lie about him, his campaign and his business dealings.

www.reuters.com

center

SpBjjcciRgMog9ld

test

Bet1lgySOGvmLBZh

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/obama-directs-cabinet-to-implement-marriage-ruling-2/

Obama directs Cabinet to implement marriage ruling

2013-06-26

( CNN ) – The Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that gutted the federal ban on same sex marriage elicited strongly divided responses from political leaders and advocates , a reflection of the broad disagreements that remain on the issue despite its growing acceptance among Americans . President Barack Obama , who announced a year ago he supported same-sex marriage , said in a statement he was asking members of his administration to review `` all relevant federal statutes '' to ensure the Wednesday 's decision is implemented `` swiftly and smoothly . '' But conservatives vowed to continue their efforts to ban gays and lesbians from marrying , casting the rulings as a setback - but not an end - to their fight . In Obama 's statement , released as he was flying to Senegal aboard Air Force One , the president wrote the ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was a `` victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law . '' `` The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts : when all Americans are treated as equal , no matter who they are or whom they love , we are all more free , '' wrote Obama , who earlier telephoned the plaintiffs who successfully fought to overturn California 's Proposition 8 . In a conservation that aired live on MSNBC , Obama told Kris Perry and Sandy Stier , `` We 're proud of you guys . '' `` With your courage you 're helping out a whole lot of people , '' Obama said . California 's governor Jerry Brown said Wednesday he was taking action in implementing the court 's decision on Prop . 8 , writing in a statement , `` I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state 's counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted . '' Conservatives opposing same sex marriage rights also vowed action Wednesday following the high court 's rulings . Tony Perkins , the president of the Family Research Council , said efforts to prohibit marriage for gays and lesbians was `` far from over . `` Time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage , '' Perkins said on CNN . `` If it were , I do n't think they would have gone to the court trying to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation . '' `` I do n't think this is over by any stretch of the imagination , '' Perkins continued . `` And I do n't think time is on the side of those who want to redefine marriage . '' House Speaker John Boehner , who directed the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA , said Wednesday he was `` disappointed '' in the ruling but also said the battle was not yet over . `` A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square , and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman , '' Boehner said .

6 years ago (CNN) – The Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that gutted the federal ban on same sex marriage elicited strongly divided responses from political leaders and advocates, a reflection of the broad disagreements that remain on the issue despite its growing acceptance among Americans. President Barack Obama, who announced a year ago he supported same-sex marriage, said in a statement he was asking members of his administration to review "all relevant federal statutes" to ensure the Wednesday's decision is implemented "swiftly and smoothly." But conservatives vowed to continue their efforts to ban gays and lesbians from marrying, casting the rulings as a setback - but not an end - to their fight. In Obama's statement, released as he was flying to Senegal aboard Air Force One, the president wrote the ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was a "victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law." "The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free," wrote Obama, who earlier telephoned the plaintiffs who successfully fought to overturn California's Proposition 8. In a conservation that aired live on MSNBC, Obama told Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, "We're proud of you guys." "With your courage you're helping out a whole lot of people," Obama said. California's governor Jerry Brown said Wednesday he was taking action in implementing the court's decision on Prop. 8, writing in a statement, "I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state's counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted." Conservatives opposing same sex marriage rights also vowed action Wednesday following the high court's rulings. Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, said efforts to prohibit marriage for gays and lesbians was "far from over. "Time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage," Perkins said on CNN. "If it were, I don't think they would have gone to the court trying to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation." "I don't think this is over by any stretch of the imagination," Perkins continued. "And I don't think time is on the side of those who want to redefine marriage." House Speaker John Boehner, who directed the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA, said Wednesday he was "disappointed" in the ruling but also said the battle was not yet over. "A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman," Boehner said.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

Bet1lgySOGvmLBZh

test

UuXbFEiSJ7EIoF6M

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-vance/judge-rejects-trump-request-to-block-new-york-subpoena-for-tax-returns-idUSKBN1WM1DK

Judge rejects Trump request to block New York subpoena for tax returns

2019-10-08

Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - A federal judge on Monday said eight years of U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s tax returns must be provided to Manhattan prosecutors , forcefully rejecting the president ’ s argument that he was immune from criminal investigations . Trump ’ s returns will not be turned over immediately , after the 2nd U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan granted the president ’ s request to temporarily block the order , handed down by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero . The Manhattan judge had called the immunity claim “ repugnant to the nation ’ s governmental structure and constitutional values , ” and said he could not “ square a vision of presidential immunity that would place the President above the law . ” His 75-page decision complicates Trump ’ s battle to keep his finances under wraps , despite having promised during his 2016 White House run that he would disclose his tax returns . Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance , a Democrat , had subpoenaed personal and corporate tax returns from 2011 to 2018 and other records from Trump ’ s longtime accounting firm Mazars USA . The subpoena was part of Vance ’ s criminal probe into the Republican president and his family business . Marrero ’ s decision would have forced Mazars to start turning over documents on Monday afternoon , but the appeals court said the case had “ unique issues , ” justifying a delay . The court said it may hear Trump ’ s appeal as soon as the week of Oct. 21 to 25 . Trump has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing . Two committees of the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives have separately subpoenaed Deutsche Bank AG for Trump ’ s financial records , which include tax returns . “ The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts , so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump , ” Trump tweeted after Marrero ’ s decision . “ A thing like this has never happened to any President before . Not even close ! ” In suing Vance last month to block his subpoena , Trump said he was immune from criminal probes while in the White House and that the U.S. Constitution required Vance to wait . The Constitution does not say whether sitting presidents can be indicted , and the Supreme Court has not decided the issue . Federal prosecutors can not charge sitting presidents because presidents have temporary immunity , according to the Department of Justice , but that does not block criminal probes by state-level prosecutors like Vance or even federal prosecutors . “ It ’ s uncharted legal terrain , ” Jens David Ohlin , vice dean at Cornell Law School , said in an interview. ” If the framers of the Constitution desired a president who was completely immune from all forms of criminal prosecution , they would have said so , ” he added . “ The counterargument is that the Constitution would prohibit it because it would infringe on the president ’ s ability to govern the country . ” Vance issued the subpoena four weeks after issuing another subpoena to the Trump Organization for records of hush money payments , including to two women prior to the 2016 election who said they had sexual relationships with Trump , which he denies . Those payments were made to Stormy Daniels , a porn star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford , and former Playboy model Karen McDougal , with the involvement of Trump ’ s now-imprisoned former lawyer Michael Cohen . Trump is also trying to block the House subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and is awaiting a ruling from the 2nd Circuit . The House probes are separate from the debate over whether Trump should be impeached because of his dealings with Ukraine . Jay Sekulow , a lawyer for Trump , said he was pleased the Vance subpoena was put on hold . Danny Frost , a spokesman for Vance , declined to comment . The Justice Department , which opposed dismissing Trump ’ s challenge to the subpoena , declined to comment . Mazars did not respond to requests for comment , but has said it would comply with its legal obligations . In his decision , Marrero , who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton , declined to assert jurisdiction over the Vance subpoena , saying Trump should have brought his case in a New York state court . But the judge made clear that if the appeals court disagreed with that finding , Trump should lose . Marrero said the president failed to show that enforcing the subpoena would interfere with his presidential duties , cause irreparable harm or be against the public interest . He also rejected as too broad the idea of shielding Trump , his family and his businesses from criminal process . “ The expansive notion of constitutional immunity invoked here to shield the President from judicial process would constitute an overreach of executive power , ” Marrero wrote . Marrero said even President Richard Nixon conceded during the Watergate scandal that he would be required to produce documents in response to a judicial subpoena . Trump ’ s lawyers said the case raised “ momentous ” questions about the president ’ s immunity and complying with the subpoena would cause irreversible damage . “ There will be no way to unscramble the egg scrambled by the disclosure , ” the lawyers said in a court filing . Trump is running for re-election . His current term ends on Jan. 20 , 2021 .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday said eight years of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tax returns must be provided to Manhattan prosecutors, forcefully rejecting the president’s argument that he was immune from criminal investigations. Trump’s returns will not be turned over immediately, after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan granted the president’s request to temporarily block the order, handed down by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero. The Manhattan judge had called the immunity claim “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values,” and said he could not “square a vision of presidential immunity that would place the President above the law.” His 75-page decision complicates Trump’s battle to keep his finances under wraps, despite having promised during his 2016 White House run that he would disclose his tax returns. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, a Democrat, had subpoenaed personal and corporate tax returns from 2011 to 2018 and other records from Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars USA. The subpoena was part of Vance’s criminal probe into the Republican president and his family business. Marrero’s decision would have forced Mazars to start turning over documents on Monday afternoon, but the appeals court said the case had “unique issues,” justifying a delay. The court said it may hear Trump’s appeal as soon as the week of Oct. 21 to 25. Trump has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing. Two committees of the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives have separately subpoenaed Deutsche Bank AG for Trump’s financial records, which include tax returns. “The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts, so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump,” Trump tweeted after Marrero’s decision. “A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!” In suing Vance last month to block his subpoena, Trump said he was immune from criminal probes while in the White House and that the U.S. Constitution required Vance to wait. HOUSE PROBE The Constitution does not say whether sitting presidents can be indicted, and the Supreme Court has not decided the issue. Federal prosecutors cannot charge sitting presidents because presidents have temporary immunity, according to the Department of Justice, but that does not block criminal probes by state-level prosecutors like Vance or even federal prosecutors. “It’s uncharted legal terrain,” Jens David Ohlin, vice dean at Cornell Law School, said in an interview.”If the framers of the Constitution desired a president who was completely immune from all forms of criminal prosecution, they would have said so,” he added. “The counterargument is that the Constitution would prohibit it because it would infringe on the president’s ability to govern the country.” FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump attends Young Black Leadership Summit at the White House in Washington, U.S., October 4, 2019. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo Vance issued the subpoena four weeks after issuing another subpoena to the Trump Organization for records of hush money payments, including to two women prior to the 2016 election who said they had sexual relationships with Trump, which he denies. Those payments were made to Stormy Daniels, a porn star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, with the involvement of Trump’s now-imprisoned former lawyer Michael Cohen. Trump is also trying to block the House subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and is awaiting a ruling from the 2nd Circuit. The House probes are separate from the debate over whether Trump should be impeached because of his dealings with Ukraine. Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump, said he was pleased the Vance subpoena was put on hold. Danny Frost, a spokesman for Vance, declined to comment. The Justice Department, which opposed dismissing Trump’s challenge to the subpoena, declined to comment. Mazars did not respond to requests for comment, but has said it would comply with its legal obligations. ‘OVERREACH OF EXECUTIVE POWER’ In his decision, Marrero, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, declined to assert jurisdiction over the Vance subpoena, saying Trump should have brought his case in a New York state court. But the judge made clear that if the appeals court disagreed with that finding, Trump should lose. Marrero said the president failed to show that enforcing the subpoena would interfere with his presidential duties, cause irreparable harm or be against the public interest. He also rejected as too broad the idea of shielding Trump, his family and his businesses from criminal process. “The expansive notion of constitutional immunity invoked here to shield the President from judicial process would constitute an overreach of executive power,” Marrero wrote. Marrero said even President Richard Nixon conceded during the Watergate scandal that he would be required to produce documents in response to a judicial subpoena. Trump’s lawyers said the case raised “momentous” questions about the president’s immunity and complying with the subpoena would cause irreversible damage. Slideshow (4 Images) “There will be no way to unscramble the egg scrambled by the disclosure,” the lawyers said in a court filing. Trump is running for re-election. His current term ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

www.reuters.com

center

UuXbFEiSJ7EIoF6M

test

WChab6LtcgGya9we

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/11/5-clinton-cash-revelations-that-have-leftists-steaming/

5 "Clinton Cash" Revelations That Have Leftists Steaming

2015-05-11

Ben Shapiro

Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer ’ s Clinton Cash has the Hillary Clinton campaign so riled up that they have now posted an entire webpage attempting to debunk claims in the book via obfuscation and misdirection . Thus far , the so-called Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has apparently hijacked The New York Times , The Washington Post , and other leftist outlets , all of whom are tracking the claims Schweizer makes . But it ’ s not just the nouveau VRWC concerned about corruption in the Clinton camp . The entire left should be furious with the Clintons – not merely over their corruption , which the left routinely excuses , but over their capitulation to some of the worst human rights abusers and environmental exploiters on the planet . Here are the top five new Clinton Cash revelations that should spark ire between Hillary Clinton and her leftist base : Mowing Down Rainforests . According to Clinton Cash , just after Hillary and Bill Clinton spent an evening with the president of Colombia , the government of Colombia promptly granted exclusive approval to Prima Colombia Properties . That company was owned by longtime Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra , As Schweizer writes : Days after Hillary left Bogotá , Prima Colombia Properties , which Frank Giustra has ownership interest in through a shell company called Flagship Industries , announced that it had acquired the right to cut timber in a biologically diverse forest on the pristine Colombian shoreline . Giustra has a long history with the Clintons , giving the foundation over $ 100 million and allowing Bill to use his plane some 26 times . Giustra allegedly used his connection with Bill to gain connections to the Kazakh government , benefitting his companies . Giustra was also a major shareholder in Uranium One , and his former partners allegedly benefited heavily from the relationship between Uranium One leadership and the Clintons when Hillary ’ s State Department looked the other way on Russia ’ s buy-up of the uranium company . Fostering More Oil Drilling . Schweizer reports that in June 2010 , just after Hillary and Bill spent a charming evening with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe , Pacific Rubiales , another company associated with Giustra , won a lucrative drilling lease including six plots from the Colombian government . These were controversial plots , including acreage in the Putumayo Basin and the Llanos Basin near the Andes Mountains , as well as the Ciusiana-Cupiagua . Protecting an African Warlord . It wasn ’ t just Kazakh dictators to whom the Clintons lent a helping hand . Hillary Clinton , as senator from New York , had cosponsored the 2006 Congo Relief , Security , and Democracy Promotion Act , which endangered the business of Lukas Lundin , a major Swedish mining investor . In 2007 , the Clinton Foundation received $ 100 million from Lundin for Africa . The Lundin Group was already in hot water for drilling for oil in Sudan , which was under international sanctions ; at the time , the Lundin Group was “ under investigation by the International Prosecution Chamber in Stockholm for complicity in ‘ war crimes and crimes against humanity , ’ ” according to Clinton Cash . Once Hillary Clinton became secretary of state , she stopped implementing “ any of the key provisions in the law that she had strongly advocated only a few years earlier – before Lundin made his contribution. ” That allowed Lundin to keep reaping enormous profits . Open Pit Coal Mining . In June 2009 , the Clinton Giustra initiative took two millions shares of Polo Resources . Within two months , the US ambassador to Bangladesh helped facilitate open pit mining in that country via the energy advisor to the prime minister of Bangladesh , a move that benefitted – you guessed it – Polo Resources , which had a stake in the Phulbari Mines . In February 2012 , the United Nations announced , “ The construction of an open-pit coal mine in Bangladesh could displace hundreds of thousands of people and jeopardize their access to basic needs. ” The UN recommended that the Phulbari coal mine not be allowed to proceed . Nuclear Development . Leaving aside the allegations regarding Uranium One , in 2014 , Sant Chatwal , a longtime Clinton friend and donor , pleaded guilty to funneling over $ 180,000 to candidates including Hillary Clinton . He said openly that he “ spent tons of money , time and effort to make sure that the [ Indian-US ] nuclear deal goes through. ” As senator , Hillary Clinton remained “ remarkably silent ” as the United States began to make moves to loosen nuclear provisions of international agreements with regard to India . Over time , the Clintons became close with one Amar Singh , an Indian politician who gave somewhere between $ 1 million and $ 5 million to the Clinton Foundation . In the end , Schweizer writes , then-Senator Clinton ended up backing “ the passage of the Indian nuclear deal , despite the public opposition of her closest advisers and the fact that it was a clear reversal of her previous policy positions . ” Hillary ’ s troubles with corruption allegations aren ’ t going to end anytime soon . She ’ s been able to avoid total blowback from the left thus far , despite those allegations . But should the left latch on to any of her violations of basic human rights and environmentalist core principles , that immunity could disappear quickly . Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of ███ and author of the new book , The People vs. Barack Obama : The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration ( Threshold Editions , June 10 , 2014 ) . Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @ benshapiro .

Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash has the Hillary Clinton campaign so riled up that they have now posted an entire webpage attempting to debunk claims in the book via obfuscation and misdirection. Thus far, the so-called Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has apparently hijacked The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other leftist outlets, all of whom are tracking the claims Schweizer makes. But it’s not just the nouveau VRWC concerned about corruption in the Clinton camp. The entire left should be furious with the Clintons – not merely over their corruption, which the left routinely excuses, but over their capitulation to some of the worst human rights abusers and environmental exploiters on the planet. Here are the top five new Clinton Cash revelations that should spark ire between Hillary Clinton and her leftist base: Mowing Down Rainforests. According to Clinton Cash, just after Hillary and Bill Clinton spent an evening with the president of Colombia, the government of Colombia promptly granted exclusive approval to Prima Colombia Properties. That company was owned by longtime Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra, As Schweizer writes: Days after Hillary left Bogotá, Prima Colombia Properties, which Frank Giustra has ownership interest in through a shell company called Flagship Industries, announced that it had acquired the right to cut timber in a biologically diverse forest on the pristine Colombian shoreline. Giustra has a long history with the Clintons, giving the foundation over $100 million and allowing Bill to use his plane some 26 times. Giustra allegedly used his connection with Bill to gain connections to the Kazakh government, benefitting his companies. Giustra was also a major shareholder in Uranium One, and his former partners allegedly benefited heavily from the relationship between Uranium One leadership and the Clintons when Hillary’s State Department looked the other way on Russia’s buy-up of the uranium company. Fostering More Oil Drilling. Schweizer reports that in June 2010, just after Hillary and Bill spent a charming evening with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Pacific Rubiales, another company associated with Giustra, won a lucrative drilling lease including six plots from the Colombian government. These were controversial plots, including acreage in the Putumayo Basin and the Llanos Basin near the Andes Mountains, as well as the Ciusiana-Cupiagua. Protecting an African Warlord. It wasn’t just Kazakh dictators to whom the Clintons lent a helping hand. Hillary Clinton, as senator from New York, had cosponsored the 2006 Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which endangered the business of Lukas Lundin, a major Swedish mining investor. In 2007, the Clinton Foundation received $100 million from Lundin for Africa. The Lundin Group was already in hot water for drilling for oil in Sudan, which was under international sanctions; at the time, the Lundin Group was “under investigation by the International Prosecution Chamber in Stockholm for complicity in ‘war crimes and crimes against humanity,’” according to Clinton Cash. Once Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she stopped implementing “any of the key provisions in the law that she had strongly advocated only a few years earlier – before Lundin made his contribution.” That allowed Lundin to keep reaping enormous profits. Open Pit Coal Mining. In June 2009, the Clinton Giustra initiative took two millions shares of Polo Resources. Within two months, the US ambassador to Bangladesh helped facilitate open pit mining in that country via the energy advisor to the prime minister of Bangladesh, a move that benefitted – you guessed it – Polo Resources, which had a stake in the Phulbari Mines. In February 2012, the United Nations announced, “The construction of an open-pit coal mine in Bangladesh could displace hundreds of thousands of people and jeopardize their access to basic needs.” The UN recommended that the Phulbari coal mine not be allowed to proceed. Nuclear Development. Leaving aside the allegations regarding Uranium One, in 2014, Sant Chatwal, a longtime Clinton friend and donor, pleaded guilty to funneling over $180,000 to candidates including Hillary Clinton. He said openly that he “spent tons of money, time and effort to make sure that the [Indian-US] nuclear deal goes through.” As senator, Hillary Clinton remained “remarkably silent” as the United States began to make moves to loosen nuclear provisions of international agreements with regard to India. Over time, the Clintons became close with one Amar Singh, an Indian politician who gave somewhere between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation. In the end, Schweizer writes, then-Senator Clinton ended up backing “the passage of the Indian nuclear deal, despite the public opposition of her closest advisers and the fact that it was a clear reversal of her previous policy positions.” Hillary’s troubles with corruption allegations aren’t going to end anytime soon. She’s been able to avoid total blowback from the left thus far, despite those allegations. But should the left latch on to any of her violations of basic human rights and environmentalist core principles, that immunity could disappear quickly. Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

www.breitbart.com

right

WChab6LtcgGya9we

test

NjclkyYu8wlujkL0

justice_department

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressman-jesse-jackson-jr-pleads-guilty-federal-probe/story?id=18442233

Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. Pleads Guilty In Federal Probe

Matthew Jaffe

CHICAGO -- Former Illinois congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has reached a plea agreement in connection to a federal probe into whether or not the troubled lawmaker misused campaign funds . Earlier this month Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud , mail fraud , and making false statements , sources close to the investigation told ABC 's Chicago station WLS . Jackson could now face up to five years in jail , a decision that will ultimately be made by a federal judge . The former congressman signed the plea deal on Feb. 1 in the nation 's capital . The U.S. Attorney 's Office in Washington , D.C. , which has been running this investigation , had no comment when contacted today by ███ . The plea agreement comes a little over two months after Jackson stepped down from Congress . In his resignation letter to House Speaker John Boehner , Jackson , D-Ill. , acknowledged that he had made his `` share of mistakes . '' `` I am aware of the ongoing federal investigation into my activities and I am doing my best to address the situation responsibly , cooperate with the investigators , and accept responsibility for my mistakes , for they are my mistakes and mine alone , '' he wrote in the letter . `` None of us is immune from our share of shortcomings or human frailties and I pray that I will be remembered for what I did right . '' For months leading up to his resignation , Jackson had been on medical leave undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder . Last June , Jackson , the son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson , suddenly left Congress to seek treatment for `` exhaustion , '' according to his office . Weeks later his staff noted that his condition was `` more serious '' than initially thought . Jackson went on to spend time at treatment centers in Arizona and Minnesota before being diagnosed with bipolar disorder . Despite his troubles , Jackson , whose district included a large portion of Chicago 's South Side and southeast suburbs , still won re-election in a landslide last November . But shortly afterward , he resigned . `` Against the recommendations of my doctors , I had hoped and tried to return to Washington and continue working on the issues that matter most to the people of the Second District . I know now that will not be possible , '' Jackson wrote in his letter . `` The constituents of the Second District deserve a full-time legislator in Washington , something I can not be for the foreseeable future . My health issues and treatment regimen have become incompatible with service in the House of Representatives . '' According to reports , Jackson will now repay the government hundreds of thousands of dollars that he used to buy items such as a $ 40,000 luxury watch and home furniture . His wife , Sandi Jackson , is also the subject of a federal probe . She left her spot on the Chicago City Council last month .

CHICAGO -- Former Illinois congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has reached a plea agreement in connection to a federal probe into whether or not the troubled lawmaker misused campaign funds. Earlier this month Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and making false statements, sources close to the investigation told ABC's Chicago station WLS. Jackson could now face up to five years in jail, a decision that will ultimately be made by a federal judge. The former congressman signed the plea deal on Feb. 1 in the nation's capital. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., which has been running this investigation, had no comment when contacted today by ABC News. The plea agreement comes a little over two months after Jackson stepped down from Congress. In his resignation letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Jackson, D-Ill., acknowledged that he had made his "share of mistakes." "I am aware of the ongoing federal investigation into my activities and I am doing my best to address the situation responsibly, cooperate with the investigators, and accept responsibility for my mistakes, for they are my mistakes and mine alone," he wrote in the letter. "None of us is immune from our share of shortcomings or human frailties and I pray that I will be remembered for what I did right." For months leading up to his resignation, Jackson had been on medical leave undergoing treatment for bipolar disorder. Last June, Jackson, the son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, suddenly left Congress to seek treatment for "exhaustion," according to his office. Weeks later his staff noted that his condition was "more serious" than initially thought. Jackson went on to spend time at treatment centers in Arizona and Minnesota before being diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Despite his troubles, Jackson, whose district included a large portion of Chicago's South Side and southeast suburbs, still won re-election in a landslide last November. But shortly afterward, he resigned. "Against the recommendations of my doctors, I had hoped and tried to return to Washington and continue working on the issues that matter most to the people of the Second District. I know now that will not be possible," Jackson wrote in his letter. "The constituents of the Second District deserve a full-time legislator in Washington, something I cannot be for the foreseeable future. My health issues and treatment regimen have become incompatible with service in the House of Representatives." According to reports, Jackson will now repay the government hundreds of thousands of dollars that he used to buy items such as a $40,000 luxury watch and home furniture. His wife, Sandi Jackson, is also the subject of a federal probe. She left her spot on the Chicago City Council last month. ABC News' Jason Ryan contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

NjclkyYu8wlujkL0

test

piWqgbYhKQCX9UUB

media_bias

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/jane-mayer-and-the-liberal-state-media-attack-trump-fox-hannity/

OPINION: Jane Mayer and the Liberal State Media Attack Trump, Fox, Hannity

Jeffrey Lord

The Making of the Fox News White House Fox News has always been partisan . But has it become propaganda ? In which writer Jane Mayer — she the author of attack pieces over the years on every conservative from Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Koch brothers and Robert Mercer etc. , etc. , etc. , yada , yada , yada — mounts yet another attack on conservative targets , this one on Fox News , Sean Hannity , and , but of course , President Trump . Specifically , she says that Fox News “ has evolved into something that hasn ’ t existed before in the United States. ” That would be “ state TV , ” as she quotes University of Virginia professor Nicole Hemmer . It quotes one Joe Peyronnin , a former Fox News president in the nineties and now a NYU journalism professor as saying : “ I ’ ve never seen anything like it before . It ’ s as if the President had his own press organization . It ’ s not healthy . ” There is not the slightest sense of irony that in fact Mayer herself , not to mention the New Yorker , the magazine for which she writes , are members in good standing of the Liberal State Media . Which is to say she belongs to the world of liberal cable and broadcast networks , print outlets , all manner of Internet sites and , of course , Hollywood which individually not to mention collectively function as a self-selected version of Pravda ( “ Truth ” ) , the once-official newspaper of the Soviet Union ’ s Communist Party . The members of the Liberal State Media have one self-selected job , and one job only : they are in the Liberal Narrative business , relentlessly pushing into the media whatever is the liberal agenda of the day . All the way back in 1969 then-Vice President Spiro Agnew gave a ground-breaking speech on the problem of the Liberal State Media as it existed in the day — which meant the three broadcast networks and the liberal print outlets . Agnew described the problem this way : Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power ? Of the men who produce and direct the network news , the nation knows practically nothing . Of the commentators , most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence , seemingly well-informed on every important matter . We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington , D.C. , or New York City , the latter of which ( New York Times columnist ) James Reston terms “ the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States . ” In today ’ s world the Liberal State Media is run by both men and women and people of all races . Yet the problem is still the same as it was in 1969 : they all think the same , and that “ same ” means they all lean Left . Which is to say the American Left has its own press operation . And the beauty of it is that it is self-initiating . Examples that Mayer mysteriously ignores ? DOCUMENTS SHOW MEDIA PLOTTING TO KILL STORIES ABOUT REV . JEREMIAH WRIGHT The story by Jonathan Strong says , among other things , this : It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama ’ s political career . In the heat of the presidential campaign , videos surfaced of Obama ’ s pastor , the Rev . Jeremiah Wright , angrily denouncing whites , the U.S. government and America itself . Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright . Now the black nationalist preacher ’ s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama ’ s campaign . The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April , 2008 , at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos . Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long — nearly a year since Wright ’ s remarks became public — to dissociate himself from them . Stephanopoulos asked , “ Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do ? ” Watching this all at home were members of Journolist , a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists , as well as like-minded professors and activists . The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged . “ George [ Stephanopoulos ] , ” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation , is “ being a disgusting little rat snake . ” In other words their liberal colleague “ George ” — he the ex-Bill Clinton aide — had betrayed the cause by having the audacity to ask a tough question of the new Liberal State Media hero — Barack Obama . The story went on to say : Others went further . According to records obtained by The Daily Caller , at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate . Employees of news organizations including Time , Politico , the Huffington Post , the Baltimore Sun , the Guardian , Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media , and in some cases plotted to fix the damage . In one instance , Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama ’ s relationship with Wright by changing the subject . Pick one of Obama ’ s conservative critics , Ackerman wrote , “ Fred Barnes , Karl Rove , who cares — and call them racists . ” In another Daily Caller story by Strong there was this headline : Got all that ? The denizens of the Liberal State Media , angry that Fox News was disrupting the Liberal Narrative , wanted the Obama Administration to simply force Fox News off the air altogether . Disregarding the norms protecting press freedom , he ( now-White House Communications Director Bill Shine , a former Fox News co-president ) tried to strip the aggressive CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta of his White House pass . Mysteriously , Mayer seems to have forgotten that Daily Caller exposé of the liberals at “ Journolist , ” which , again , reported this : If this means that some White House reporters don ’ t get a press pass for the press secretary ’ s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to , you know , do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases , then I ’ ll take that risk . In other words , for Bill Shine to pull the “ aggressive ” CNN reporter Acosta ’ s credentials was “ Disregarding the norms protecting press freedom… ” But when the liberals at Journolist were planning on finding a way to see to it that some Obama White House reporters — read , Fox News reporters — “ don ’ t get a press pass for the press secretary ’ s daily briefing ” ? Meaning give Fox the same treatment CNN would later receive ? Mayer somehow , some way , just can ’ t seem to remember that . Which is another way of saying that in the eyes of the Liberal State Media “ aggressive ” CNN is good when going after Trump , but an aggressive Fox going after Obama is outrageous , a cause to pull press credentials if not force the entire network off the air . This entire “ Journolist ” project was , once exposed , a behind the scenes look at just how the Liberal State Media works in pushing the liberal agenda of the moment . And in fact , as Jonathan Strong revealed in yet another Daily Caller exposé : Despite its name , membership in the liberal online community Journolist wasn ’ t limited to journalists . Present among the bloggers , reporters and editors were a number of professional political operatives , including top White House economic advisors , key Obama political appointees , and Democratic campaign veterans . Some left government to join Journolist . Others took the opposite route . A few contributed to Journolist from their perches in politics . At times , it became difficult to tell who was supposed to be covering policy and who was trying to make it . ” Added to the revelations about liberal journos plotting and planning Obama White House media strategy , there was this dust-up in 2013 — also during the Obama era . Stories surfaced about how literally incestuous the relationship between the liberal media and the liberal Obama administration really was . The Washington Post ’ s Paul Farhi wrote it this way : The Farhi story recounted multiple specifics of journalists married to this or that Obama official . It said this , in part : It ’ s all but a journalistic commandment : Thou shalt not have a vested interest in the story you ’ re covering . Otherwise , a personal entanglement could color a reporter ’ s neutrality or cloud public perceptions of fairness . An obvious area of concern : when a journalist ’ s relatives or spouse is part of the news . So what to make of all the family ties between the news media and the Obama administration ? … Conservatives have suggested that these relationships may play a role in how the media cover Obama , specifically in their supposedly timid approach to reporting on the White House ’ s handling of the terrorist attacks last year on American facilities in Benghazi , Libya . The National Review Online recently claimed that such ties amount to professional incest : “ The inbreeding among Obama ’ s court and its press corps is more like one of those ‘ I ’ m my own grandpaw ’ deals , ” wrote NRO ’ s Mark Steyn in a posting titled “ Band of Brothers. ” Such insinuations make media types bristle . They take exception to the notion that complicated judgments about the news — often made by others within an organization — have anything to do with personal favoritism or familial relationships . The critics , they say , can ’ t point to any direct evidence that such relationships have affected the amount or tone of their news coverage . Taken together with the “ Journolist ” revelations and it is crystal clear that yes , in fact , the real problem in the media today is not Fox News or Hannity or the Fox relationship with the Trump White House . The real problem for the Liberal State Media — for Mayer and her fellow liberal journalists — is the fact that it they are finally being beaten at their own game . Worse still , from their perspective , is that this is being accomplished by a president and his allies who have a serious understanding of just how the Liberal State Media plays the game . There is not a single thing described in the Mayer piece that has not been done by the Liberal State Media over the decades . Here are a few examples . Mayer writes : “ The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine , during a particular news cycle , which one is following the other ’ s lead. ” Again , recall that Daily Caller story saying this : “ Despite its name , membership in the liberal online community Journolist wasn ’ t limited to journalists . Present among the bloggers , reporters and editors were a number of professional political operatives , including top White House economic advisors , key Obama political appointees , and Democratic campaign veterans . ” Mayer writes of the relationship between Bill Shine and Sean Hannity this way : “ … they are godfathers to each other ’ s children… they spend their vacations together… . They talked all the time-many times a day. ” Not mentioned ? That story about the oh-so-close ties between Obama officials and various members of the liberal media — who were also either spouses or siblings . Recall this quote that Mayer ignored : “ The inbreeding among Obama ’ s court and its press corps is more like one of those ‘ I ’ m my own grandpaw ’ deals , ” wrote NRO ’ s Mark Steyn in a posting titled “ Band of Brothers . ” Mayer writes of “ The Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin , another conservative Never Trumper… ” Ignored completely was the letter awhile back by 37 prominent conservatives in the American Principles Project to the Washington Post , which said in part : We , of course , respect the right of The Washington Post to employ whatever writers it pleases — even Jennifer Rubin . However , we ask for the sake of intellectual honesty that the Post cease to identify her as in any way “ conservative. ” … Anyone following Rubin ’ s writing closely at this point would rightfully find the claim that she is “ conservative ” laughable . And yet , she is still regularly touted in the media as a conservative voice — and by your own paper as “ reporting from a center-right perspective. ” … This issue exemplifies why so many Americans — particularly conservatives — hold a high distrust of the media . How can an average reader take the Post ’ s opinion section seriously when , of its numerous regular columnists , none can be found which defend the policies of our nation ’ s elected president ? Mayer writes , aghast , of Trump appointees Ben Carson , John Bolton , K.T . McFarland , Heather Nauert , and Sebastian Gorka as having previously been contributors or commentators on Fox . Ignoring that all of these people had substantial careers outside of Fox News before their Fox stints . And quite decidedly ignoring Liberal State Media stars like Jay Carney of Time ( who became White House press secretary ) , Rick Stengel , also of Time ( the managing editor ) who served in the Obama State Department , and Strobe Talbott , another Time alum who served in the Clinton State Department . Which is to say , there is a long revolving-door history of media figures serving in an administration . Mayer writes of the Trump-Hannity relationship as if a close relationship between a president and a media personality is somehow new . While she does mention the role of the then-Washington Post publisher Phil Graham in getting Lyndon Johnson on the JFK Democratic ticket in 1960 , she ignores the close friendship between JFK and then-Newsweek Washington Bureau chief Ben Bradlee , which Bradlee himself discussed in his memoirs . In other words , if the president is Trump and the media figure is Sean Hannity or Rupert Murdoch — this is somehow terrible . But JFK and his pal Ben Bradlee , or Bill Clinton and his pal CNN president Rick Kaplan ? The latter relationship resulting in CNN being dubbed the “ Clinton News Network ” ? No problem . Nary a mention for context here . Mayer refers several times to the far-left Media Matters , as if the latter were a legitimate source on anything having to do with Fox , Hannity , or Shine . As noted in this 2012 Daily Caller story about Media Matters : Founded by ( David ) Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “ conservative misinformation ” in the press , Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics . The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House , as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country . Never mentioned is that Media Matters founder Brock authored a book titled The Fox Effect : How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine . Notice anything ? Yes , indeed . The subtitle of Mayer ’ s article asks if Fox News “ has become propaganda. ” And for confirmation she goes to Media Matters — whose founder wrote a book assailing Fox as a “ propaganda machine ” in — 2012 . That would be four years before Donald Trump was elected president . Which is to say , the business of the Liberal State Media attacking Fox as all about being a “ propaganda machine ” — not to mention going after the Trump White House , Bill Shine , Rupert Murdoch , and Sean Hannity — is not only not new , it long predated Trump ’ s rise to the White House . Mayer , in blithely and repeatedly citing Media Matters as a source , also never mentions this Daily Caller story that reveals “ Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands of liberal journalists . ” Liberal journalists like — Jane Mayer ? Hmmm . A visit to the Media Matters website finds this admiring headline : On MSNBC , The New Yorker ’ s Jane Mayer describes the “ incredibly close ” relationship between the White House and Fox News Mayer : “ According to a number of critics , [ Fox is ] the closest we ’ ve ever had to state news.… People describe it to me as a wing of the West Wing . ” Ahhhh , the Liberal State Media at work . From Mayer at the New Yorker to MSNBC to Media Matters and on into the world of the Liberal State Media ’ s Liberal Narrative . Unless , of course , you are a member of the Liberal State Media .

Ya can’t make it up. Here’s the breathless headline: The Making of the Fox News White House Fox News has always been partisan. But has it become propaganda? In which writer Jane Mayer — she the author of attack pieces over the years on every conservative from Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Koch brothers and Robert Mercer etc., etc., etc., yada, yada, yada — mounts yet another attack on conservative targets, this one on Fox News, Sean Hannity, and, but of course, President Trump. Specifically, she says that Fox News “has evolved into something that hasn’t existed before in the United States.” That would be “state TV,” as she quotes University of Virginia professor Nicole Hemmer. It quotes one Joe Peyronnin, a former Fox News president in the nineties and now a NYU journalism professor as saying: “I’ve never seen anything like it before. It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.” There is not the slightest sense of irony that in fact Mayer herself, not to mention the New Yorker, the magazine for which she writes, are members in good standing of the Liberal State Media. Which is to say she belongs to the world of liberal cable and broadcast networks, print outlets, all manner of Internet sites and, of course, Hollywood which individually not to mention collectively function as a self-selected version of Pravda (“Truth”), the once-official newspaper of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. The members of the Liberal State Media have one self-selected job, and one job only: they are in the Liberal Narrative business, relentlessly pushing into the media whatever is the liberal agenda of the day. All the way back in 1969 then-Vice President Spiro Agnew gave a ground-breaking speech on the problem of the Liberal State Media as it existed in the day — which meant the three broadcast networks and the liberal print outlets. Agnew described the problem this way: Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence, seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City, the latter of which (New York Times columnist) James Reston terms “the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.” In today’s world the Liberal State Media is run by both men and women and people of all races. Yet the problem is still the same as it was in 1969: they all think the same, and that “same” means they all lean Left. Which is to say the American Left has its own press operation. And the beauty of it is that it is self-initiating. Examples that Mayer mysteriously ignores? Recall this Daily Caller story from 2010. The headline: DOCUMENTS SHOW MEDIA PLOTTING TO KILL STORIES ABOUT REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT The story by Jonathan Strong says, among other things, this: It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign. The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long — nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public — to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.” In other words their liberal colleague “George” — he the ex-Bill Clinton aide — had betrayed the cause by having the audacity to ask a tough question of the new Liberal State Media hero — Barack Obama. The story went on to say: Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage. In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” In another Daily Caller story by Strong there was this headline: LIBERAL JOURNALISTS SUGGEST GOVERNMENT CENSOR FOX NEWS This story said: Got all that? The denizens of the Liberal State Media, angry that Fox News was disrupting the Liberal Narrative, wanted the Obama Administration to simply force Fox News off the air altogether. And then there was this from Mayer: Disregarding the norms protecting press freedom, he (now-White House Communications Director Bill Shine, a former Fox News co-president) tried to strip the aggressive CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta of his White House pass. Mysteriously, Mayer seems to have forgotten that Daily Caller exposé of the liberals at “Journolist,” which, again, reported this: If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk. In other words, for Bill Shine to pull the “aggressive” CNN reporter Acosta’s credentials was “Disregarding the norms protecting press freedom…” But when the liberals at Journolist were planning on finding a way to see to it that some Obama White House reporters — read, Fox News reporters — “don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing”? Meaning give Fox the same treatment CNN would later receive? Mayer somehow, some way, just can’t seem to remember that. Which is another way of saying that in the eyes of the Liberal State Media “aggressive” CNN is good when going after Trump, but an aggressive Fox going after Obama is outrageous, a cause to pull press credentials if not force the entire network off the air. This entire “Journolist” project was, once exposed, a behind the scenes look at just how the Liberal State Media works in pushing the liberal agenda of the moment. And in fact, as Jonathan Strong revealed in yet another Daily Caller exposé: POLITICAL OPERATIVES ON JOURNOLIST WORKED TO SHAPE NEWS COVERAGE Strong wrote: Despite its name, membership in the liberal online community Journolist wasn’t limited to journalists. Present among the bloggers, reporters and editors were a number of professional political operatives, including top White House economic advisors, key Obama political appointees, and Democratic campaign veterans. Some left government to join Journolist. Others took the opposite route. A few contributed to Journolist from their perches in politics. At times, it became difficult to tell who was supposed to be covering policy and who was trying to make it.” Added to the revelations about liberal journos plotting and planning Obama White House media strategy, there was this dust-up in 2013 — also during the Obama era. Stories surfaced about how literally incestuous the relationship between the liberal media and the liberal Obama administration really was. The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi wrote it this way: Media, administration deal with conflicts The Farhi story recounted multiple specifics of journalists married to this or that Obama official. It said this, in part: It’s all but a journalistic commandment: Thou shalt not have a vested interest in the story you’re covering. Otherwise, a personal entanglement could color a reporter’s neutrality or cloud public perceptions of fairness. An obvious area of concern: when a journalist’s relatives or spouse is part of the news. So what to make of all the family ties between the news media and the Obama administration?… Conservatives have suggested that these relationships may play a role in how the media cover Obama, specifically in their supposedly timid approach to reporting on the White House’s handling of the terrorist attacks last year on American facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The National Review Online recently claimed that such ties amount to professional incest: “The inbreeding among Obama’s court and its press corps is more like one of those ‘I’m my own grandpaw’ deals,” wrote NRO’s Mark Steyn in a posting titled “Band of Brothers.” Such insinuations make media types bristle. They take exception to the notion that complicated judgments about the news — often made by others within an organization — have anything to do with personal favoritism or familial relationships. The critics, they say, can’t point to any direct evidence that such relationships have affected the amount or tone of their news coverage. Taken together with the “Journolist” revelations and it is crystal clear that yes, in fact, the real problem in the media today is not Fox News or Hannity or the Fox relationship with the Trump White House. The real problem for the Liberal State Media — for Mayer and her fellow liberal journalists — is the fact that it they are finally being beaten at their own game. Worse still, from their perspective, is that this is being accomplished by a president and his allies who have a serious understanding of just how the Liberal State Media plays the game. There is not a single thing described in the Mayer piece that has not been done by the Liberal State Media over the decades. Here are a few examples. Mayer writes: “The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine, during a particular news cycle, which one is following the other’s lead.” Again, recall that Daily Caller story saying this: “Despite its name, membership in the liberal online community Journolist wasn’t limited to journalists. Present among the bloggers, reporters and editors were a number of professional political operatives, including top White House economic advisors, key Obama political appointees, and Democratic campaign veterans.” Mayer writes of the relationship between Bill Shine and Sean Hannity this way: “… they are godfathers to each other’s children… they spend their vacations together…. They talked all the time-many times a day.” Not mentioned? That story about the oh-so-close ties between Obama officials and various members of the liberal media — who were also either spouses or siblings. Recall this quote that Mayer ignored: “The inbreeding among Obama’s court and its press corps is more like one of those ‘I’m my own grandpaw’ deals,” wrote NRO’s Mark Steyn in a posting titled “Band of Brothers.” Mayer writes of “The Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, another conservative Never Trumper…” Ignored completely was the letter awhile back by 37 prominent conservatives in the American Principles Project to the Washington Post, which said in part: We, of course, respect the right of The Washington Post to employ whatever writers it pleases — even Jennifer Rubin. However, we ask for the sake of intellectual honesty that the Post cease to identify her as in any way “conservative.”… Anyone following Rubin’s writing closely at this point would rightfully find the claim that she is “conservative” laughable. And yet, she is still regularly touted in the media as a conservative voice — and by your own paper as “reporting from a center-right perspective.”… This issue exemplifies why so many Americans — particularly conservatives — hold a high distrust of the media. How can an average reader take the Post’s opinion section seriously when, of its numerous regular columnists, none can be found which defend the policies of our nation’s elected president? Mayer writes, aghast, of Trump appointees Ben Carson, John Bolton, K.T. McFarland, Heather Nauert, and Sebastian Gorka as having previously been contributors or commentators on Fox. Ignoring that all of these people had substantial careers outside of Fox News before their Fox stints. And quite decidedly ignoring Liberal State Media stars like Jay Carney of Time (who became White House press secretary), Rick Stengel, also of Time (the managing editor) who served in the Obama State Department, and Strobe Talbott, another Time alum who served in the Clinton State Department. Which is to say, there is a long revolving-door history of media figures serving in an administration. Mayer writes of the Trump-Hannity relationship as if a close relationship between a president and a media personality is somehow new. While she does mention the role of the then-Washington Post publisher Phil Graham in getting Lyndon Johnson on the JFK Democratic ticket in 1960, she ignores the close friendship between JFK and then-Newsweek Washington Bureau chief Ben Bradlee, which Bradlee himself discussed in his memoirs. In other words, if the president is Trump and the media figure is Sean Hannity or Rupert Murdoch — this is somehow terrible. But JFK and his pal Ben Bradlee, or Bill Clinton and his pal CNN president Rick Kaplan? The latter relationship resulting in CNN being dubbed the “Clinton News Network”? No problem. Nary a mention for context here. Mayer refers several times to the far-left Media Matters, as if the latter were a legitimate source on anything having to do with Fox, Hannity, or Shine. As noted in this 2012 Daily Caller story about Media Matters: Founded by (David) Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Never mentioned is that Media Matters founder Brock authored a book titled The Fox Effect: How Roger Ailes Turned a Network into a Propaganda Machine. Notice anything? Yes, indeed. The subtitle of Mayer’s article asks if Fox News “has become propaganda.” And for confirmation she goes to Media Matters — whose founder wrote a book assailing Fox as a “propaganda machine” in — 2012. That would be four years before Donald Trump was elected president. Which is to say, the business of the Liberal State Media attacking Fox as all about being a “propaganda machine” — not to mention going after the Trump White House, Bill Shine, Rupert Murdoch, and Sean Hannity — is not only not new, it long predated Trump’s rise to the White House. Mayer, in blithely and repeatedly citing Media Matters as a source, also never mentions this Daily Caller story that reveals “Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands of liberal journalists.” Liberal journalists like — Jane Mayer? Hmmm. A visit to the Media Matters website finds this admiring headline: On MSNBC, The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer describes the “incredibly close” relationship between the White House and Fox News Mayer: “According to a number of critics, [Fox is] the closest we’ve ever had to state news.… People describe it to me as a wing of the West Wing.” Ahhhh, the Liberal State Media at work. From Mayer at the New Yorker to MSNBC to Media Matters and on into the world of the Liberal State Media’s Liberal Narrative. Ya just can’t make it up. Unless, of course, you are a member of the Liberal State Media.

www.spectator.org

right

piWqgbYhKQCX9UUB

test

yBpleU5FoyTRkeT2

treasury

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-obama-names-jack-lew-treasury-secretary/story?id=18179823

Obama Names Lew Treasury Secretary

Mary Bruce, Devin Dwyer

Obama Elevates 'Low-Key ' Lew to Treasury Post Outgoing Treasury Secretary Geithner hailed as one of `` finest '' in history . WASHINGTON , Jan. 10 , 2013 -- Facing a brewing fight over the debt ceiling and spending cuts , President Obama today tapped his chief of staff , Jack Lew , to be the next Treasury secretary , elevating a close confidante and trusted adviser to the leading economic voice for the administration 's second term . At a midday news conference , Obama praised Lew , 57 , as a `` low-key guy who prefers to surround himself with policy experts rather than television cameras '' and hailed his reputation as `` a master of policy who can work with members of both parties and forge principled compromises . '' The nod to Lew 's political experience , as a former congressional staffer and Clinton administration budget director , highlights the political battles on the horizon in three new `` fiscal cliffs '' : the debt ceiling , looming automatic spending cuts and a measure to fund the government for the coming year . `` As the son of a Polish immigrant , a man of deep and devout faith , Jack knows that every number on a page , every dollar we budget , every decision we make has to be an expression of who we wish to be as a nation , our values , the values that say everybody gets a fair shot at opportunity , '' Obama said . If confirmed by the Senate , Lew will replace outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner , the longest-serving member of Obama 's economic team . `` When the history books are written , Tim Geithner is going to go down as one of our finest secretaries of the Treasury , '' Obama said , noting that the Treasury secretary helped craft the administration 's response to the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009 , the worst since the Great Depression . `` With the wreckage of our economy still smoldering and unstable , I asked him to help put it back together . And thanks in large part to his steady hand , our economy has been growing again for the past three years , '' Obama said . Geithner is expected to remain at his post until Jan. 25 . He is then believed to be returning to work in the private sector . As chief of staff for the past year , Lew has been intimately involved in the negotiations with Congress on the debt ceiling , averting a government shutdown last summer and the so-called fiscal cliff earlier this month . A key factor in the president 's decision was also Lew 's ability to get right to work on the first crises ahead , having already forged relationships within the administration and across the economic team . Lew 's experience as Bill Clinton 's budget director , when he helped craft a bi-partisan budget agreement that led to three years of budget surpluses , was also critical , Obama said . Lew also has private-sector experience . Before joining the Obama administration in 2009 as deputy secretary of state , he served as the chief operating officer of Citigroup 's Global Wealth Management and Alternative Investments divisions . Obama 's Treasury appointment now heads to the Senate for confirmation . The top candidates to replace Lew as White House chief of staff include Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough or Vice President Biden 's current chief of staff , Ron Klain . Tom Nides , deputy secretary of state for management and resources , has also been discussed . Geithner 's departure is the fifth from the Obama cabinet at the start of the president 's second term . It follows announcements from Hillary Clinton at State , Leon Panetta at Defense , Hilda Solis at Labor , and Lisa Jackson at EPA . Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has also long suggested he would not stay for a second term .

Obama Elevates 'Low-Key' Lew to Treasury Post Outgoing Treasury Secretary Geithner hailed as one of "finest" in history. WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2013 -- Facing a brewing fight over the debt ceiling and spending cuts, President Obama today tapped his chief of staff, Jack Lew, to be the next Treasury secretary, elevating a close confidante and trusted adviser to the leading economic voice for the administration's second term. At a midday news conference, Obama praised Lew, 57, as a "low-key guy who prefers to surround himself with policy experts rather than television cameras" and hailed his reputation as "a master of policy who can work with members of both parties and forge principled compromises." The nod to Lew's political experience, as a former congressional staffer and Clinton administration budget director, highlights the political battles on the horizon in three new "fiscal cliffs": the debt ceiling, looming automatic spending cuts and a measure to fund the government for the coming year. "As the son of a Polish immigrant, a man of deep and devout faith, Jack knows that every number on a page, every dollar we budget, every decision we make has to be an expression of who we wish to be as a nation, our values, the values that say everybody gets a fair shot at opportunity," Obama said. If confirmed by the Senate, Lew will replace outgoing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the longest-serving member of Obama's economic team. "When the history books are written, Tim Geithner is going to go down as one of our finest secretaries of the Treasury," Obama said, noting that the Treasury secretary helped craft the administration's response to the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, the worst since the Great Depression. "With the wreckage of our economy still smoldering and unstable, I asked him to help put it back together. And thanks in large part to his steady hand, our economy has been growing again for the past three years," Obama said. Geithner is expected to remain at his post until Jan. 25. He is then believed to be returning to work in the private sector. Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics As chief of staff for the past year, Lew has been intimately involved in the negotiations with Congress on the debt ceiling, averting a government shutdown last summer and the so-called fiscal cliff earlier this month. A key factor in the president's decision was also Lew's ability to get right to work on the first crises ahead, having already forged relationships within the administration and across the economic team. Lew's experience as Bill Clinton's budget director, when he helped craft a bi-partisan budget agreement that led to three years of budget surpluses, was also critical, Obama said. Lew also has private-sector experience. Before joining the Obama administration in 2009 as deputy secretary of state, he served as the chief operating officer of Citigroup's Global Wealth Management and Alternative Investments divisions. Obama's Treasury appointment now heads to the Senate for confirmation. The top candidates to replace Lew as White House chief of staff include Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough or Vice President Biden's current chief of staff, Ron Klain. Tom Nides, deputy secretary of state for management and resources, has also been discussed. Geithner's departure is the fifth from the Obama cabinet at the start of the president's second term. It follows announcements from Hillary Clinton at State, Leon Panetta at Defense, Hilda Solis at Labor, and Lisa Jackson at EPA. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has also long suggested he would not stay for a second term. ABC News' Jonathan Karl contributed reporting.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

yBpleU5FoyTRkeT2

test

9asHGAw7G86V13gO

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/april/trump-team-blasts-comey-for-sinking-into-the-gutter-with-his-revisionist-history

Trump Team Blasts Comey for Sinking Into the 'Gutter' with His 'Revisionist' History

2018-04-16

Former FBI Director James Comey has broken his silence , and he 's not sugar coating his thoughts about the man who fired him . In an exclusive interview with ABC News ' George Stephanopoulos Sunday night , Comey says President Trump is `` morally unfit to be president . '' It was his first interview since he was fired by Trump almost a year ago as he promotes his new book . `` Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country , the most important being truth . This president is not able to do that . He is morally unfit to be president , '' Comey said . Monday morning , Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway criticized Comey for peddling a `` revisionist version of history . '' She says Comey made a choice to sink into the `` gutter '' with petty comments about the size of Trump 's hands and the length of his tie . During the interview , Comey detailed what he considered some of the most controversial moments of his career – among them , reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation just ahead of the 2016 presidential election . Comey said he had no choice because that 's where the investigation led them . `` The norm is , 'If you can avoid it , you take no action that might have an impact on an election , ' and I ca n't see a door that 's labeled , 'No action here , ' '' Comey told Stephanopoulos . Still , he expressed disgust that the investigation could have influenced the election which Trump won in an upset that stunned Washington . `` A whole lot of me was thinking , 'oh my G * * did , we have some role in this ? ' `` But he says if he were given the chance to do it over , he would because he says he would n't want to be influenced by politics . `` If I ever start considering whose political fortunes will be affected by a decision , we 're done ... We 're just another player in the , in the tribal battle , '' said Comey . But then Comey turned away from that moral high ground , and in one of his most critical moments in the ABC interview , he compared Trump to a mob boss . `` I 'm not trying to , by the way , suggest that President Trump is out breaking legs and ... shaking down shopkeepers . But instead , what I 'm talking about is that leadership culture , '' he said . Ahead of the interview , Sunday night , President Trump lashed out on Twitter , calling Comey the `` worst FBI director in history . '' Slippery James Comey , a man who always ends up badly and out of whack ( he is not smart ! ) , will go down as the WORST FBI Director in history , by far ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) April 15 , 2018 Comey says the American public needs to vote Trump out of office in 2020 , saying it 's a duty they 're bound to do directly , rather than be let off the hook by impeachment .

Former FBI Director James Comey has broken his silence, and he's not sugar coating his thoughts about the man who fired him. In an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Sunday night, Comey says President Trump is "morally unfit to be president." It was his first interview since he was fired by Trump almost a year ago as he promotes his new book. "Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country, the most important being truth. This president is not able to do that. He is morally unfit to be president," Comey said. Monday morning, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway criticized Comey for peddling a "revisionist version of history." She says Comey made a choice to sink into the "gutter" with petty comments about the size of Trump's hands and the length of his tie. During the interview, Comey detailed what he considered some of the most controversial moments of his career – among them, reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation just ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Comey said he had no choice because that's where the investigation led them. "The norm is, 'If you can avoid it, you take no action that might have an impact on an election,' and I can't see a door that's labeled, 'No action here,'" Comey told Stephanopoulos. Still, he expressed disgust that the investigation could have influenced the election which Trump won in an upset that stunned Washington. "A whole lot of me was thinking, 'oh my G** did, we have some role in this?' " But he says if he were given the chance to do it over, he would because he says he wouldn't want to be influenced by politics. "If I ever start considering whose political fortunes will be affected by a decision, we're done...We're just another player in the, in the tribal battle," said Comey. But then Comey turned away from that moral high ground, and in one of his most critical moments in the ABC interview, he compared Trump to a mob boss. "I'm not trying to, by the way, suggest that President Trump is out breaking legs and...shaking down shopkeepers. But instead, what I'm talking about is that leadership culture," he said. Ahead of the interview, Sunday night, President Trump lashed out on Twitter, calling Comey the "worst FBI director in history." Slippery James Comey, a man who always ends up badly and out of whack (he is not smart!), will go down as the WORST FBI Director in history, by far! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 15, 2018 Comey says the American public needs to vote Trump out of office in 2020, saying it's a duty they're bound to do directly, rather than be let off the hook by impeachment.

www1.cbn.com

right

9asHGAw7G86V13gO

test

RfsqYNAdhfGfqSNg

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-assange/us-charges-assange-after-london-arrest-ends-seven-years-in-ecuador-embassy-idUSKCN1RN10R

U.S. charges Assange after London arrest ends seven years in Ecuador embassy

2019-04-12

Guy Faulconbridge

LONDON ( ███ ) - British police dragged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange out of Ecuador ’ s embassy on Thursday after his seven-year asylum was revoked , paving the way for his extradition to the United States for one of the biggest ever leaks of classified information . Hours after the frail-looking Assange , with white hair and a long beard , was carried head-first by at least seven men out of the London embassy and into a waiting police van , U.S. officials announced he had been charged with a single count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion . As he was being hauled out of the embassy in a dramatic scene shortly after 0900 GMT after Ecuador terminated his asylum , the Australian-born Assange was heard shouting , “ This is unlawful , I ’ m not leaving . ” British Prime Minister Theresa May hailed the news in parliament , to cheers and cries of “ Hear , hear ! ” from lawmakers . But in Washington , President Donald Trump , who in 2016 said “ I love WikiLeaks ” after the website released emails that U.S. authorities have said were hacked by Russia to harm his election opponent Hillary Clinton , told reporters he had no opinion on the charges against Assange . “ I know nothing about WikiLeaks . It ’ s not my thing , ” Trump said . Assange gave a thumbs up in handcuffs as he was taken from a police station to a London court , where he pronounced himself not guilty of failing to surrender in 2012 . Judge Michael Snow called Assange , wearing a black jacket and black shirt , a “ narcissist who can not get beyond his own selfish interests ” and convicted him of skipping bail . Sentencing will be at a later date . Police said they arrested Assange , 47 , after being invited into the embassy following Ecuador ’ s withdrawal of asylum . He took refuge there in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault investigation that was later dropped . Assange was carried out of the building - located behind the luxury department store Harrods - carrying a copy of Gore Vidal ’ s “ History of The National Security State ” , which he continued reading in court . In Washington , the U.S. Justice Department said Assange was charged with conspiring with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to gain access to a government computer as part of a 2010 leak by WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military reports about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and American diplomatic communications . Legal experts said more U.S. charges could be coming . The indictment was made secretly in March 2018 and unsealed on Thursday . He faces up to five years in prison if convicted , with legal experts saying more charges were possible . Ecuador suspended Julian Assange ’ s citizenship and accused him and others at WikiLeaks of collaborating in attempts to destabilize the Andean nation ’ s government . Assange was offered refuge in 2012 by Ecuador ’ s then-president Rafael Correa , but his relationship with Ecuador soured under Correa ’ s successor Lenin Moreno , who has said Assange violated the terms of his asylum . Ecuador accused Assange of leaking information about Moreno ’ s personal life . Lawyers for Assange said he may risk torture and his life would be in danger if he were to be extradited to the United States . The arrest , after years holed up in a few cramped rooms at the embassy , represented one of the most sensational turns in a tumultuous life that has transformed the computer programmer into a fugitive wanted by the United States . “ The whole House will welcome the news this morning that the Metropolitan Police have arrested Julian Assange , arrested for breach of bail after nearly seven years in the Ecuadorean embassy , ” May said . Ecuador ’ s foreign minister said his country was not aware of any active extradition requests for Assange before it terminated his asylum . Supporters of Assange said Ecuador had betrayed him at the behest of Washington , illegally ended his asylum and engineered a dark moment for press freedom . “ Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges , ” Barry Pollack , a lawyer for Assange , said in a statement reacting to the U.S. indictment . His admirers have hailed Assange as a hero for exposing what they describe as abuse of power by modern states and for championing free speech . His detractors have painted him as a dangerous figure complicit in Russian efforts to undermine the West and U.S. security , and dispute that he is a journalist . “ Under the guise of transparency , Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have effectively acted as an arm of the Russian intelligence services for years , ” U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr , a Republican , said . “ Hopefully , he will now face justice . ” The Kremlin said it hoped Assange ’ s rights would not be violated . WikiLeaks angered Washington by publishing hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables that laid bare critical U.S. appraisals of world leaders , from Russian President Vladimir Putin to members of the Saudi royal family . WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at the Westminster Magistrates Court , after he was arrested in London , Britain April 11 , 2019 . ███/Hannah McKay TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY Assange made international headlines in 2010 when WikiLeaks published a classified U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people , including two ███ news staff . Assange ’ s U.S. indictment arose from a long-running criminal investigation dating back to the administration of former President Barack Obama . It was triggered in part by WikiLeaks ’ publication in 2010 of U.S. military reports about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the diplomatic communications - disclosures that embarrassed the United States and strained relations with allies . The Justice Department said Assange was arrested under an extradition treaty between the United States and Britain . The indictment said Assange in March 2010 engaged in a conspiracy to assist Manning , formerly named Bradley Manning , in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications . Manning ’ s lawyers demanded the release of the former intelligence analyst , jailed last month after being held in contempt by a judge in Virginia for refusing to testify before a grand jury , and said “ continued detention would be purely punitive . ” A Swedish lawyer representing the alleged rape victim said she would push to have prosecutors reopen the case , but a retired senior prosecutor and chairman of NGO Victim Support Sweden said that may be difficult . “ Julian Assange is no hero , he has hidden from the truth for years and years , ” British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said . “ It ’ s not so much Julian Assange being held hostage in the Ecuadorean embassy , it ’ s actually Julian Assange holding the Ecuadorean embassy hostage in a situation that was absolutely intolerable for them . ” Friends of Assange said his solitary existence in the embassy was tough on him . “ It was a miserable existence and I could see it was a strain on him , but a strain he managed rather well , ” said Vaughan Smith , a friend who had visited Assange . “ The thing that was most difficult for Julian was the solitude . ” “ He was very tough , but the last year in particular was very difficult . He was constantly being surveilled and spied upon . There was no privacy for him , ” Smith said . Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006 . The website published secret official information , infuriating the United States and other countries . WikiLeaks said Ecuador had illegally terminated his political asylum in violation of international law . “ Assange ’ s critics may cheer , but this is a dark moment for press freedom , ” said Edward Snowden , a former U.S. National Security Agency contractor who fled to Moscow after revealing massive U.S. intelligence gathering .

LONDON (Reuters) - British police dragged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange out of Ecuador’s embassy on Thursday after his seven-year asylum was revoked, paving the way for his extradition to the United States for one of the biggest ever leaks of classified information. Hours after the frail-looking Assange, with white hair and a long beard, was carried head-first by at least seven men out of the London embassy and into a waiting police van, U.S. officials announced he had been charged with a single count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. As he was being hauled out of the embassy in a dramatic scene shortly after 0900 GMT after Ecuador terminated his asylum, the Australian-born Assange was heard shouting, “This is unlawful, I’m not leaving.” British Prime Minister Theresa May hailed the news in parliament, to cheers and cries of “Hear, hear!” from lawmakers. But in Washington, President Donald Trump, who in 2016 said “I love WikiLeaks” after the website released emails that U.S. authorities have said were hacked by Russia to harm his election opponent Hillary Clinton, told reporters he had no opinion on the charges against Assange. “I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It’s not my thing,” Trump said. Assange gave a thumbs up in handcuffs as he was taken from a police station to a London court, where he pronounced himself not guilty of failing to surrender in 2012. Judge Michael Snow called Assange, wearing a black jacket and black shirt, a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests” and convicted him of skipping bail. Sentencing will be at a later date. Police said they arrested Assange, 47, after being invited into the embassy following Ecuador’s withdrawal of asylum. He took refuge there in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault investigation that was later dropped. Assange was carried out of the building - located behind the luxury department store Harrods - carrying a copy of Gore Vidal’s “History of The National Security State”, which he continued reading in court. In Washington, the U.S. Justice Department said Assange was charged with conspiring with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to gain access to a government computer as part of a 2010 leak by WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military reports about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and American diplomatic communications. Legal experts said more U.S. charges could be coming. The indictment was made secretly in March 2018 and unsealed on Thursday. He faces up to five years in prison if convicted, with legal experts saying more charges were possible. Ecuador suspended Julian Assange’s citizenship and accused him and others at WikiLeaks of collaborating in attempts to destabilize the Andean nation’s government. FRICTION WITH ECUADOR Assange was offered refuge in 2012 by Ecuador’s then-president Rafael Correa, but his relationship with Ecuador soured under Correa’s successor Lenin Moreno, who has said Assange violated the terms of his asylum. Ecuador accused Assange of leaking information about Moreno’s personal life. Lawyers for Assange said he may risk torture and his life would be in danger if he were to be extradited to the United States. The arrest, after years holed up in a few cramped rooms at the embassy, represented one of the most sensational turns in a tumultuous life that has transformed the computer programmer into a fugitive wanted by the United States. “The whole House will welcome the news this morning that the Metropolitan Police have arrested Julian Assange, arrested for breach of bail after nearly seven years in the Ecuadorean embassy,” May said. Ecuador’s foreign minister said his country was not aware of any active extradition requests for Assange before it terminated his asylum. Supporters of Assange said Ecuador had betrayed him at the behest of Washington, illegally ended his asylum and engineered a dark moment for press freedom. “Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges,” Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Assange, said in a statement reacting to the U.S. indictment. His admirers have hailed Assange as a hero for exposing what they describe as abuse of power by modern states and for championing free speech. His detractors have painted him as a dangerous figure complicit in Russian efforts to undermine the West and U.S. security, and dispute that he is a journalist. “Under the guise of transparency, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have effectively acted as an arm of the Russian intelligence services for years,” U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a Republican, said. “Hopefully, he will now face justice.” The Kremlin said it hoped Assange’s rights would not be violated. WikiLeaks angered Washington by publishing hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables that laid bare critical U.S. appraisals of world leaders, from Russian President Vladimir Putin to members of the Saudi royal family. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at the Westminster Magistrates Court, after he was arrested in London, Britain April 11, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY Assange made international headlines in 2010 when WikiLeaks published a classified U.S. military video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters in Baghdad that killed a dozen people, including two Reuters news staff. U.S. INVESTIGATION Assange’s U.S. indictment arose from a long-running criminal investigation dating back to the administration of former President Barack Obama. It was triggered in part by WikiLeaks’ publication in 2010 of U.S. military reports about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the diplomatic communications - disclosures that embarrassed the United States and strained relations with allies. The Justice Department said Assange was arrested under an extradition treaty between the United States and Britain. The indictment said Assange in March 2010 engaged in a conspiracy to assist Manning, formerly named Bradley Manning, in cracking a password stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications. Manning’s lawyers demanded the release of the former intelligence analyst, jailed last month after being held in contempt by a judge in Virginia for refusing to testify before a grand jury, and said “continued detention would be purely punitive.” A Swedish lawyer representing the alleged rape victim said she would push to have prosecutors reopen the case, but a retired senior prosecutor and chairman of NGO Victim Support Sweden said that may be difficult. Britain said no person was above the law. “Julian Assange is no hero, he has hidden from the truth for years and years,” British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said. “It’s not so much Julian Assange being held hostage in the Ecuadorean embassy, it’s actually Julian Assange holding the Ecuadorean embassy hostage in a situation that was absolutely intolerable for them.” Friends of Assange said his solitary existence in the embassy was tough on him. “It was a miserable existence and I could see it was a strain on him, but a strain he managed rather well,” said Vaughan Smith, a friend who had visited Assange. “The thing that was most difficult for Julian was the solitude.” “He was very tough, but the last year in particular was very difficult. He was constantly being surveilled and spied upon. There was no privacy for him,” Smith said. Slideshow (23 Images) Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006. The website published secret official information, infuriating the United States and other countries. WikiLeaks said Ecuador had illegally terminated his political asylum in violation of international law. “Assange’s critics may cheer, but this is a dark moment for press freedom,” said Edward Snowden, a former U.S. National Security Agency contractor who fled to Moscow after revealing massive U.S. intelligence gathering.

www.reuters.com

center

RfsqYNAdhfGfqSNg

test

XlldlkZTlQUoP0KL

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/05/19/putting-country-above-party-works-both-w

Putting Country Above Party Works Both Ways

2017-05-19

David Harsanyi, Eugene Volokh, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion

Throughout Donald Trump 's short but eventful presidency , Democrats have been imploring Republicans to show loyalty for country over party . If you believe our bumbling president 's hiring of the likes of Paul Manafort or Mike Flynn—who was apparently under investigation when he joined the administration—reflects abysmal judgment , I 'm with you . If you believe those decisions could turn out to be scandals , it 's difficult for me to disagree . If you believe Trump 's admiration for authoritarians in Russia undermines our standing in the world , I 'm there as well . Then again , recklessly throwing around words like `` impeachable '' and `` treason '' before the evidence exists to level those consequential charges also puts party over country . Hysteria also erodes trust in our institutions for nothing more than political gain . You will , for instance , have to read six paragraphs into Reuters ' recent highly shared scoop headlined `` Exclusive : Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians : sources '' to learn that `` people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far . '' For those keeping score , despite ceaseless leaking from the intelligence community , there has really been no evidence offered so far to prove `` collusion '' between Trump officials and Russia to `` hack the election '' —an absurd oft-used phrase that has convinced millions of Americans that their votes , their government and free will have been abducted by another country . If that day ever comes , I will write a column in favor of impeachment . Until that day , I 'm certain folks with giant platforms like David Gregory will continue claiming that the Russians `` hacked the election . '' Convincing your gullible flock that we live in a republic easily annexed by a rickety former superpower is not putting your country above your party . To see the world from this prism , Time magazine visualizes the Kremlinizing of the White House . Its newest cover shows an image of St . Basil 's Russian Orthodox Cathedral merged with the White House ( the substance of the feature does n't even really reflect the cover ) . One wonders what the reaction would have been if a major magazine had run a cover of the White House conflated with an Iranian mosque while Barack Obama was sending pallets of cash to the Islamic Republic ? Of course , a cover would have been hysterical—and not in a funny way . The former president believing that appeasing the Iranians was in the strategic interests of the United States does n't make him treasonous ; it just makes him a terrible president—and not the first or last . Does putting your country above party mean never being skeptical of the intentions of an intelligence community that has lied to the American people repeatedly over the years and is trying to overturn an election ? There are other issues to investigate—potential obstruction of justice , for instance . We 'll have to wait and see what special counsel Robert Mueller finds . Well , some of us will wait . According to McClatchy , Democrats are expected `` to poll the public 's views on impeachment , trying to acquire hard data about an issue that until now has not been seriously analyzed . '' If the polling shows that impeachment is a political loser , will Democrats abandon their plans for it and put party above country ? Now , I realize there is no room for half-measures in this political environment . You must be wholly , 100 percent convinced every day on every topic that Donald Trump is guilty of every act floated by every anonymous source in every publication or you will accused of abetting the coup against the American people . But it 's worth pointing out that Democrats , at least rank-and-file liberals , seem to have convinced themselves that this saga ends with articles of impeachment and removal . Who knows ? Maybe they 'll be right . But it 's not concern-trolling to point out that having this level of certitude about an outcome has the potential to be self-destructive for the country as well .

Throughout Donald Trump's short but eventful presidency, Democrats have been imploring Republicans to show loyalty for country over party. If you believe our bumbling president's hiring of the likes of Paul Manafort or Mike Flynn—who was apparently under investigation when he joined the administration—reflects abysmal judgment, I'm with you. If you believe those decisions could turn out to be scandals, it's difficult for me to disagree. If you believe Trump's admiration for authoritarians in Russia undermines our standing in the world, I'm there as well. Then again, recklessly throwing around words like "impeachable" and "treason" before the evidence exists to level those consequential charges also puts party over country. Hysteria also erodes trust in our institutions for nothing more than political gain. You will, for instance, have to read six paragraphs into Reuters' recent highly shared scoop headlined "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" to learn that "people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Talk about burying your lede. For those keeping score, despite ceaseless leaking from the intelligence community, there has really been no evidence offered so far to prove "collusion" between Trump officials and Russia to "hack the election"—an absurd oft-used phrase that has convinced millions of Americans that their votes, their government and free will have been abducted by another country. If that day ever comes, I will write a column in favor of impeachment. Until that day, I'm certain folks with giant platforms like David Gregory will continue claiming that the Russians "hacked the election." Convincing your gullible flock that we live in a republic easily annexed by a rickety former superpower is not putting your country above your party. To see the world from this prism, Time magazine visualizes the Kremlinizing of the White House. Its newest cover shows an image of St. Basil's Russian Orthodox Cathedral merged with the White House (the substance of the feature doesn't even really reflect the cover). One wonders what the reaction would have been if a major magazine had run a cover of the White House conflated with an Iranian mosque while Barack Obama was sending pallets of cash to the Islamic Republic? Of course, a cover would have been hysterical—and not in a funny way. The former president believing that appeasing the Iranians was in the strategic interests of the United States doesn't make him treasonous; it just makes him a terrible president—and not the first or last. Does putting your country above party mean never being skeptical of the intentions of an intelligence community that has lied to the American people repeatedly over the years and is trying to overturn an election? There are other issues to investigate—potential obstruction of justice, for instance. We'll have to wait and see what special counsel Robert Mueller finds. Well, some of us will wait. According to McClatchy, Democrats are expected "to poll the public's views on impeachment, trying to acquire hard data about an issue that until now has not been seriously analyzed." If the polling shows that impeachment is a political loser, will Democrats abandon their plans for it and put party above country? Now, I realize there is no room for half-measures in this political environment. You must be wholly, 100 percent convinced every day on every topic that Donald Trump is guilty of every act floated by every anonymous source in every publication or you will accused of abetting the coup against the American people. But it's worth pointing out that Democrats, at least rank-and-file liberals, seem to have convinced themselves that this saga ends with articles of impeachment and removal. Who knows? Maybe they'll be right. But it's not concern-trolling to point out that having this level of certitude about an outcome has the potential to be self-destructive for the country as well. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

www.reason.com

right

XlldlkZTlQUoP0KL

test

PoVSfyTJt1wC2GRm

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-benghazi-email/2015/03/23/id/631854/

Clinton Benghazi Emails Reveal How She Monitored Fallout

2015-03-23

Melanie Batley

Hundreds of the emails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that were turned over to Congress regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack indicate that she and her advisers were closely monitoring the political fallout for the administration.According to The New York Times , sources say that Clinton 's top aides at times wrote to her about official business from their personal email accounts . Many of the messages were short or mundane , such as instructions to print an article or scheduling and logistics , but it 's unclear whether they represent all of the emails on the subject of Benghazi given that Clinton pre-selected which emails she turned over to the State Department.The emails did , however , show that Clinton and her inner circle reacted as the administration changed its position on what happened in the Benghazi attack after then-ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday news programs instead of Clinton.Jake Sullivan , a foreign policy adviser , communicated with Clinton following Rice 's appearances , suggesting he was pleased with the way they went . `` She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then evolved , '' Sullivan wrote to Clinton.But several weeks later , as Rice 's official explanation came under scrutiny , Sullivan emailed Clinton assuring her that she had avoided the public relations problems that Rice had found her in , the Times reported . `` You never said 'spontaneous ' or characterized their motivations , '' Sullivan wrote.The 300 emails sent to Congress represent a small fraction of the emails Clinton has turned over to the State Department , though the department has since requested all of her emails so as to respond to the committee requests.Nick Merrill , the spokesman for Clinton , defended the aides ' use of personal email saying that it was `` their practice to primarily use their work email when conducting state business , with only the tiniest fraction of the more than 1 million emails they sent or received involving their personal accounts , '' the Times reported.But some Republicans are not satisfied with that explanation and question the records provided by Clinton.South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy , chairman of the House Select committee on Benghazi , has suggested he does not believe Clinton turned over all the Benghazi-related emails and had called on her to turn over her private email server so that a neutral party can examine it to see if there are other relevant emails that should be provided to the panel.The committee is also likely to grill Clinton on why at least four advisers occasionally used personal email accounts to liaise with her , the Times said .

Hundreds of the emails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that were turned over to Congress regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack indicate that she and her advisers were closely monitoring the political fallout for the administration.According to The New York Times, sources say that Clinton's top aides at times wrote to her about official business from their personal email accounts. Many of the messages were short or mundane, such as instructions to print an article or scheduling and logistics, but it's unclear whether they represent all of the emails on the subject of Benghazi given that Clinton pre-selected which emails she turned over to the State Department.The emails did, however, show that Clinton and her inner circle reacted as the administration changed its position on what happened in the Benghazi attack after then-ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday news programs instead of Clinton.Jake Sullivan, a foreign policy adviser, communicated with Clinton following Rice's appearances, suggesting he was pleased with the way they went."She did make clear our view that this started spontaneously then evolved," Sullivan wrote to Clinton.But several weeks later, as Rice's official explanation came under scrutiny, Sullivan emailed Clinton assuring her that she had avoided the public relations problems that Rice had found her in, the Times reported."You never said 'spontaneous' or characterized their motivations," Sullivan wrote.The 300 emails sent to Congress represent a small fraction of the emails Clinton has turned over to the State Department, though the department has since requested all of her emails so as to respond to the committee requests.Nick Merrill, the spokesman for Clinton, defended the aides' use of personal email saying that it was "their practice to primarily use their work email when conducting state business, with only the tiniest fraction of the more than 1 million emails they sent or received involving their personal accounts," the Times reported.But some Republicans are not satisfied with that explanation and question the records provided by Clinton.South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select committee on Benghazi, has suggested he does not believe Clinton turned over all the Benghazi-related emails and had called on her to turn over her private email server so that a neutral party can examine it to see if there are other relevant emails that should be provided to the panel.The committee is also likely to grill Clinton on why at least four advisers occasionally used personal email accounts to liaise with her, the Times said.

www.newsmax.com

right

PoVSfyTJt1wC2GRm

test

e81GDTfdHh11tAQw

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/04/23/fact-check-no-trump-didnt-propose-injecting-people-with-disinfectant/

Pollak: No, Trump Did Not Literally Suggest People Inject Disinfectant

2020-04-23

Joel B. Pollak

Note From Senior Management : This piece was erroneously framed by our author as a “ fact check , ” when , instead , it was and should have been framed as an opinion piece . The opinion that the author was trying to convey was his belief that nobody in their right mind would think that Trump was literally suggesting that people should inject disinfectant into their bodies – which is how many in the media were portraying the President ’ s comments at yesterday ’ s press conference . The piece has been re-framed as it should have been originally ( as opinion ) , and further updated to reflect President Trump ’ s statement this morning that he was being sarcastic . We apologize for the error , and you are welcome for all the opportunities to dunk on us on Twitter . After yesterday ’ s Coronavirus Task Force press briefing , the media quickly seized on a discussion over potential treatments for the coronavirus COVID-19 where the president asked about the potential for a disinfectant injection . “ And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute . One minute . And is there a way we can do something like that , by injection inside or almost a cleaning ? ” The President said . “ So it ’ d be interesting to check that . ” The President told a group of reporters Friday that he was being sarcastic . In Thursday ’ s White House coronavirus task force briefing , Bill Bryan , leader of the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security , described the results of new government research that showed that the coronavirus did not survive long in solar light , warmer temperatures , and more humid conditions . He added that disinfectants had also been effective against it . Trump , responding to that , noted that there had been discussions of testing ultraviolet light on patients , or of methods to bring light inside the body . “ And then I see the disinfectant , where it knocks it [ the virus ] out in a minute . One minute . And is there a way we can do something like that , by injection inside , or almost a cleaning , cause you see it gets in the lungs . ” Trump was far from a model of clarity , but he did not actually propose injecting patients with disinfectant ; he deferred to “ medical doctors ” to figure out how to apply Bryan ’ s research . When ABC News ’ Jonathan Karl asked Bryan about whether the president had proposed injecting a person with “ bleach and isopropyl alcohol ” later , Trump clarified that “ It wouldn ’ t be through injection , ” and that he was talking about “ cleaning , sterilization of an area , ” and about applying the disinfectant to “ a stationary object . ” Apparently there is no accusation too crazy for Trump ’ s critics to believe . Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at ███ and the host of ███ Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m . ET ( 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT ) . His new book , RED NOVEMBER , is available for pre-order . He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship . Follow him on Twitter at @ joelpollak .

Note From Senior Management: This piece was erroneously framed by our author as a “fact check,” when, instead, it was and should have been framed as an opinion piece. The opinion that the author was trying to convey was his belief that nobody in their right mind would think that Trump was literally suggesting that people should inject disinfectant into their bodies – which is how many in the media were portraying the President’s comments at yesterday’s press conference. The piece has been re-framed as it should have been originally (as opinion), and further updated to reflect President Trump’s statement this morning that he was being sarcastic. We apologize for the error, and you are welcome for all the opportunities to dunk on us on Twitter. After yesterday’s Coronavirus Task Force press briefing, the media quickly seized on a discussion over potential treatments for the coronavirus COVID-19 where the president asked about the potential for a disinfectant injection. “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?” The President said. “So it’d be interesting to check that.” The President told a group of reporters Friday that he was being sarcastic. In Thursday’s White House coronavirus task force briefing, Bill Bryan, leader of the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security, described the results of new government research that showed that the coronavirus did not survive long in solar light, warmer temperatures, and more humid conditions. He added that disinfectants had also been effective against it. Trump, responding to that, noted that there had been discussions of testing ultraviolet light on patients, or of methods to bring light inside the body. “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it [the virus] out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside, or almost a cleaning, cause you see it gets in the lungs.” Trump was far from a model of clarity, but he did not actually propose injecting patients with disinfectant; he deferred to “medical doctors” to figure out how to apply Bryan’s research. When ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Bryan about whether the president had proposed injecting a person with “bleach and isopropyl alcohol” later, Trump clarified that “It wouldn’t be through injection,” and that he was talking about “cleaning, sterilization of an area,” and about applying the disinfectant to “a stationary object.” White House Apparently there is no accusation too crazy for Trump’s critics to believe. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, is available for pre-order. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

www.breitbart.com

right

e81GDTfdHh11tAQw

test

TDLyanGhFTUPWgsB

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/be4707da1197956a846333fb4281b6b8

Campaign brewing to get Hindu god Brahma off popular beer

2020-07-14

William J. Kole

Brahma beer is displayed at a bar that 's open for deliveries only amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Brasilia , Brazil , Tuesday , July 14 , 2020 . An interfaith coalition is pressuring the world ’ s largest brewer to remove the name of the Hindu god , saying the name is offensive to Hindus , who worship Lord Brahma , the religion 's god of creation . An Anheuser-Busch InBev brewery spokesman says the beer actually was named to honor Joseph Bramah , an Englishman who invented the draft pump handle , and the spelling was changed to adapt the name to the Portuguese language . ( AP Photo/Eraldo Peres ) Brahma beer is displayed at a bar that 's open for deliveries only amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Brasilia , Brazil , Tuesday , July 14 , 2020 . An interfaith coalition is pressuring the world ’ s largest brewer to remove the name of the Hindu god , saying the name is offensive to Hindus , who worship Lord Brahma , the religion 's god of creation . An Anheuser-Busch InBev brewery spokesman says the beer actually was named to honor Joseph Bramah , an Englishman who invented the draft pump handle , and the spelling was changed to adapt the name to the Portuguese language . ( AP Photo/Eraldo Peres ) An interfaith coalition is pressing the world ’ s largest brewer to remove the name of a Hindu god from a popular beer that dates to the late 1800s — a dispute the beermaker insists is a case of mistaken identity . The group , which includes representatives of the Christian , Jewish , Buddhist , Hindu and Jain religions , is calling on Belgium-based brewing giant Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV to rename its Brahma line , a favorite in Brazil . Brahma was first produced in 1888 by Companhia Cervejaria Brahma , a Brazilian brewery now owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev , whose massive lineup of 500 brands includes Budweiser , Bud Light , Corona and Stella Artois . Beers sold under the Brahma name include a lager , a double malt , a wheat beer and a chocolate stout . “ It is the right time to fix an old wrong — the trivializing of the faith of our Hindu brothers and sisters for about 132 years , ” coalition spokesperson Rajan Zed told The ███ on Tuesday . Lord Brahma , the god of creation in Hinduism , is a highly revered figure who should be worshiped in temples or home shrines , “ not misused as a ‘ toasting tool , ’ ” Zed said . He said the coalition also objects to what it calls “ raunchy ” marketing of the brand by using the image of a scantily clad woman to promote the beers . “ Anheuser-Busch InBev should not be in the business of religious appropriation , sacrilege and ridiculing entire communities , ” the coalition said in a statement , calling on the company to “ prove that it cares about communities by renaming its Brahma beer . ” But Lucas Rossi , head of communications for Anheuser-Busch InBev ’ s Latin America subsidiary , said Tuesday the beers were named in tribute to Joseph Bramah — an Englishman who invented the draft pump valve — and not for the Hindu deity . The spelling was changed , he said , to make the name work better in the Portuguese language . “ We deeply respect all religions , faiths and their histories , ” Rossi said in a telephone interview . Hindus are a tiny minority in Brazil , where the Brahma brand is “ very important to the culture of the country , ” he added . “ The stated history behind the name does not reduce the pain of the Hindu devotees when they see their creator god on alcohol cans , ” he said . Zed , who is based in Nevada and is the president of the Universal Society of Hinduism , has campaigned against what he considers the misuse of Eastern religious imagery for commercial purposes for several years . In 2019 , he extracted an apology from a Virginia brewery that brewed a beer named for another Hindu deity , saying that associating Lord Hanuman with alcohol was disrespectful . Last month , the interfaith coalition launched a separate campaign aimed at pressuring Foundation Room and House of Blues nightclubs in Boston and other cities to stop using sacred Buddhist and Hindu imagery as decor . The upscale watering holes are managed by Beverly Hills , California-based Live Nation Entertainment , which apologized and said it was removing some statues from the clubs .

Brahma beer is displayed at a bar that's open for deliveries only amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Brasilia, Brazil, Tuesday, July 14, 2020. An interfaith coalition is pressuring the world’s largest brewer to remove the name of the Hindu god, saying the name is offensive to Hindus, who worship Lord Brahma, the religion's god of creation. An Anheuser-Busch InBev brewery spokesman says the beer actually was named to honor Joseph Bramah, an Englishman who invented the draft pump handle, and the spelling was changed to adapt the name to the Portuguese language. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres) Brahma beer is displayed at a bar that's open for deliveries only amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Brasilia, Brazil, Tuesday, July 14, 2020. An interfaith coalition is pressuring the world’s largest brewer to remove the name of the Hindu god, saying the name is offensive to Hindus, who worship Lord Brahma, the religion's god of creation. An Anheuser-Busch InBev brewery spokesman says the beer actually was named to honor Joseph Bramah, an Englishman who invented the draft pump handle, and the spelling was changed to adapt the name to the Portuguese language. (AP Photo/Eraldo Peres) An interfaith coalition is pressing the world’s largest brewer to remove the name of a Hindu god from a popular beer that dates to the late 1800s — a dispute the beermaker insists is a case of mistaken identity. The group, which includes representatives of the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Jain religions, is calling on Belgium-based brewing giant Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV to rename its Brahma line, a favorite in Brazil. Brahma was first produced in 1888 by Companhia Cervejaria Brahma, a Brazilian brewery now owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev, whose massive lineup of 500 brands includes Budweiser, Bud Light, Corona and Stella Artois. Beers sold under the Brahma name include a lager, a double malt, a wheat beer and a chocolate stout. ADVERTISEMENT “It is the right time to fix an old wrong — the trivializing of the faith of our Hindu brothers and sisters for about 132 years,” coalition spokesperson Rajan Zed told The Associated Press on Tuesday. Lord Brahma, the god of creation in Hinduism, is a highly revered figure who should be worshiped in temples or home shrines, “not misused as a ‘toasting tool,’” Zed said. He said the coalition also objects to what it calls “raunchy” marketing of the brand by using the image of a scantily clad woman to promote the beers. “Anheuser-Busch InBev should not be in the business of religious appropriation, sacrilege and ridiculing entire communities,” the coalition said in a statement, calling on the company to “prove that it cares about communities by renaming its Brahma beer.” But Lucas Rossi, head of communications for Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Latin America subsidiary, said Tuesday the beers were named in tribute to Joseph Bramah — an Englishman who invented the draft pump valve — and not for the Hindu deity. The spelling was changed, he said, to make the name work better in the Portuguese language. “We deeply respect all religions, faiths and their histories,” Rossi said in a telephone interview. Hindus are a tiny minority in Brazil, where the Brahma brand is “very important to the culture of the country,” he added. The name offends regardless of its origins, Zed said. “The stated history behind the name does not reduce the pain of the Hindu devotees when they see their creator god on alcohol cans,” he said. Zed, who is based in Nevada and is the president of the Universal Society of Hinduism, has campaigned against what he considers the misuse of Eastern religious imagery for commercial purposes for several years. In 2019, he extracted an apology from a Virginia brewery that brewed a beer named for another Hindu deity , saying that associating Lord Hanuman with alcohol was disrespectful. Last month, the interfaith coalition launched a separate campaign aimed at pressuring Foundation Room and House of Blues nightclubs in Boston and other cities to stop using sacred Buddhist and Hindu imagery as decor . The upscale watering holes are managed by Beverly Hills, California-based Live Nation Entertainment, which apologized and said it was removing some statues from the clubs.

www.apnews.com

center

TDLyanGhFTUPWgsB

test

B6kFNLvAbN1pm2FE

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/attack-of-the-pfft-people/

Attack of the Pfft People

Daniel J. Flynn, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

The cool clique inevitably reveals itself as the loser league . In Napoleon Dynamite , this phenomenon plays out during the school-auditorium-dance-routine scene , when cool kid Don delivers a patronizing “ pfft , ” as his classmates go crazy over the title character ’ s sweet moves . You see it in Revenge of the Nerds , when the dorks switch places with the jocks on the campus totem pole to the sound of “ We Are the Champions . ” Life imitated art , this week , as detractors of The Donald dismissed his deal to keep Carrier , which announced a move to Mexico earlier this year , in Indiana . “ I think it ’ s all a PR move , ” Chuck Jones , president of United Steelworkers Local 1999 , maintained last week of negotiations , adding , “ I ’ d be shocked if anything was done . ” But something got done . Not airy promises to usher in “ the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal , ” but concrete action occurred to save actual jobs worked by actual people . “ Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences , ” Trump announced at the air-conditioner plant on Thursday . That ’ s another way of saying that you can no longer drink from the federal trough , as you piss on the people who fill it . United Technologies , Carrier ’ s parent company , derives about $ 6 billion in revenue from the federal government . Citing deregulation and a push to decrease corporate taxes from 35 to 15 percent , the president-elect added a carrot to his stick , informing : “ I just want to let all of the other companies know we ’ re going to do great things for business . There ’ s no reason to leave anymore . ” But saving 1,100 jobs before taking the oath of office failed to impress the pfft people . “ He is partially following through on a campaign promise , but this is not stemming the flow of offshoring in the United States , ” Ryan Lizza said on CNN . “ I don ’ t think Donald Trump is the first president to visit factories , ” David Gergen felt compelled to point out , adding : “ One thing this whole tableau does not address is the impact of automation . ” “ It is not good enough to save some of these jobs , ” Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vermont ) complained . “ Trump made a promise that he would save all of these jobs , and we can not rest until an ironclad contract is signed to ensure that all of these workers are able to continue working in Indiana without having their pay or benefits slashed . ” The senator took 704 words in the Washington Post to say one onomatopoeia : pfft . Trump ’ s predecessor failed to drop the dime to save these jobs , during his last year in office . Trump , not yet on the federal payroll , did so before day one . That ’ s nothing to pfft at . The pfft people demonstrate a sore-loser , rule-or-ruin attitude of the kind they accused Republicans of harboring after Sen. Mitch McConnell ( R-Kentucky ) in 2010 said , “ The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. ” Some Democrats embody the trait they charged Republicans of displaying not so long ago . In booing when Americans cheer the president-elect winning back more than a thousand jobs , they cast themselves as losers . More so , they showed how petty political hatred clouds judgment . Union members , many of them Democrats , received an early Christmas gift from the president-elect . Partisan Scrooges say , “ Humbug ! ” Classmates voting for Pedro surely displeased Summer Wheatley . When Gilbert won the presidency of the Greek Council , the Alpha Betas trashed the nerds ’ house . The condescending cool kids feeling their clique entitled to the presidency reacted on script in response to Trump ’ s ( and America ’ s ) victory this week .

The cool clique inevitably reveals itself as the loser league. In Napoleon Dynamite, this phenomenon plays out during the school-auditorium-dance-routine scene, when cool kid Don delivers a patronizing “pfft,” as his classmates go crazy over the title character’s sweet moves. You see it in Revenge of the Nerds, when the dorks switch places with the jocks on the campus totem pole to the sound of “We Are the Champions.” Life imitated art, this week, as detractors of The Donald dismissed his deal to keep Carrier, which announced a move to Mexico earlier this year, in Indiana. “I think it’s all a PR move,” Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999, maintained last week of negotiations, adding, “I’d be shocked if anything was done.” But something got done. Not airy promises to usher in “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” but concrete action occurred to save actual jobs worked by actual people. “Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences,” Trump announced at the air-conditioner plant on Thursday. That’s another way of saying that you can no longer drink from the federal trough, as you piss on the people who fill it. United Technologies, Carrier’s parent company, derives about $6 billion in revenue from the federal government. Citing deregulation and a push to decrease corporate taxes from 35 to 15 percent, the president-elect added a carrot to his stick, informing: “I just want to let all of the other companies know we’re going to do great things for business. There’s no reason to leave anymore.” But saving 1,100 jobs before taking the oath of office failed to impress the pfft people. “He is partially following through on a campaign promise, but this is not stemming the flow of offshoring in the United States,” Ryan Lizza said on CNN. “I don’t think Donald Trump is the first president to visit factories,” David Gergen felt compelled to point out, adding: “One thing this whole tableau does not address is the impact of automation.” Translation? Pfft. “It is not good enough to save some of these jobs,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) complained. “Trump made a promise that he would save all of these jobs, and we cannot rest until an ironclad contract is signed to ensure that all of these workers are able to continue working in Indiana without having their pay or benefits slashed.” The senator took 704 words in the Washington Post to say one onomatopoeia: pfft. Trump’s predecessor failed to drop the dime to save these jobs, during his last year in office. Trump, not yet on the federal payroll, did so before day one. That’s nothing to pfft at. The pfft people demonstrate a sore-loser, rule-or-ruin attitude of the kind they accused Republicans of harboring after Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) in 2010 said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Some Democrats embody the trait they charged Republicans of displaying not so long ago. In booing when Americans cheer the president-elect winning back more than a thousand jobs, they cast themselves as losers. More so, they showed how petty political hatred clouds judgment. Union members, many of them Democrats, received an early Christmas gift from the president-elect. Partisan Scrooges say, “Humbug!” Classmates voting for Pedro surely displeased Summer Wheatley. When Gilbert won the presidency of the Greek Council, the Alpha Betas trashed the nerds’ house. The condescending cool kids feeling their clique entitled to the presidency reacted on script in response to Trump’s (and America’s) victory this week. Pfft.

www.spectator.org

right

B6kFNLvAbN1pm2FE

test

6VEfxSzjxLt79orM

politics

Salon

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/27/follow-the-money-on-impeachment-trump-bought-off-the-jury--and-hints-at-bigger-tax-cuts/

Follow the money on impeachment: Trump bought off the jury — and hints at bigger tax cuts

2020-01-27

Sophia Tesfaye

It 's long been obvious that Republican senators have little interest in serving as impartial jurors in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump . While there is a raft of motivations for such historic perfidy — with several GOP senators politically benefiting from some of the same corrupting influences — one under-examined , non-Russian reason is personal greed . A new report reveals that the 2017 GOP tax law was rife with monumental self-dealing by rich GOP lawmakers who have since benefited bigly . According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis , several Republican members of Congress directly cashed in on the multibillion-dollar windfall from the corporate tax cuts the GOP pushed through on a party-line vote . With the lowest effective tax rate in the last 40 years , America 's largest corporations proceeded to pour $ 1 trillion not into increased wages for workers but buybacks of their own stocks , causing stock prices to soar . Coincidentally , many Republican lawmakers who voted for the largest tax cut signed into law by Trump personally owned some of the same stocks whose values significantly increased as a result . At least seven Republican senators owned stocks in companies that spent billions on buybacks , resulting in great personal profit , according to the Center for Public Integrity . The report came on the same day that former New York Rep. Chris Collins , who was the first sitting GOP congressman to support Trump 's 2016 presidential campaign , was sentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading . It is no wonder why Republicans insisted on ramming through incredibly unpopular tax cuts for American corporations that were already making near-record profits , even at the risk of losing control of the House of Representatives . Of course , billionaires and corporations that reaped millions of dollars from the GOP tax cuts pumped some of that windfall into Republican campaigns , allowing Sen. Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , to retain control of the Senate . With that , Trump 's fate in a Senate impeachment trial was all but sealed . While the report is a less than shocking look into the kleptocratic ways of the modern GOP , it shows that the transactional core of the 2017 tax cuts has ramifications far beyond the $ 1.8 trillion increase in the national debt . Republican senators in purple states , like Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and David Perdue of Georgia , have personally reaped hundreds of millions from the tax law and are repaying the president by serving as his impeachment propaganda machine rather than impartial jurors — even as half of registered voters and a majority of independents in a Fox News poll released on Sunday said the Senate should convict Trump . Now , in addition to running defense for Trump , McConnell 's repeating Trump 's empty promises of a middle-class tax cut in an election year . `` We 're talking a fairly substantial … middle-class tax cut that 'll be subject to taking back the House and obviously keeping the Senate and keeping the White House , '' Trump told the Wall Street Journal during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland , last week . He promised a plan would be revealed in 90 days . Before the 2018 midterms , Trump actually admitted that his tax bill was never aimed at cutting middle-class taxes , promising to actually deliver in 2019 . `` We 're putting in a resolution some time in the next week and a half to two weeks [ and ] we 're giving a middle-income tax reduction of about 10 percent , '' Trump told reporters at the time . The first Republican rule of `` middle-class tax cuts '' is to speak about them but never actually pass them . They 've been pulling the same bait-and-switch since at least 1980 . But while they were cutting taxes for the rich and corporations , the GOP left in place the income taxes a majority of seniors pay on their Social Security income . Now they are again touting cuts to Medicare and Social Security to cover the payoff they gave to themselves . `` The president directed me to produce what we 're calling tax cuts 2.0 , '' senior White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow explained last week . `` It will be published sometime during the campaign , as a message for future Trump economic growth policies , [ with ] particular emphasis on the middle class , in his second term . ... We are looking at a variety of tax cuts , sometimes making permanent some existing tax cuts , some existing corporate tax cuts . '' That last part gives the game away . The promise of continued corporate tax cuts is how Trump builds his 2020 election war chest from the super-rich and buys the continued allegiance of Republican impeachment jurors , even in the face of ever more damning evidence of his public corruption .

It's long been obvious that Republican senators have little interest in serving as impartial jurors in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. While there is a raft of motivations for such historic perfidy — with several GOP senators politically benefiting from some of the same corrupting influences — one under-examined, non-Russian reason is personal greed. A new report reveals that the 2017 GOP tax law was rife with monumental self-dealing by rich GOP lawmakers who have since benefited bigly. According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis, several Republican members of Congress directly cashed in on the multibillion-dollar windfall from the corporate tax cuts the GOP pushed through on a party-line vote. With the lowest effective tax rate in the last 40 years, America's largest corporations proceeded to pour $1 trillion not into increased wages for workers but buybacks of their own stocks, causing stock prices to soar. Coincidentally, many Republican lawmakers who voted for the largest tax cut signed into law by Trump personally owned some of the same stocks whose values significantly increased as a result. Advertisement: At least seven Republican senators owned stocks in companies that spent billions on buybacks, resulting in great personal profit, according to the Center for Public Integrity. The report came on the same day that former New York Rep. Chris Collins, who was the first sitting GOP congressman to support Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, was sentenced to 26 months in prison for insider trading. It is no wonder why Republicans insisted on ramming through incredibly unpopular tax cuts for American corporations that were already making near-record profits, even at the risk of losing control of the House of Representatives. Of course, billionaires and corporations that reaped millions of dollars from the GOP tax cuts pumped some of that windfall into Republican campaigns, allowing Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to retain control of the Senate. With that, Trump's fate in a Senate impeachment trial was all but sealed. While the report is a less than shocking look into the kleptocratic ways of the modern GOP, it shows that the transactional core of the 2017 tax cuts has ramifications far beyond the $1.8 trillion increase in the national debt. Republican senators in purple states, like Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and David Perdue of Georgia, have personally reaped hundreds of millions from the tax law and are repaying the president by serving as his impeachment propaganda machine rather than impartial jurors — even as half of registered voters and a majority of independents in a Fox News poll released on Sunday said the Senate should convict Trump. Advertisement: Now, in addition to running defense for Trump, McConnell's repeating Trump's empty promises of a middle-class tax cut in an election year. "We're talking a fairly substantial … middle-class tax cut that'll be subject to taking back the House and obviously keeping the Senate and keeping the White House," Trump told the Wall Street Journal during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week. He promised a plan would be revealed in 90 days. Before the 2018 midterms, Trump actually admitted that his tax bill was never aimed at cutting middle-class taxes, promising to actually deliver in 2019. "We're putting in a resolution some time in the next week and a half to two weeks [and] we're giving a middle-income tax reduction of about 10 percent," Trump told reporters at the time. Advertisement: The first Republican rule of "middle-class tax cuts" is to speak about them but never actually pass them. They've been pulling the same bait-and-switch since at least 1980. But while they were cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, the GOP left in place the income taxes a majority of seniors pay on their Social Security income. Now they are again touting cuts to Medicare and Social Security to cover the payoff they gave to themselves. "The president directed me to produce what we're calling tax cuts 2.0," senior White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow explained last week. "It will be published sometime during the campaign, as a message for future Trump economic growth policies, [with] particular emphasis on the middle class, in his second term. ... We are looking at a variety of tax cuts, sometimes making permanent some existing tax cuts, some existing corporate tax cuts." Advertisement: That last part gives the game away. The promise of continued corporate tax cuts is how Trump builds his 2020 election war chest from the super-rich and buys the continued allegiance of Republican impeachment jurors, even in the face of ever more damning evidence of his public corruption.

www.salon.com

left

6VEfxSzjxLt79orM

test

PZrHtWSdvJIVwepE

cybersecurity

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/prisoner-assange/

OPINION: Prisoner Assange

Jed Babbin, William Murchison, George Parry, Greg Jones, Karen Lehrman Bloch, Scott Mckay, Mark Hyman

WikiLeaks founder and chieftain Julian Assange was tossed out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London into the hands of British police last week . Assange is wanted on charges of sexual assault in Sweden and charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the U.S . He allegedly helped Army private Chelsea ( née Bradley ) Manning illegally obtain a password that led Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Assange for WikiLeaks to publish . Both Sweden and the U.S. have requested that Assange be extradited to face justice . It ’ s not clear which extradition request will be granted first , but one or the other is certain to be . Assange ’ s defenders are screaming that he should not face the U.S. charges because he is a journalist and is protected absolutely by the First Amendment . It ’ s very important to understand why Assange isn ’ t a journalist and why the First Amendment is no bar to his prosecution under federal law . The OED ’ s definition of “ journalist ” is “ a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on television or radio. ” To that we probably have to add people who write about current events for online publications . The key part of the definition is the preparation of news for publication . Neither does Assange prepare news for publication nor does WikiLeaks publish news . They are merely a pipeline by which U.S. secrets are published with the intent of damaging our national security . The example of Assange ’ s behavior that defines him and WikiLeaks was WikiLeaks ’ March 2017 publication of a substantial portion of the computer hacking tools that the CIA uses to conduct espionage abroad . The “ stories ” were published in WikiLeaks ’ “ Vault 7. ” They weren ’ t news stories revealing what the CIA was doing : it was the computer software itself — the lines of code — that were being used . The difference there was rather than publish news about the CIA ’ s behavior and the targets against which the tools were employed , Assange and WikiLeaks published the actual computer software . Doing so gave every adversary — nations , terrorist networks , and others — information which they could use to protect themselves against U.S. espionage . WikiLeaks isn ’ t a news publication but a cyber bulletin board on which any leaker can have America ’ s most closely-guarded secrets published . Assange isn ’ t a journalist : he ’ s an anti-American activist whose mission in life is to damage the United States . As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said when he was CIA director , WikiLeaks functions as if it were a “ non-state hostile intelligence service . ” There are journalists who fit the OED ’ s definition but act as irresponsibly as WikiLeaks does . Consider the actions of the New York Times and Washington Post in two cases : the 1971 publication of the Pentagon Papers and the 2006 publication of the CIA ’ s “ warrantless wiretapping ” activity . In the Pentagon Papers case , an employee of the RAND corporation , Daniel Ellsberg , copied and stole a top-secret analysis of American policy in Vietnam . He leaked the analysis to the New York Times which began publishing parts of the leaked papers . Prior restraint is the most severe form of censorship . For the first time in history , the government obtained a court order enjoining further publication by the Times . Ellsberg then leaked the study to the Washington Post which began publishing them . The government tried and failed to get a D.C. court to enjoin further publication by the Post . The matter quickly rose to the Supreme Court which held ( by a 6-3 vote ) that prior restraint was unconstitutional . In dismissing the claim that prior restraint was justified by national security concerns , the Court said that , “ The word ‘ security ’ is a broad , vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment . ” Flash forward to 2006 . After the 9-11 attacks , the CIA and the NSA — using their authorities under the new “ Patriot Act ” and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , began intercepting and monitoring electronic communications of an enormous number of people , some of whom were inside U.S. borders . The program reportedly resulted in the interdiction of several terrorist attacks and generated a wealth of intelligence information about terrorist activities both within the U.S. and abroad . It was disclosed to Congress in classified briefings . A year before publication of the matter , a CIA leaker informed the New York Times about the agencies ’ actions , and the Times ’ reporters , James Risen and Eric Lichtblau , began writing stories about it . Risen began writing a book on the information divulged by the leaker . The Times informed the government that they intended to publish the details of the “ warrantless wiretapping ” program . In 2005 , meetings were held at the Times ’ offices during which top Bush administration officials attempted unsuccessfully to persuade the Times staff to not publish the stories . At that point , then-president George W. Bush invited the Times ’ publisher , Arthur Sulzberger , to the Oval Office to make a last plea to not publish the stories . Sulzberger wasn ’ t persuaded . President Bush and his team could do no more . Under the Supreme Court ’ s ruling in the Pentagon Papers case , they couldn ’ t use the courts to restrain publication . They had to rely on the Times ’ judgment and patriotism . Both were not sufficient to restrain the reporters , editors , and publisher of the Times . On December 16 , 2005 the Times began publishing its stores on the CIA/NSA program . Risen ’ s book State of War was released on the same day giving great detail about the program . The Times , Risen , and Lichtblau acted irresponsibly and despicably . Their actions caused terrorists to change the means by which they communicated . That probably cost American and allied lives and delayed our ability to find Osama bin Laden . The courts remain divided on the constitutionality of the CIA/NSA program . The CIA leaker , Jeffrey Sterling , was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison . The difference between what the Times did and what Assange did is not only the fact that the Times is a newspaper and its reporters are journalists . The two differences are reason why one is protected by the First Amendment and the other isn ’ t . First , the Times and its reporters were intentionally exposing top-secret information by writing up and publishing the government ’ s actions . Assange and WikiLeaks published the literal computer software used to conduct espionage against nations and terrorists . The Times ’ publication of the CIA/NSA program was , at least arguably , news . WikiLeaks ’ publication of the CIA ’ s hacking tools wasn ’ t . Second , Assange and WikiLeaks are complicit in the acts of the leakers whose information they publish . They pay the leakers expenses ( and possibly pay them more ) as well as help them avoid prosecution . When Edward Snowden , an employee of a CIA contractor , began leaking top-secret information , he was taken in hand by Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks which reportedly began to pay his expenses . Assange advised Snowden to travel to Russia instead of South America in order to escape U.S. extradition . Assange , who has had a cozy relationship with Russia and Russian intelligence agencies for a long time , reportedly bought Snowden ’ s airline ticket to Russia . Assange ’ s and WikiLeaks ’ are the actions of hostile intelligence agents , not of journalists . For those reasons , they fall outside the First Amendment ’ s protection of the free press . Whether Assange is extradited to Sweden to face rape charges before he faces charges here doesn ’ t much matter . Putting him in prison is justice , but it won ’ t stop WikiLeaks from functioning . It has become too large , covert , and multifaceted for Assange ’ s imprisonment to stop its activities . Because WikiLeaks is acting like a hostile intelligence service it should be treated like one . Every cyber weapon at our disposal should be employed against it .

WikiLeaks founder and chieftain Julian Assange was tossed out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London into the hands of British police last week. Assange is wanted on charges of sexual assault in Sweden and charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the U.S. He allegedly helped Army private Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning illegally obtain a password that led Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Assange for WikiLeaks to publish. Both Sweden and the U.S. have requested that Assange be extradited to face justice. It’s not clear which extradition request will be granted first, but one or the other is certain to be. Assange’s defenders are screaming that he should not face the U.S. charges because he is a journalist and is protected absolutely by the First Amendment. It’s very important to understand why Assange isn’t a journalist and why the First Amendment is no bar to his prosecution under federal law. The OED’s definition of “journalist” is “a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on television or radio.” To that we probably have to add people who write about current events for online publications. The key part of the definition is the preparation of news for publication. Neither does Assange prepare news for publication nor does WikiLeaks publish news. They are merely a pipeline by which U.S. secrets are published with the intent of damaging our national security. The example of Assange’s behavior that defines him and WikiLeaks was WikiLeaks’ March 2017 publication of a substantial portion of the computer hacking tools that the CIA uses to conduct espionage abroad. The “stories” were published in WikiLeaks’ “Vault 7.” They weren’t news stories revealing what the CIA was doing: it was the computer software itself — the lines of code — that were being used. The difference there was rather than publish news about the CIA’s behavior and the targets against which the tools were employed, Assange and WikiLeaks published the actual computer software. Doing so gave every adversary — nations, terrorist networks, and others — information which they could use to protect themselves against U.S. espionage. WikiLeaks isn’t a news publication but a cyber bulletin board on which any leaker can have America’s most closely-guarded secrets published. Assange isn’t a journalist: he’s an anti-American activist whose mission in life is to damage the United States. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said when he was CIA director, WikiLeaks functions as if it were a “non-state hostile intelligence service.” There are journalists who fit the OED’s definition but act as irresponsibly as WikiLeaks does. Consider the actions of the New York Times and Washington Post in two cases: the 1971 publication of the Pentagon Papers and the 2006 publication of the CIA’s “warrantless wiretapping” activity. In the Pentagon Papers case, an employee of the RAND corporation, Daniel Ellsberg, copied and stole a top-secret analysis of American policy in Vietnam. He leaked the analysis to the New York Times which began publishing parts of the leaked papers. Prior restraint is the most severe form of censorship. For the first time in history, the government obtained a court order enjoining further publication by the Times. Ellsberg then leaked the study to the Washington Post which began publishing them. The government tried and failed to get a D.C. court to enjoin further publication by the Post. The matter quickly rose to the Supreme Court which held (by a 6-3 vote) that prior restraint was unconstitutional. In dismissing the claim that prior restraint was justified by national security concerns, the Court said that, “The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment.” Flash forward to 2006. After the 9-11 attacks, the CIA and the NSA — using their authorities under the new “Patriot Act” and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, began intercepting and monitoring electronic communications of an enormous number of people, some of whom were inside U.S. borders. The program reportedly resulted in the interdiction of several terrorist attacks and generated a wealth of intelligence information about terrorist activities both within the U.S. and abroad. It was disclosed to Congress in classified briefings. A year before publication of the matter, a CIA leaker informed the New York Times about the agencies’ actions, and the Times’ reporters, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, began writing stories about it. Risen began writing a book on the information divulged by the leaker. The Times informed the government that they intended to publish the details of the “warrantless wiretapping” program. In 2005, meetings were held at the Times’ offices during which top Bush administration officials attempted unsuccessfully to persuade the Times staff to not publish the stories. At that point, then-president George W. Bush invited the Times’ publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, to the Oval Office to make a last plea to not publish the stories. Sulzberger wasn’t persuaded. President Bush and his team could do no more. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, they couldn’t use the courts to restrain publication. They had to rely on the Times’ judgment and patriotism. Both were not sufficient to restrain the reporters, editors, and publisher of the Times. On December 16, 2005 the Times began publishing its stores on the CIA/NSA program. Risen’s book State of War was released on the same day giving great detail about the program. The Times, Risen, and Lichtblau acted irresponsibly and despicably. Their actions caused terrorists to change the means by which they communicated. That probably cost American and allied lives and delayed our ability to find Osama bin Laden. The courts remain divided on the constitutionality of the CIA/NSA program. The CIA leaker, Jeffrey Sterling, was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. The difference between what the Times did and what Assange did is not only the fact that the Times is a newspaper and its reporters are journalists. The two differences are reason why one is protected by the First Amendment and the other isn’t. First, the Times and its reporters were intentionally exposing top-secret information by writing up and publishing the government’s actions. Assange and WikiLeaks published the literal computer software used to conduct espionage against nations and terrorists. The Times’ publication of the CIA/NSA program was, at least arguably, news. WikiLeaks’ publication of the CIA’s hacking tools wasn’t. Second, Assange and WikiLeaks are complicit in the acts of the leakers whose information they publish. They pay the leakers expenses (and possibly pay them more) as well as help them avoid prosecution. When Edward Snowden, an employee of a CIA contractor, began leaking top-secret information, he was taken in hand by Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks which reportedly began to pay his expenses. Assange advised Snowden to travel to Russia instead of South America in order to escape U.S. extradition. Assange, who has had a cozy relationship with Russia and Russian intelligence agencies for a long time, reportedly bought Snowden’s airline ticket to Russia. Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ are the actions of hostile intelligence agents, not of journalists. For those reasons, they fall outside the First Amendment’s protection of the free press. Whether Assange is extradited to Sweden to face rape charges before he faces charges here doesn’t much matter. Putting him in prison is justice, but it won’t stop WikiLeaks from functioning. It has become too large, covert, and multifaceted for Assange’s imprisonment to stop its activities. Because WikiLeaks is acting like a hostile intelligence service it should be treated like one. Every cyber weapon at our disposal should be employed against it.

www.spectator.org

right

PZrHtWSdvJIVwepE

test

vsxMuiaWKW3NcWRA

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/05/trump-attacks-schiff-and-senior-obama-intelligence-figures

Trump: Schiff and senior Obama intelligence figures are 'liars and leakers'

2018-02-05

Martin Pengelly

Donald Trump attacked Democrats as “ un-American ” and “ treasonous ” for failing to applaud him on Monday , only hours after attacking a laundry list of senior figures in the intelligence community as “ liars and leakers ” . During a speech at an Ohio factory , the president denounced Democrats who did not clap at his state of the union address , even though partisan applause – and the lack thereof – has become a commonplace ritual of the speech . Republicans rarely clapped for Barack Obama , for instance , as was the case for Democrats listening to George W Bush . But Trump nonetheless said that Democrats were not patriotic for failing to credit him . “ They certainly didn ’ t seem to love our country very much , ” he said . Nunes memo ' a political hit job on FBI ' in service of Trump , top Democrat says Read more Earlier on Monday , the president targeted in particular Adam Schiff , the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee . A prominent critic of the administration , Schiff opposed the release last week of a controversial memo , written by Republicans on the panel , about investigations into ties between Trump aides and Russia . “ Little Adam Schiff , ” the president tweeted , “ who is desperate to run for higher office , is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington , right up there with Comey , Warner , Brennan and Clapper ! “ Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information . Must be stopped ! ” Schiff responded , tweeting : “ Mr President , I see you ’ ve had a busy morning of ‘ Executive Time ’ . Instead of tweeting false smears , the American people would appreciate it if you turned off the TV and helped solve the funding crisis , protected Dreamers or … really anything else . ” Trump had earlier tweeted an erroneous claim about the British National Health Service and praise of the Fox News morning show Fox and Friends , which had aired an interview with former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage . The other figures Trump derided as “ liars and leakers ” have all either taken part in the investigation or criticised Trump , including James Comey , the FBI director whom Trump fired in May 2017 , a key part of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation ; Mark Warner , the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee ; John Brennan , the former CIA director under Barack Obama ; and James Clapper , the former director of national intelligence . On Saturday , Trump claimed the four-page memo produced by Devin Nunes , the Republican chair of the House committee , and approved for release by the White House , “ totally ” vindicated him in the investigation into Russian election meddling , links between Trump aides and Russia , and potential obstruction of justice . Observers from both parties said that it did not . The FBI had urged against the memo ’ s release , suggesting it was inaccurate and misleading . On Monday , Nunes also spoke to Fox and Friends . Trump praised the California representative on Twitter , calling him “ a man of tremendous courage and grit ” who “ may someday be recognized as a Great American Hero for what he has exposed and what he has had to endure ! ” Nunes told Fox and Friends there had been “ almost 100 leaks that we believe have come from Democrats on the House intelligence committee ” . Who is Devin Nunes and why is he sowing confusion in the Russia inquiry ? Read more Last year , Nunes stood aside from his own panel ’ s Russia investigation , after he received classified information from staffers at the White House and then spoke to the press , prompting an ethics investigation . He was eventually cleared to return to the intelligence committee . On Monday he told Fox and Friends that Democrats “ advocated for my removal from the committee ” . “ Why is that ? It ’ s because we ’ ve been successful at getting to the bottom of a lot of real problems with the institutions within our government , ” he said . Nunes also claimed falsely that there was no evidence Trump had ever met George Papadopoulos , the campaign adviser who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI regarding his contacts with Russians during the election . The FBI began its investigation after a tip about Papadopoulos , who knew that the Kremlin possessed hacked emails from the Democratic party before those emails ’ release . In March 2016 , the Trump campaign posted to Instagram a picture of Trump meeting advisers including Papadopoulos . Schiff is among Democrats pushing for the release of a counter-memo which they say provides a more complete picture of how the FBI ’ s investigation unfolded in its early stages in 2016 , including why agents grew suspicious of Trump campaign aides and to what extent they relied a dossier compiled by a former British spy , Christopher Steele , regarding links between Trump and Russia . Justice department : Mueller inquiry lawful , Manafort suit lacks merit Read more A spokeswoman for Paul Ryan said on Friday the Republican House speaker supported the release of the Democratic memo “ if it is scrubbed to ensure it does not reveal sources and methods of our intelligence gathering ” . Democrats , the FBI and the Department of Justice opposed the release of the Nunes memo on those grounds , saying it could compromise intelligence-gathering capabilities . The release of the Nunes memo – which Schiff told ABC on Sunday was “ a political hit job on the FBI in the service of the president ” – contributed to speculation that Trump might now fire Mueller or the deputy attorney general , Rod Rosenstein , who oversees the special counsel ’ s work . On Friday , a White House spokesman told CNN “ no changes are going to be made at the Department of Justice ” . On Sunday , former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus , who left the White House last July , told NBC ’ s Meet the Press : “ I never felt that the president was going to fire the special counsel . I never heard that . ” The New York Times reported last month that Trump ordered Mueller fired in June 2017 , only to be thwarted when the White House counsel threatened to resign . Trump denied that story , saying it was “ fake news , folks , fake news ” .

This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Donald Trump attacked Democrats as “un-American” and “treasonous” for failing to applaud him on Monday, only hours after attacking a laundry list of senior figures in the intelligence community as “liars and leakers”. During a speech at an Ohio factory, the president denounced Democrats who did not clap at his state of the union address, even though partisan applause – and the lack thereof – has become a commonplace ritual of the speech. Republicans rarely clapped for Barack Obama, for instance, as was the case for Democrats listening to George W Bush. But Trump nonetheless said that Democrats were not patriotic for failing to credit him. “They certainly didn’t seem to love our country very much,” he said. Nunes memo 'a political hit job on FBI' in service of Trump, top Democrat says Read more Earlier on Monday, the president targeted in particular Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. A prominent critic of the administration, Schiff opposed the release last week of a controversial memo, written by Republicans on the panel, about investigations into ties between Trump aides and Russia. “Little Adam Schiff,” the president tweeted, “who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper! “Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped!” Schiff responded, tweeting: “Mr President, I see you’ve had a busy morning of ‘Executive Time’. Instead of tweeting false smears, the American people would appreciate it if you turned off the TV and helped solve the funding crisis, protected Dreamers or … really anything else.” Trump had earlier tweeted an erroneous claim about the British National Health Service and praise of the Fox News morning show Fox and Friends, which had aired an interview with former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage. The other figures Trump derided as “liars and leakers” have all either taken part in the investigation or criticised Trump, including James Comey, the FBI director whom Trump fired in May 2017, a key part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation; Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee; John Brennan, the former CIA director under Barack Obama; and James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. On Saturday, Trump claimed the four-page memo produced by Devin Nunes, the Republican chair of the House committee, and approved for release by the White House, “totally” vindicated him in the investigation into Russian election meddling, links between Trump aides and Russia, and potential obstruction of justice. Observers from both parties said that it did not. The FBI had urged against the memo’s release, suggesting it was inaccurate and misleading. On Monday, Nunes also spoke to Fox and Friends. Trump praised the California representative on Twitter, calling him “a man of tremendous courage and grit” who “may someday be recognized as a Great American Hero for what he has exposed and what he has had to endure!” Nunes told Fox and Friends there had been “almost 100 leaks that we believe have come from Democrats on the House intelligence committee”. Who is Devin Nunes and why is he sowing confusion in the Russia inquiry? Read more Last year, Nunes stood aside from his own panel’s Russia investigation, after he received classified information from staffers at the White House and then spoke to the press, prompting an ethics investigation. He was eventually cleared to return to the intelligence committee. On Monday he told Fox and Friends that Democrats “advocated for my removal from the committee”. “Why is that? It’s because we’ve been successful at getting to the bottom of a lot of real problems with the institutions within our government,” he said. Nunes also claimed falsely that there was no evidence Trump had ever met George Papadopoulos, the campaign adviser who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI regarding his contacts with Russians during the election. The FBI began its investigation after a tip about Papadopoulos, who knew that the Kremlin possessed hacked emails from the Democratic party before those emails’ release. In March 2016, the Trump campaign posted to Instagram a picture of Trump meeting advisers including Papadopoulos. Facebook Twitter Pinterest George Papadopoulos, third left, in a photograph released on Donald Trump’s Instagram account. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images Schiff is among Democrats pushing for the release of a counter-memo which they say provides a more complete picture of how the FBI’s investigation unfolded in its early stages in 2016, including why agents grew suspicious of Trump campaign aides and to what extent they relied a dossier compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, regarding links between Trump and Russia. Justice department: Mueller inquiry lawful, Manafort suit lacks merit Read more A spokeswoman for Paul Ryan said on Friday the Republican House speaker supported the release of the Democratic memo “if it is scrubbed to ensure it does not reveal sources and methods of our intelligence gathering”. Democrats, the FBI and the Department of Justice opposed the release of the Nunes memo on those grounds, saying it could compromise intelligence-gathering capabilities. The release of the Nunes memo – which Schiff told ABC on Sunday was “a political hit job on the FBI in the service of the president” – contributed to speculation that Trump might now fire Mueller or the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel’s work. On Friday, a White House spokesman told CNN “no changes are going to be made at the Department of Justice”. On Sunday, former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus, who left the White House last July, told NBC’s Meet the Press: “I never felt that the president was going to fire the special counsel. I never heard that.” The New York Times reported last month that Trump ordered Mueller fired in June 2017, only to be thwarted when the White House counsel threatened to resign. Trump denied that story, saying it was “fake news, folks, fake news”.

www.theguardian.com

left

vsxMuiaWKW3NcWRA

test

nIyNcEIKepJwVCzc

fbi

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53329755

FBI director: China is 'greatest threat' to US

The director of the FBI has said that acts of espionage and theft by China 's government pose the `` greatest long-term threat '' to the future of the US . Speaking to the Hudson Institute in Washington , Christopher Wray described a multi-pronged disruption campaign . He said China had begun targeting Chinese nationals living abroad , coercing their return , and was working to compromise US coronavirus research . `` China is engaged in a whole-of-state effort to become the world 's only superpower by any means necessary , '' he added . In a nearly hour-long speech on Tuesday , the FBI director outlined a stark picture of Chinese interference , a far-reaching campaign of economic espionage , data and monetary theft and illegal political activities , using bribery and blackmail to influence US policy . `` We 've now reached a point where the FBI is now opening a new China-related counterintelligence case every 10 hours , '' Mr Wray said . `` Of the nearly 5,000 active counterintelligence cases currently under way across the country , almost half are related to China . '' The FBI director mentioned a programme called `` Fox Hunt '' , which he said President Xi Jinping had `` spearheaded '' and he said was geared at Chinese nationals living abroad seen as threats to the Chinese government . `` We 're talking about political rivals , dissidents , and critics seeking to expose China 's extensive human rights violations , '' he said . `` The Chinese government wants to force them to return to China , and China 's tactics to accomplish that are shocking . '' He continued : `` When it could n't locate one Fox Hunt target , the Chinese government sent an emissary to visit the target 's family here in the United States . The message they said to pass on ? The target had two options : return to China promptly , or commit suicide . '' The programme was originally begun in 2015 to target people accused of corruption and has reportedly led to the capture of thousands of fugitives . However , reports of extraordinary rendition of political opponents by Beijing have multiplied in recent years , starting with Gui Minhai , one of a group of Hong Kong booksellers who disappeared in 2015 and resurfaced in Chinese custody . Unlike the others , Mr Gui disappeared abroad - in Thailand - rather than from Hong Kong itself . China is fast becoming a new kind of threat to the West , not so much because of its growing military capabilities - though that is a factor - but because in economic and technical terms it is already a peer competitor of the United States , and a peer competitor in a very different kind of world . Nineteenth Century great powers competed more or less on equal terms but operated in a far less integrated international system . In the second half of the 20th Century , the Soviet Union was a peer military competitor of the United States , but with a relatively weak economy largely isolated from the wider international system . China , however , has huge and growing economic muscle . It shares much of the same economic space with the West and its dominance of crucial supply chains - think medical PPE for example - only enhances its power . The level of integration of today 's globalised world and the importance of data and information only act as force multipliers for Beijing 's overt and covert global reach . In the unusual address , Mr Wray asked Chinese-born people living in the US to contact the FBI if Chinese officials target them seeking their return . The Chinese government has defended this programme in the past , saying it is part of a legitimate anti-corruption effort . The threat posed by China will be further addressed by the US attorney general and secretary of state in coming weeks , Mr Wray said . The address comes amid heightened tensions between the US and China . US President Donald Trump has been highly critical of China amid the coronavirus outbreak , repeatedly blaming the country for the global pandemic . In another move , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this week that the administration was looking at banning Chinese apps - including the hugely popular TikTok . The apps `` serve as appendages of the Chinese Communist Party 's surveillance state '' , he said .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption FBI Director Christopher Wray, pictured in February, described a wide-ranging campaign by the Chinese government to disrupt US life The director of the FBI has said that acts of espionage and theft by China's government pose the "greatest long-term threat" to the future of the US. Speaking to the Hudson Institute in Washington, Christopher Wray described a multi-pronged disruption campaign. He said China had begun targeting Chinese nationals living abroad, coercing their return, and was working to compromise US coronavirus research. "The stakes could not be higher," Mr Wray said. "China is engaged in a whole-of-state effort to become the world's only superpower by any means necessary," he added. In a nearly hour-long speech on Tuesday, the FBI director outlined a stark picture of Chinese interference, a far-reaching campaign of economic espionage, data and monetary theft and illegal political activities, using bribery and blackmail to influence US policy. "We've now reached a point where the FBI is now opening a new China-related counterintelligence case every 10 hours," Mr Wray said. "Of the nearly 5,000 active counterintelligence cases currently under way across the country, almost half are related to China." The FBI director mentioned a programme called "Fox Hunt", which he said President Xi Jinping had "spearheaded" and he said was geared at Chinese nationals living abroad seen as threats to the Chinese government. "We're talking about political rivals, dissidents, and critics seeking to expose China's extensive human rights violations," he said. "The Chinese government wants to force them to return to China, and China's tactics to accomplish that are shocking." He continued: "When it couldn't locate one Fox Hunt target, the Chinese government sent an emissary to visit the target's family here in the United States. The message they said to pass on? The target had two options: return to China promptly, or commit suicide." The programme was originally begun in 2015 to target people accused of corruption and has reportedly led to the capture of thousands of fugitives. However, reports of extraordinary rendition of political opponents by Beijing have multiplied in recent years, starting with Gui Minhai, one of a group of Hong Kong booksellers who disappeared in 2015 and resurfaced in Chinese custody. Unlike the others, Mr Gui disappeared abroad - in Thailand - rather than from Hong Kong itself. Globalisation extends Beijing's reach China is fast becoming a new kind of threat to the West, not so much because of its growing military capabilities - though that is a factor - but because in economic and technical terms it is already a peer competitor of the United States, and a peer competitor in a very different kind of world. Nineteenth Century great powers competed more or less on equal terms but operated in a far less integrated international system. In the second half of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union was a peer military competitor of the United States, but with a relatively weak economy largely isolated from the wider international system. China, however, has huge and growing economic muscle. It shares much of the same economic space with the West and its dominance of crucial supply chains - think medical PPE for example - only enhances its power. The level of integration of today's globalised world and the importance of data and information only act as force multipliers for Beijing's overt and covert global reach. In the unusual address, Mr Wray asked Chinese-born people living in the US to contact the FBI if Chinese officials target them seeking their return. The Chinese government has defended this programme in the past, saying it is part of a legitimate anti-corruption effort. The threat posed by China will be further addressed by the US attorney general and secretary of state in coming weeks, Mr Wray said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Liu Xiaoming: China is not the enemy of the US The address comes amid heightened tensions between the US and China. US President Donald Trump has been highly critical of China amid the coronavirus outbreak, repeatedly blaming the country for the global pandemic. In another move, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this week that the administration was looking at banning Chinese apps - including the hugely popular TikTok. The apps "serve as appendages of the Chinese Communist Party's surveillance state", he said.

www.bbc.com

center

nIyNcEIKepJwVCzc

test

vebMhiEHwEk3Q5ai

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-explainer/how-partial-shutdown-of-u-s-government-could-play-out-idUSKCN1OQ0RZ

How partial shutdown of U.S. government could play out

2018-12-27

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A partial U.S. government shutdown was widely expected to continue after Congress reconvenes on Thursday , with lawmakers split over President Donald Trump ’ s demand for $ 5 billion in taxpayer funding for a proposed Mexican border wall . The Senate and the House of Representatives were set to meet at 4 p.m. EST on the sixth day of the shutdown and resume debating ways to end it . That will include Senate consideration of a measure already approved by the Republican-controlled House that meets Trump ’ s wall-funding demand . For that bill to move forward in the 100-seat Senate , it would need 60 votes . Republicans have only 51 seats , so they will need to try to persuade some Democrats to back the measure . But Democrats largely oppose Trump ’ s proposed wall , which he had initially said would financed by Mexico . They have offered support for $ 1.3 billion in general border security funding . It was not clear if some compromise could be struck between that offer and Trump ’ s demand . Over the weekend , Mick Mulvaney , the acting White House chief of staff , said the White House had made a counter-offer to Democrats on border security . Media reports said Vice President Mike Pence had proposed $ 2.1 billion in funding . Last week Trump said his administration was prepared for a lengthy shutdown . After weeks of failed talks between Trump and congressional leaders , parts of the U.S. government shut down on Saturday , affecting about 800,000 employees of the Departments of Homeland Security , Justice , Agriculture , Commerce and other agencies . Most of the federal government , which directly employs almost 4 million people , is unaffected . The Defense , Energy , Labor and other departments are funded through Sept. 30 . Even agencies that are affected never totally close , with workers deemed “ essential ” still performing their duties . “ Non-essential ” federal workers at unfunded agencies are on furlough and staying home . Both they and essential employees will not get paychecks after December until the shutdown ends . “ We continue to believe that it is unlikely that Congress will come up with a deal to end the current partial shutdown until well into January , ” financial firm Height Securities said in a commentary note on Wednesday . The 435-seat House was set to reopen on Thursday but on Jan. 3 , the 2017-18 Congress will be replaced by the 2019-20 Congress and control of the House will switch to the Democrats from the Republicans . At that time , Representative Nancy Pelosi is expected to take over as House speaker . She has vowed swift action to fully reopen the government . Barring some sort of deal in the interim , House Democrats expect to vote on a funding bill on Jan. 3 , a Democratic aide said . In the new Congress , Senate Republicans will increase their number of seats to 53 but still will need Democratic support to pass any legislation requiring a 60-vote majority . Details of the upcoming House bill were unclear but it was unlikely to include wall funding , like an earlier Senate measure . If such a bill were to pass the House and again win support in the Senate , it would then go to Trump . At that point , he could face a politically difficult choice - back down on his full wall-funding demand or veto the bill and single-handedly extend the partial shutdown . If he chose the latter , putting his personal stamp on the shutdown , Congress might then move to override his veto , but that would take a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House , a challenging hurdle for lawmakers .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A partial U.S. government shutdown was widely expected to continue after Congress reconvenes on Thursday, with lawmakers split over President Donald Trump’s demand for $5 billion in taxpayer funding for a proposed Mexican border wall. FILE PHOTO: Clouds pass over the U.S. Capitol at the start of the third day of a shut down of the federal government in Washington, U.S., January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts The Senate and the House of Representatives were set to meet at 4 p.m. EST on the sixth day of the shutdown and resume debating ways to end it. That will include Senate consideration of a measure already approved by the Republican-controlled House that meets Trump’s wall-funding demand. For that bill to move forward in the 100-seat Senate, it would need 60 votes. Republicans have only 51 seats, so they will need to try to persuade some Democrats to back the measure. But Democrats largely oppose Trump’s proposed wall, which he had initially said would financed by Mexico. They have offered support for $1.3 billion in general border security funding. It was not clear if some compromise could be struck between that offer and Trump’s demand. Over the weekend, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said the White House had made a counter-offer to Democrats on border security. Media reports said Vice President Mike Pence had proposed $2.1 billion in funding. Last week Trump said his administration was prepared for a lengthy shutdown. After weeks of failed talks between Trump and congressional leaders, parts of the U.S. government shut down on Saturday, affecting about 800,000 employees of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce and other agencies. Most of the federal government, which directly employs almost 4 million people, is unaffected. The Defense, Energy, Labor and other departments are funded through Sept. 30. Even agencies that are affected never totally close, with workers deemed “essential” still performing their duties. “Non-essential” federal workers at unfunded agencies are on furlough and staying home. Both they and essential employees will not get paychecks after December until the shutdown ends. “We continue to believe that it is unlikely that Congress will come up with a deal to end the current partial shutdown until well into January,” financial firm Height Securities said in a commentary note on Wednesday. The 435-seat House was set to reopen on Thursday but on Jan. 3, the 2017-18 Congress will be replaced by the 2019-20 Congress and control of the House will switch to the Democrats from the Republicans. At that time, Representative Nancy Pelosi is expected to take over as House speaker. She has vowed swift action to fully reopen the government. Barring some sort of deal in the interim, House Democrats expect to vote on a funding bill on Jan. 3, a Democratic aide said. In the new Congress, Senate Republicans will increase their number of seats to 53 but still will need Democratic support to pass any legislation requiring a 60-vote majority. Details of the upcoming House bill were unclear but it was unlikely to include wall funding, like an earlier Senate measure. If such a bill were to pass the House and again win support in the Senate, it would then go to Trump. At that point, he could face a politically difficult choice - back down on his full wall-funding demand or veto the bill and single-handedly extend the partial shutdown. If he chose the latter, putting his personal stamp on the shutdown, Congress might then move to override his veto, but that would take a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House, a challenging hurdle for lawmakers.

www.reuters.com

center

vebMhiEHwEk3Q5ai

test

ddGKbblNjThwifC8

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/01/irrational_hopes_for_2015_a_few_wish_list_political_items_that_probably_wont_happen/

Irrational hopes for 2015: A few wish-list political items that probably won’t happen

2015-01-01

Simon Maloy

It being the holiday season and all , the time feels right for a bit of unbridled optimism . 2015 has just begun , which means it has n't had an opportunity to disappoint , and is therefore a ripe receptacle for some of my ( mostly ) irrational political hopes . With the full realization that some ( or most , or all ) of these will not come to pass and that I 'm likely just setting myself up for sadness and mockery , here 's a short list of things I hope will happen in the next year . I like Bernie Sanders . Vermont ’ s independent senator comes off as affable and engaging , and he has a pleasingly down-to-earth frumpiness that contrasts with the perma-tanned , hair-gelled , forever-TV-ready facades of many of his colleagues . He ’ s been laying the groundwork for a 2016 presidential campaign , though up to this point he ’ s been deliberately cagey about whether he ’ d run as an Independent or a Democrat – or if he ’ ll actually do it . I hope he does . I think the New Yorker ’ s Ryan Lizza got it right when he wrote that Sanders is “ the Democratic Party ’ s Ron Paul : his chance of winning would be infinitesimal , but his presence in the race and his passion about a few key issues would expose vulnerabilities in the front-runner ’ s record and policies. ” In Sanders ’ case , that means a relentless focus on kitchen-table economic issues and income inequality , and it looks like he ’ s finally ready to step up and get in the other candidates ’ faces about their records on economic issues and ties to Wall Street . “ The Clinton Administration worked arm in arm with Alan Greenspan – who is , on economic matters , obviously , an extreme right-wing libertarian – on deregulating Wall Street , and that was a total disaster , ” Sanders told Lizza . And that ’ s a good thing ! Hillary Clinton is heavily favored to waltz away with the nomination , and more than a few Democrats are hoping for a quiet , uneventful primary that will allow the nominee to rest easy while the Republicans duke it out amongst themselves . But coronations are dull affairs . Arguments are interesting and help to sharpen policy positions while exposing and ironing out contradictions . Sanders would be a refreshing counter-establishment antidote to the slate of would-be Democratic nominees who stand against him . Earlier this month , the National Center for Health Statistics released a big batch of data on the status of health insurance coverage in the country . Per NCHS , the uninsured rate in the country has plummeted over the past year , marking the largest drop since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid during the Johnson administration . The Affordable Care Act , for all the controversy surrounding it , is working , and the surge of people signing up for coverage during the second open enrollment period will likely push the uninsured rate down even further heading into 2015 . Costs are being contained , more insurers are participating in the exchanges , employer coverage is remaining steady – these are all good things . There is , obviously , some bad that comes with the good ( no legislation is perfect , and not everyone can be a winner ) , but on balance the ACA is getting it done . Hovering over all of this is a big , black-robed cloud of uncertainty . The Supreme Court is expected to rule in King v. Burwell sometime next summer , which will decide the fate of the federal tax credits that make insurance affordable in the majority of states . A ruling against the ACA would blow the insurance market to pieces and place the physical and financial well-being of millions of Americans in the hands of Republicans in Congress , who can barely tie their shoes on most matters but are united in their hatred for the ACA . The fact that the court agreed to take up this contentious and absurd case is a fairly good sign that there are at least four votes to invalidate those subsidies , which means the law ’ s fate is once again in the hands of a “ swing vote ” justice , likely Chief Justice John Roberts . The court already functions as an unelected , unaccountable and highly politicized super-legislature through which all controversial legislation must pass , which is upsetting enough . To blow a giant hole in the law would , in the words of the decidedly non-liberal Wall Street Journal editorial board , inflict “ an immediate refugee crisis ” among health insurance customers . That ’ s the sort of chaos on regular Americans that responsible agents of government are supposed to avert . Benghazi has become the sort of scandal in which the hunt for scandalous information ( and the assumption , against all evidence , that such information exists ) is the only thing keeping it alive . Conservatives are prone to asserting their high-minded purpose behind the relentless investigations : to get to the TRUTH of what REALLY happened to honor the memory of the men who tragically lost their lives on September 11 , 2012 . But the reality is very different . Rep. Trey Gowdy , chair of the special House committee on Benghazi , has now held two hearings on the attacks and their aftermath . Both have been dry , informative affairs that focused on diplomatic security and the State Department ’ s performance in implementing post-Benghazi reforms . These are important matters that are worthy of congressional oversight – but the conservatives who howled for the creation of Gowdy ’ s committee are either bored or frustrated with what they ’ ve seen . That ’ s because they ’ re not getting what they really want out of the committee ’ s investigation : iron-clad proof of an Obama administration cover-up . They want political scandal and entertainment . They want dramatic eyewitness contradictions of official accounts that can then be thrown in the White House press secretary ’ s face . They want the smoking-gun document that proves beyond all doubt that the administration did in fact do all the terrible things they ’ ve already convinced themselves it did . Maybe it ’ s possible that those things exist , but I can ’ t help but think that if they did , one of the many other official investigations would have turned them up . I don ’ t have much confidence that it will happen , but my hope is that Gowdy ’ s committee will complete its work quietly , efficiently and quickly , so that the political flogging of the Benghazi tragedy will finally subside . We ’ re on the cusp of the next presidential election cycle , which means gilded coprolite Donald Trump will do his level damnedest to get people to report that he ’ s super serious about running for the White House . It ’ s actually already begun , and it ’ s only going to get worse once the new season of Trump ’ s awful television program begins in January . I realize this is very likely going to fall on deaf ears , given that reporters happily play the “ Is Trump Going to Run ? ” game because it drives traffic , but here goes… Stop . You don ’ t have to do this . He ’ s not going to run . He ’ s never going to run . He revels in the attention and is using you to feed his already bloated , disgusting , combed-over ego . Yes , you ’ re using him as well – but think about what that says about you ! It means you ’ re no better than this frizz-topped pinch-faced birther clown . You don ’ t want that . No one wants that . Just ignore him . He won ’ t go away , but you ’ ll have done your small part to make politics just a little less insufferable .

It being the holiday season and all, the time feels right for a bit of unbridled optimism. 2015 has just begun, which means it hasn't had an opportunity to disappoint, and is therefore a ripe receptacle for some of my (mostly) irrational political hopes. With the full realization that some (or most, or all) of these will not come to pass and that I'm likely just setting myself up for sadness and mockery, here's a short list of things I hope will happen in the next year. That Bernie Sanders Will Run for President Advertisement: I like Bernie Sanders. Vermont’s independent senator comes off as affable and engaging, and he has a pleasingly down-to-earth frumpiness that contrasts with the perma-tanned, hair-gelled, forever-TV-ready facades of many of his colleagues. He’s been laying the groundwork for a 2016 presidential campaign, though up to this point he’s been deliberately cagey about whether he’d run as an Independent or a Democrat – or if he’ll actually do it. I hope he does. I think the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza got it right when he wrote that Sanders is “the Democratic Party’s Ron Paul: his chance of winning would be infinitesimal, but his presence in the race and his passion about a few key issues would expose vulnerabilities in the front-runner’s record and policies.” In Sanders’ case, that means a relentless focus on kitchen-table economic issues and income inequality, and it looks like he’s finally ready to step up and get in the other candidates’ faces about their records on economic issues and ties to Wall Street. “The Clinton Administration worked arm in arm with Alan Greenspan – who is, on economic matters, obviously, an extreme right-wing libertarian – on deregulating Wall Street, and that was a total disaster,” Sanders told Lizza. And that’s a good thing! Hillary Clinton is heavily favored to waltz away with the nomination, and more than a few Democrats are hoping for a quiet, uneventful primary that will allow the nominee to rest easy while the Republicans duke it out amongst themselves. But coronations are dull affairs. Arguments are interesting and help to sharpen policy positions while exposing and ironing out contradictions. Sanders would be a refreshing counter-establishment antidote to the slate of would-be Democratic nominees who stand against him. Advertisement: So run, Bernie, run. That Obamacare Won’t Be Gutted Earlier this month, the National Center for Health Statistics released a big batch of data on the status of health insurance coverage in the country. Per NCHS, the uninsured rate in the country has plummeted over the past year, marking the largest drop since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid during the Johnson administration. Advertisement: The Affordable Care Act, for all the controversy surrounding it, is working, and the surge of people signing up for coverage during the second open enrollment period will likely push the uninsured rate down even further heading into 2015. Costs are being contained, more insurers are participating in the exchanges, employer coverage is remaining steady – these are all good things. There is, obviously, some bad that comes with the good (no legislation is perfect, and not everyone can be a winner), but on balance the ACA is getting it done. Hovering over all of this is a big, black-robed cloud of uncertainty. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in King v. Burwell sometime next summer, which will decide the fate of the federal tax credits that make insurance affordable in the majority of states. A ruling against the ACA would blow the insurance market to pieces and place the physical and financial well-being of millions of Americans in the hands of Republicans in Congress, who can barely tie their shoes on most matters but are united in their hatred for the ACA. Advertisement: The fact that the court agreed to take up this contentious and absurd case is a fairly good sign that there are at least four votes to invalidate those subsidies, which means the law’s fate is once again in the hands of a “swing vote” justice, likely Chief Justice John Roberts. The court already functions as an unelected, unaccountable and highly politicized super-legislature through which all controversial legislation must pass, which is upsetting enough. To blow a giant hole in the law would, in the words of the decidedly non-liberal Wall Street Journal editorial board, inflict “an immediate refugee crisis” among health insurance customers. That’s the sort of chaos on regular Americans that responsible agents of government are supposed to avert. That Benghazi Will Fade Away Advertisement: Benghazi has become the sort of scandal in which the hunt for scandalous information (and the assumption, against all evidence, that such information exists) is the only thing keeping it alive. Conservatives are prone to asserting their high-minded purpose behind the relentless investigations: to get to the TRUTH of what REALLY happened to honor the memory of the men who tragically lost their lives on September 11, 2012. But the reality is very different. Rep. Trey Gowdy, chair of the special House committee on Benghazi, has now held two hearings on the attacks and their aftermath. Both have been dry, informative affairs that focused on diplomatic security and the State Department’s performance in implementing post-Benghazi reforms. These are important matters that are worthy of congressional oversight – but the conservatives who howled for the creation of Gowdy’s committee are either bored or frustrated with what they’ve seen. That’s because they’re not getting what they really want out of the committee’s investigation: iron-clad proof of an Obama administration cover-up. They want political scandal and entertainment. They want dramatic eyewitness contradictions of official accounts that can then be thrown in the White House press secretary’s face. They want the smoking-gun document that proves beyond all doubt that the administration did in fact do all the terrible things they’ve already convinced themselves it did. Advertisement: Maybe it’s possible that those things exist, but I can’t help but think that if they did, one of the many other official investigations would have turned them up. I don’t have much confidence that it will happen, but my hope is that Gowdy’s committee will complete its work quietly, efficiently and quickly, so that the political flogging of the Benghazi tragedy will finally subside. That Donald Trump Will Be Ignored We’re on the cusp of the next presidential election cycle, which means gilded coprolite Donald Trump will do his level damnedest to get people to report that he’s super serious about running for the White House. It’s actually already begun, and it’s only going to get worse once the new season of Trump’s awful television program begins in January. I realize this is very likely going to fall on deaf ears, given that reporters happily play the “Is Trump Going to Run?” game because it drives traffic, but here goes… Stop. You don’t have to do this. He’s not going to run. He’s never going to run. He revels in the attention and is using you to feed his already bloated, disgusting, combed-over ego. Yes, you’re using him as well – but think about what that says about you! It means you’re no better than this frizz-topped pinch-faced birther clown. You don’t want that. No one wants that. Just ignore him. He won’t go away, but you’ll have done your small part to make politics just a little less insufferable.

www.salon.com

left

ddGKbblNjThwifC8

test

Z557UnyqF7XUDgeL

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/hush-money-and-impeachment/

OPINION: Hush Money and Impeachment

Dov Fischer, John C. Wohlstetter, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

I have written before on the matter of President Trump and the pole dancer with the two implants . The matter is not his proudest life achievement , and what has transpired offers a potent life lesson for all . From all accounts , Mr. Trump has a very wonderful wife who regularly has stood by him publicly over the years through thick and thin , is profoundly intelligent and exceptionally accomplished both in language mastery and in corporate enterprises , has a pleasant appearance , seems to do well with her stepchildren , and has borne him one of her own , a fine young fellow . To the degree that the matter of the pole dancer with the two implants now has become an obstruction in Mr. Trump ’ s life and yet one more excuse by which cynically dishonest and hypocritical Democrats can try subverting his excellent Presidential agenda , it is a shame . Plenty of shame to go around on this one . Let us be clear , though , on what the Left media do not report or explain . By all accounts , Donald J. Trump , notwithstanding his eccentricities and thin skin when attacked even by utter nonentities beneath his station , took a turn in his life as he got serious about running for President . He found , perhaps to his surprise , that his strongest support comes from Christians , devout Catholics , and Orthodox Jews , that his conservative policy positions and traditional legislative goals indeed resonate with the religious . He has connected with serious Christian pastors , and he has been warmly received by mainstream normative Orthodox rabbis . In time , he has come to address Liberty College , still finding his footing when quoting the Bible ( “ Two Corinthians ” versus “ Second Corinthians ” ) , has become a great defender of prayer and freedom of the pulpit , and a defender of religious freedom in general . By all accounts , the matter surrounding the pole dancer and the implants is not comparable on any level to what Americans have had to experience with comparatively recent Presidential candidates like Gary Hart , Ted Kennedy , and John Edwards , or President Bill Clinton who actually have used Presidential runs , or their possibilities , or the ascent to such office as leverage to get playmates when the wife is not watching . Leaving aside Clinton ’ s Arkansas-days shenanigans with Gennifer Flowers , Paula Jones , and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick , he later abused and harassed Kathleen Willey when he became President . And two other words need no elaboration , not even an inserted hyperlink to Wikipedia : “ Monica Lewinsky. ” For Gary Hart — Donna Rice . For John Edwards — Rielle Hunter nee Lisa Jo Druck and baby . For Ted Kennedy — Chappaquiddick . By contrast , from the moment he began running for Presidential office , Donald Trump has had one woman in his life , Melania . On this issue of personal character , he clearly got responsible and became serious . Yes , there have been the tweets and the maddening verbal broadsides — insults back and forth , whether with one or another accuser from the past , a painfully shameful audio recording in a trailer , and the like . The American people weighed so much of that amply reported information when they cast their votes in November 2016 for their President . They had an alternative , Hillary Clinton , and they elected Trump . Indeed , so many more Caucasian women voted for Trump than for Hillary that her surrogates and she have spent the past two years denigrating them . As she put it : “ I ’ m talking principally about white women — they [ were ] under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends . ” Hush Money for Peccadilloes Simply Is Not a Campaign Finance Matter The payment of “ hush money ” to shut a woman up is sordid . The very need for “ hush money ” implies a predicate sordid deed . For those among the electorate who do not know millionaires and billionaires , “ hush money ” seems foreign indeed . It costs a bunch of cash to buy someone ’ s silence . But among those who are perhaps too rich for their own good , it is part of the cost of their doing business in circles where they believe themselves above all others , invincible , invulnerable , and beyond reproach . The New York Times reported that actress and director Asia Argento , fittingly a leading voice in the # MeToo movement , is accused of paying $ 380,000 hush money to one Jimmy Bennett , who claims she sexually assaulted him in a hotel room when he was 17 . That buys a lot of hush . The Chicago Tribune describes a Congressional Hush Money Fund to protect our paid legislators — your tax dollars at work . At least $ 17 million was spent to shut the mouths of those whose mouths politically needed to be shut . Rep. John Conyers paid hush money from a separate fund to keep his lady friends immersed in hush . CBS paid more than $ 5 million in hush money over twenty years to a woman who accused 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt ( pronounced : You it ! ) . Charlie Sheen , the former NBC star , paid millions in hush money after engaging in more peccadilloes than , say , two and a half men . MSNBC paid hush money to protect Hardball Chris Matthews when , on an occasion separate from the time a thrill ran up his leg , he was accused . MSNBC also issued a formal reprimand . Fox News paid hush money for years to people who proffered allegations against Bill O ’ Reilly . The payment of hush money by celebrities , sports stars , and multi-millionaires and billionaires has nothing to do with election campaign donations . It is about keeping secrets from a wife or husband who otherwise would walk out of a marriage if he or she found out . Or it aims to keep the publicity away from the children because the kinds of people who have the wherewithal to pay hush money for peccadilloes are the kinds whose scandals will hit the media circuit . Celebrities in more wholesome American times did not want the public to know they cavorted disgracefully because they feared losing their movie followings and careers . A Los Angeles Laker basketball player had to buy his wife a rare $ 4 million eight-carat purple-diamond ring after news emerged that he had cheated on her in an Edwards , Colorado hotel room ; a few years after the ring lost its glitter , she filed for divorce anyway . Donald Sterling , another Los Angeles basketball legend , gave one of his girlfriends $ 500,000 in luxury cars and a $ 1.8 million home ; when his wife found out , she sued to regain her half of it in community-property California . The Rev . Jesse Jackson ’ s Operation PUSH/Rainbow Coalition paid money to Karin Stanford after she had his baby ; payments included $ 15,000 to move and $ 21,000 for consulting services , but they rescinded another promised $ 40,000 in contracting work when the affair became known . It is beyond absurd to suggest that any hush money paid to the pole dancer with the implants by Michael Cohen , Trump ’ s former attorney from his pre-Presidential years , was intended as a campaign expenditure . It plainly was to guard Trump ’ s innocent wife from embarrassment , protect his marriage , spare his children from seeing a sordid report in the news about a side of their Dad that they already had to know or suspect . Alas , in the heightened cynical age in which this unfolds , Democrats are primed to leverage their new House majority to search for impeachable offenses in all this . It is that absurd . Who Will Call the Democrats Bluff and Dare Them Finally to Put Up or Hush Up on Impeachment ? At some point , sooner or later , perhaps Trump supporters will come to root for impeachment proceedings finally to begin . Impeach 45 ? Bring it on ! Impeachments of American presidents never really are about high crimes or misdemeanors . ( U.S. Const . Art . II , § 4 . ) Rather , they are political theater . When the Republican Abraham Lincoln was murdered after emancipating African American slaves , he was succeeded by Democrat Andrew Johnson , the Southerner from eastern Tennessee whom Lincoln had named as his running mate to balance his ticket . The northern Republicans who dominated the Congress as the Civil War ended were determined to remove Johnson , and they easily had the votes in the House to impeach . They needed two-thirds in the Senate to convict , and they fell one vote short ( 35-19 ) when Edmund G. Ross of Kansas voted his conscience , as did nine other Republicans . President Johnson had fired his Secretary of War , Edwin McMasters Stanton , and subsequent legislation and United States Supreme Court jurisprudence strongly tend to uphold a President ’ s authority to remove cabinet officials and others without Congressional approval . See , e.g. , Myers v. United States , 272 U.S. 52 ( 1926 ) . A similar impeachment effort against President Clinton in December 1998 , again politically motivated and somewhat botched , generated mixed political results . His name was sullied and his reputation , like Ms. Lewinsky ’ s dress , was stained , but he emerged politically whole and a prized Democrat star for another two decades even though he never received 50 percent of the vote in either of his two Presidential races . On the other hand , the Clinton scandals may have helped elect George W. Bush President in 2000 , as Al Gore avoided having Clinton help campaign for him , and Bush was seen as more morally fit to lead the nation . If the Democrats ever truly proceed with bills of impeachment aimed at President Trump , whether based on hush money payments that predate Mr. Trump ’ s presidency or on his pre-Presidential entrepreneurial interest in building a Trump hotel in Moscow or on his proper wielding of his executive authority to fire James Comey , a leaking political partisan who really needed to be removed from a compromised Federal Bureau of Investigation , they presumably will have the votes to send the allegations to the Senate . We know from the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton that it does not matter a whit whether it is a high crime or misdemeanor for a President to fire a Secretary of War or to lie about his secret rendezvous with a woman about whom his wife is not supposed to know . Rather , Presidential impeachment is pure Swamp Politics , bought and paid for with our tax dollars . The United States Senate never will come even close to mustering the required two-thirds vote to convict President Trump for any actions pre-dating his election , and they probably would not dare convict for anything he has done or will do since his election either , unless it truly and unequivocally constitutes a bona fide high crime or misdemeanor . Not one single Democrat Senator voted to convict President Clinton , and no Republican Senator will vote to convict Mr. Trump . The two Republican Senate “ Never Trumpers ” — Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona — will be long gone , and any Republican Senator who would vote for conviction would follow . The more radical Democrats — Spartacus , Bernie , Pocahontas , and Company — would play politics for their bases and vote to convict . However , other Senate Democrats like Doug Jones of Alabama , who faces a brutal reelection campaign in 2020 when Mr. Trump will be heading the national Republican ticket and Roy Moore will not be the Republicans ’ Alabama Senate nominee , probably will vote with the Republicans and for Mr. Trump in the same way that Joe Manchin saw the light momentarily and broke Democrat ranks to hold his West Virginia Senate seat by voting to confirm the Hon . Brett M. Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court . In the end , suburban Caucasian swing voters will be left wondering why they gave the Democrats the House in 2018 , only to see promises about focusing on fixing health care and immigration get diverted so that the Democrats ’ increasingly radical Left base could realize their pointless and ultimately fizzled impeachment aspirations . Perhaps the better hush money will be allocated to silencing those bombastic Democrats endlessly trying to find in every day ’ s news an excuse to threaten impeachment . In time , the inevitable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well be cooing behind closed doors to her sister California House Democrat , paraphrasing the title of a film about two insane women : Hush , hush , sweet Maxine .

I have written before on the matter of President Trump and the pole dancer with the two implants. The matter is not his proudest life achievement, and what has transpired offers a potent life lesson for all. From all accounts, Mr. Trump has a very wonderful wife who regularly has stood by him publicly over the years through thick and thin, is profoundly intelligent and exceptionally accomplished both in language mastery and in corporate enterprises, has a pleasant appearance, seems to do well with her stepchildren, and has borne him one of her own, a fine young fellow. To the degree that the matter of the pole dancer with the two implants now has become an obstruction in Mr. Trump’s life and yet one more excuse by which cynically dishonest and hypocritical Democrats can try subverting his excellent Presidential agenda, it is a shame. Plenty of shame to go around on this one. Let us be clear, though, on what the Left media do not report or explain. By all accounts, Donald J. Trump, notwithstanding his eccentricities and thin skin when attacked even by utter nonentities beneath his station, took a turn in his life as he got serious about running for President. He found, perhaps to his surprise, that his strongest support comes from Christians, devout Catholics, and Orthodox Jews, that his conservative policy positions and traditional legislative goals indeed resonate with the religious. He has connected with serious Christian pastors, and he has been warmly received by mainstream normative Orthodox rabbis. In time, he has come to address Liberty College, still finding his footing when quoting the Bible (“Two Corinthians” versus “Second Corinthians”), has become a great defender of prayer and freedom of the pulpit, and a defender of religious freedom in general. Presidential Candidates Campaigning for One-Night Stands By all accounts, the matter surrounding the pole dancer and the implants is not comparable on any level to what Americans have had to experience with comparatively recent Presidential candidates like Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, and John Edwards, or President Bill Clinton who actually have used Presidential runs, or their possibilities, or the ascent to such office as leverage to get playmates when the wife is not watching. Leaving aside Clinton’s Arkansas-days shenanigans with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick, he later abused and harassed Kathleen Willey when he became President. And two other words need no elaboration, not even an inserted hyperlink to Wikipedia: “Monica Lewinsky.” For Gary Hart — Donna Rice. For John Edwards — Rielle Hunter nee Lisa Jo Druck and baby. For Ted Kennedy — Chappaquiddick. By contrast, from the moment he began running for Presidential office, Donald Trump has had one woman in his life, Melania. On this issue of personal character, he clearly got responsible and became serious. Yes, there have been the tweets and the maddening verbal broadsides — insults back and forth, whether with one or another accuser from the past, a painfully shameful audio recording in a trailer, and the like. The American people weighed so much of that amply reported information when they cast their votes in November 2016 for their President. They had an alternative, Hillary Clinton, and they elected Trump. Indeed, so many more Caucasian women voted for Trump than for Hillary that her surrogates and she have spent the past two years denigrating them. As she put it: “I’m talking principally about white women — they [were] under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends.” Hush Money for Peccadilloes Simply Is Not a Campaign Finance Matter The payment of “hush money” to shut a woman up is sordid. The very need for “hush money” implies a predicate sordid deed. For those among the electorate who do not know millionaires and billionaires, “hush money” seems foreign indeed. It costs a bunch of cash to buy someone’s silence. But among those who are perhaps too rich for their own good, it is part of the cost of their doing business in circles where they believe themselves above all others, invincible, invulnerable, and beyond reproach. The New York Times reported that actress and director Asia Argento, fittingly a leading voice in the #MeToo movement, is accused of paying $380,000 hush money to one Jimmy Bennett, who claims she sexually assaulted him in a hotel room when he was 17. That buys a lot of hush. The Chicago Tribune describes a Congressional Hush Money Fund to protect our paid legislators — your tax dollars at work. At least $17 million was spent to shut the mouths of those whose mouths politically needed to be shut. Rep. John Conyers paid hush money from a separate fund to keep his lady friends immersed in hush. CBS paid more than $5 million in hush money over twenty years to a woman who accused 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt (pronounced: You it!). Charlie Sheen, the former NBC star, paid millions in hush money after engaging in more peccadilloes than, say, two and a half men. MSNBC paid hush money to protect Hardball Chris Matthews when, on an occasion separate from the time a thrill ran up his leg, he was accused. MSNBC also issued a formal reprimand. Fox News paid hush money for years to people who proffered allegations against Bill O’Reilly. The payment of hush money by celebrities, sports stars, and multi-millionaires and billionaires has nothing to do with election campaign donations. It is about keeping secrets from a wife or husband who otherwise would walk out of a marriage if he or she found out. Or it aims to keep the publicity away from the children because the kinds of people who have the wherewithal to pay hush money for peccadilloes are the kinds whose scandals will hit the media circuit. Celebrities in more wholesome American times did not want the public to know they cavorted disgracefully because they feared losing their movie followings and careers. A Los Angeles Laker basketball player had to buy his wife a rare $4 million eight-carat purple-diamond ring after news emerged that he had cheated on her in an Edwards, Colorado hotel room; a few years after the ring lost its glitter, she filed for divorce anyway. Donald Sterling, another Los Angeles basketball legend, gave one of his girlfriends $500,000 in luxury cars and a $1.8 million home; when his wife found out, she sued to regain her half of it in community-property California. The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH/Rainbow Coalition paid money to Karin Stanford after she had his baby; payments included $15,000 to move and $21,000 for consulting services, but they rescinded another promised $40,000 in contracting work when the affair became known. It is beyond absurd to suggest that any hush money paid to the pole dancer with the implants by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney from his pre-Presidential years, was intended as a campaign expenditure. It plainly was to guard Trump’s innocent wife from embarrassment, protect his marriage, spare his children from seeing a sordid report in the news about a side of their Dad that they already had to know or suspect. Alas, in the heightened cynical age in which this unfolds, Democrats are primed to leverage their new House majority to search for impeachable offenses in all this. It is that absurd. Who Will Call the Democrats Bluff and Dare Them Finally to Put Up or Hush Up on Impeachment? At some point, sooner or later, perhaps Trump supporters will come to root for impeachment proceedings finally to begin. Impeach 45? Bring it on! Impeachments of American presidents never really are about high crimes or misdemeanors. (U.S. Const. Art. II, § 4.) Rather, they are political theater. When the Republican Abraham Lincoln was murdered after emancipating African American slaves, he was succeeded by Democrat Andrew Johnson, the Southerner from eastern Tennessee whom Lincoln had named as his running mate to balance his ticket. The northern Republicans who dominated the Congress as the Civil War ended were determined to remove Johnson, and they easily had the votes in the House to impeach. They needed two-thirds in the Senate to convict, and they fell one vote short (35-19) when Edmund G. Ross of Kansas voted his conscience, as did nine other Republicans. President Johnson had fired his Secretary of War, Edwin McMasters Stanton, and subsequent legislation and United States Supreme Court jurisprudence strongly tend to uphold a President’s authority to remove cabinet officials and others without Congressional approval. See, e.g., Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). A similar impeachment effort against President Clinton in December 1998, again politically motivated and somewhat botched, generated mixed political results. His name was sullied and his reputation, like Ms. Lewinsky’s dress, was stained, but he emerged politically whole and a prized Democrat star for another two decades even though he never received 50 percent of the vote in either of his two Presidential races. On the other hand, the Clinton scandals may have helped elect George W. Bush President in 2000, as Al Gore avoided having Clinton help campaign for him, and Bush was seen as more morally fit to lead the nation. If the Democrats ever truly proceed with bills of impeachment aimed at President Trump, whether based on hush money payments that predate Mr. Trump’s presidency or on his pre-Presidential entrepreneurial interest in building a Trump hotel in Moscow or on his proper wielding of his executive authority to fire James Comey, a leaking political partisan who really needed to be removed from a compromised Federal Bureau of Investigation, they presumably will have the votes to send the allegations to the Senate. We know from the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton that it does not matter a whit whether it is a high crime or misdemeanor for a President to fire a Secretary of War or to lie about his secret rendezvous with a woman about whom his wife is not supposed to know. Rather, Presidential impeachment is pure Swamp Politics, bought and paid for with our tax dollars. The United States Senate never will come even close to mustering the required two-thirds vote to convict President Trump for any actions pre-dating his election, and they probably would not dare convict for anything he has done or will do since his election either, unless it truly and unequivocally constitutes a bona fide high crime or misdemeanor. Not one single Democrat Senator voted to convict President Clinton, and no Republican Senator will vote to convict Mr. Trump. The two Republican Senate “Never Trumpers” — Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona — will be long gone, and any Republican Senator who would vote for conviction would follow. The more radical Democrats — Spartacus, Bernie, Pocahontas, and Company — would play politics for their bases and vote to convict. However, other Senate Democrats like Doug Jones of Alabama, who faces a brutal reelection campaign in 2020 when Mr. Trump will be heading the national Republican ticket and Roy Moore will not be the Republicans’ Alabama Senate nominee, probably will vote with the Republicans and for Mr. Trump in the same way that Joe Manchin saw the light momentarily and broke Democrat ranks to hold his West Virginia Senate seat by voting to confirm the Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. In the end, suburban Caucasian swing voters will be left wondering why they gave the Democrats the House in 2018, only to see promises about focusing on fixing health care and immigration get diverted so that the Democrats’ increasingly radical Left base could realize their pointless and ultimately fizzled impeachment aspirations. Perhaps the better hush money will be allocated to silencing those bombastic Democrats endlessly trying to find in every day’s news an excuse to threaten impeachment. In time, the inevitable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well be cooing behind closed doors to her sister California House Democrat, paraphrasing the title of a film about two insane women: Hush, hush, sweet Maxine.

www.spectator.org

right

Z557UnyqF7XUDgeL

test

suln7xomTo1qgsSZ

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/headline/trump-tennessee-democrats-trying/2018/10/02/id/884362/

In Tennessee, Trump Accuses Dems of Trying to Sink Kavanaugh

2018-10-02

Jill Colvin, Jonathan Lemire

As the fate of his Supreme Court pick hangs in the balance , President Donald Trump barnstormed Monday for a Republican Senate candidate in Tennessee , warning that Democrats will unleash havoc if they gain control of Congress and accusing them of trying to sink his nominee . `` A Democratic takeover of Congress will plunge our country into gridlock and chaos and take away all of the wealth that you 've earned over the last 20 months , '' Trump warned , claiming without evidence that the stock market would plummet , 401 ( k ) s disappear , taxes rise beyond `` your wildest imagination , '' and crime go through the roof . It was a dire picture painted by a president eager to convince his raucous supporters of what 's at stake in November as he headlined a high-dollar , closed-door fundraiser and appeared at a packed rally in Johnson City to boost U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn in her tight Senate race against the state 's Democratic ex-Gov . Phil Bredesen for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Bob Corker . Trump praised Blackburn as a `` true fighter '' for the state , telling the crowd , `` She 's all about Tennessee values . '' `` A vote for Marsha is really a vote for me , '' he said . Bredesen , like other Democratic candidates across Trump country , has painted himself as a pragmatist willing to work with the president on certain issues . The Tennessee campaign is among several closely watched races expected to determine control of the Senate , where Republicans are desperate to defend a narrow two-seat majority in the face of surging Democratic enthusiasm . And the stakes could n't be clearer . The rally came as the FBI investigated sexual misconduct allegations against Trump 's Supreme Court nominee , Brett Kavanaugh — a probe that was forced by a small group of undecided senators who could doom the nomination . Earlier Monday , Trump disputed reports that his White House tried to narrow the scope of the probe and limit which witnesses the FBI could interview , saying he wants them `` to do a very comprehensive investigation , whatever that means . '' But Trump was far less sympathetic in front of his enthusiastic rally crowd , accusing Democrats of trying to slow down the investigation and insisting that nothing will come of it . `` If we took 10 years , they 'd want more time , '' he complained , charging that Democratic senators are `` willing to do anything or hurt anyone '' to subvert his agenda , including taking down his nominee . `` They 're trying to destroy a very fine person , and we ca n't let it happen , '' Trump said . Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations now leveled by multiple women , including one who testified that he pinned her against a bed , groped her , tried to take her clothes off and covered her mouth to silence her when they were in high school . The rally was the first of a busy week of campaign travel for the president that will take him to states including Mississippi , Minnesota and Kansas . Previewing his own re-election playbook , Trump criticized a number of rumored 2020 presidential opponents , including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey , Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Vice President Joe Biden . `` We call him 1 percent Biden , '' said Trump , claiming that his political career was finished until former President Barack Obama `` took him off the trash heap . '' Trump , who railed against the North American Free Trade Agreement during his 2016 campaign , also hailed the revamped trade agreement with Canada and Mexico unveiled late Sunday , drawing loud cheers from his crowd . `` It 's fair , it 's modern and it 's balanced , '' Trump said . `` America 's winning again . '' But Trump spent far more time railing against `` radical Democrats , '' who he said had been `` in a blind rage '' since his election win . `` They 've gone crazy , '' he said . `` Trying to burn our future down . '' Blackburn 's contest , in a state that Trump won by 26 points , has drawn heavy interest from the White House , with repeat visits by both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence . Bredesen has tried to distance himself from the national Democratic Party , presenting himself as an independent thinker who will support Trump 's policies when they 're beneficial to the state . The former two-term governor , who would be the first Democrat to win a Senate campaign in Tennessee since Al Gore in 1990 if he 's victorious , has run TV ads in which he says that he 's `` not running against Donald Trump '' and learned long ago to `` separate the message from the messenger . '' He held an event Monday night in Chattanooga that he 'd hoped would be a debate with Blackburn , and he has been needling her for not agreeing to one there . `` Presidential visits are good for fundraising , but I 've found that Tennesseans are independent thinkers who can make up their own minds , '' Bredesen said in a statement after Trump 's visit . Trump , as he has in other states , argued that Bredesen is not the centrist he says he is and will wind up voting with Democratic leaders including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi if he gets to Washington . Republicans hold a narrow 51-49 advantage in the Senate and are trying to hold onto their majority .

As the fate of his Supreme Court pick hangs in the balance, President Donald Trump barnstormed Monday for a Republican Senate candidate in Tennessee, warning that Democrats will unleash havoc if they gain control of Congress and accusing them of trying to sink his nominee. "A Democratic takeover of Congress will plunge our country into gridlock and chaos and take away all of the wealth that you've earned over the last 20 months," Trump warned, claiming without evidence that the stock market would plummet, 401(k)s disappear, taxes rise beyond "your wildest imagination," and crime go through the roof. It was a dire picture painted by a president eager to convince his raucous supporters of what's at stake in November as he headlined a high-dollar, closed-door fundraiser and appeared at a packed rally in Johnson City to boost U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn in her tight Senate race against the state's Democratic ex-Gov. Phil Bredesen for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Bob Corker. Trump praised Blackburn as a "true fighter" for the state, telling the crowd, "She's all about Tennessee values." "A vote for Marsha is really a vote for me," he said. Bredesen, like other Democratic candidates across Trump country, has painted himself as a pragmatist willing to work with the president on certain issues. The Tennessee campaign is among several closely watched races expected to determine control of the Senate, where Republicans are desperate to defend a narrow two-seat majority in the face of surging Democratic enthusiasm. And the stakes couldn't be clearer. The rally came as the FBI investigated sexual misconduct allegations against Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh — a probe that was forced by a small group of undecided senators who could doom the nomination. Earlier Monday, Trump disputed reports that his White House tried to narrow the scope of the probe and limit which witnesses the FBI could interview, saying he wants them "to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means." But Trump was far less sympathetic in front of his enthusiastic rally crowd, accusing Democrats of trying to slow down the investigation and insisting that nothing will come of it. "If we took 10 years, they'd want more time," he complained, charging that Democratic senators are "willing to do anything or hurt anyone" to subvert his agenda, including taking down his nominee. "They're trying to destroy a very fine person, and we can't let it happen," Trump said. Kavanaugh has staunchly denied allegations now leveled by multiple women, including one who testified that he pinned her against a bed, groped her, tried to take her clothes off and covered her mouth to silence her when they were in high school. The rally was the first of a busy week of campaign travel for the president that will take him to states including Mississippi, Minnesota and Kansas. Previewing his own re-election playbook, Trump criticized a number of rumored 2020 presidential opponents, including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Vice President Joe Biden. "We call him 1 percent Biden," said Trump, claiming that his political career was finished until former President Barack Obama "took him off the trash heap." Trump, who railed against the North American Free Trade Agreement during his 2016 campaign, also hailed the revamped trade agreement with Canada and Mexico unveiled late Sunday, drawing loud cheers from his crowd. "It's fair, it's modern and it's balanced," Trump said. "America's winning again." But Trump spent far more time railing against "radical Democrats," who he said had been "in a blind rage" since his election win. "They've gone crazy," he said. "Trying to burn our future down." Blackburn's contest, in a state that Trump won by 26 points, has drawn heavy interest from the White House, with repeat visits by both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Bredesen has tried to distance himself from the national Democratic Party, presenting himself as an independent thinker who will support Trump's policies when they're beneficial to the state. The former two-term governor, who would be the first Democrat to win a Senate campaign in Tennessee since Al Gore in 1990 if he's victorious, has run TV ads in which he says that he's "not running against Donald Trump" and learned long ago to "separate the message from the messenger." He held an event Monday night in Chattanooga that he'd hoped would be a debate with Blackburn, and he has been needling her for not agreeing to one there. "Presidential visits are good for fundraising, but I've found that Tennesseans are independent thinkers who can make up their own minds," Bredesen said in a statement after Trump's visit. Trump, as he has in other states, argued that Bredesen is not the centrist he says he is and will wind up voting with Democratic leaders including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi if he gets to Washington. Republicans hold a narrow 51-49 advantage in the Senate and are trying to hold onto their majority.

www.newsmax.com

right

suln7xomTo1qgsSZ

test

v6m1w2QDbxFifw4K

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/10/reporters-pushing-conspiracy-theory-republicans-wont-leave-white-house-donald-trump/

Liberal Reporters Are Pushing A Conspiracy Theory That Has Plagued Republican Presidents For Decades

2020-06-10

For years , mainstream reporters and various publications have suggested that Republican presidents might attempt to stay in the White House even if they aren ’ t reelected , and the 2020 election is proving to be no different . The conspiracy theory was pushed as recently as June 8 , when New Yorker writer Dexter Filkens wondered aloud what would happen “ if the president [ Donald Trump ] refuses to leave the White House. ” Filkens , well known for his work as a war correspondent for The New York Times , made the comment during a discussion with MSNBC ’ s Chris Hayes on why Trump went into the White House bunker on May 29 . “ I think the real — I think the real question here is November and what ’ s going to happen in November , ” Filkens said on “ All In with Chris Hayes . ” “ And , you know , what if we have a close election that ’ s contested ? What happens then ? What happens if the president refuses to leave the White House ? ” Despite there being no solid proof that Trump would refuse to leave the White House if he loses the 2020 election , Hayes didn ’ t push back on the theory . Filkens suggested Monday was “ a bit of a dry run in terms of a stress test of various parts of the institutional integrity of the nation should the president try to do something wildly in breaking with American democratic traditions , ” as Hayes summed up . Filkens added that he spoke to numerous generals about the situation and many said “ there will be no dispute ” even amid a contested election . Filkens said he doesn ’ t think this is “ the whole story ” and pointed out that one general he talked to “ was really concerned about ” if America has “ a close election . ” The Atlantic has also pushed this question , publishing an article in February 2020 wondering what would happen if the president refused to leave after an election loss . Even former Democratic candidates like former South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg entertained the idea , The Hill reported that same month . Will the Military Allow President Trump to Use It for Political Advantage ? | The New Yorker — “ The fear is that [ if he loses the election ] President Trump refuses to leave , and National Guard troops surround the White House [ to back him up ] . ” https : //t.co/pvjG7t7gVw — csdickey ( @ csdickey ) June 7 , 2020 MSNBC ’ s Glenn Kirschner : If Trump Refuses To Leave After Losing , Cops Will ‘ Drag His Flabby Butt Out ’ of White House https : //t.co/9orVqt5kZ1 — Mediaite ( @ Mediaite ) June 5 , 2020 These reports are far from the first suggesting that a Republican president may refuse to concede his position . Incumbent President George W. Bush made headlines leading up to the 2004 election when it was discovered that U.S. officials had “ discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day , ” CNN reported . Bush ’ s then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice attempted to squash claims that Bush was trying to postpone the election , but reporters and publications still appeared to push the theory . “ We ’ ve had elections in this country when we were at war , even when we were in civil war , and we should have the elections on time . That ’ s the view of the president . That ’ s the view of the administration , ” Rice said according to CNN . “ No one is thinking of postponing the elections . ” The World Socialist Web Site headlined a 2004 article as “ Bush administration takes steps to cancel US election . ” “ The request by Bush administration officials for a detailed analysis of the legal steps that would be necessary to postpone the 2004 election represents an implicit threat to abrogate the US Constitution , dispense with democratic rights , and establish a dictatorship based on the military and police , ” WSWS wrote , continuing on to claim that Rice ’ s response occurred during “ an apparently rehearsed exchange with anchorman Wolf Blitzer . ” Michael R. Isikoff , currently the chief investigative correspondent at Yahoo ! News , broke the news that officials were “ reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of ” a terrorist attack . Isikoff was a reporter for Newsweek at the time . Amy Goodman , the executive producer of Democracy Now ! , interviewed Isikoff about the news . The interview did not mention Rice ’ s assurance that the talks did not mean Bush was trying to postpone the election . “ Could Bush Cancel the Election ? ” Goodman ’ s interview with Isikoff was headlined . The conspiracy theory did not stop there . Just four years later , Bush was again subject to questions about if he would attempt to postpone the election and remain as president . Goodman produced a segment on Democracy Now ! exploring whether Bush had stolen the 2004 election , another theory that has not seen any substantial proof behind it . “ Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election ? ” an article on Common Dreams wondered . This article claimed that the administration had “ both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election . ” “ Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention . The real question is not how or when they might do it . It ’ s how , realistically , we can stop them , ” the article continued . Common Dreams ’ article continued on to describe various precedents that would allegedly be important “ should Team Bush envision a defeat in the 2008 election and decide to call it off. ” Similarly , The Nation published an editorial “ humor ” article envisioning a world in which Bush did , in fact , postpone the election . “ President Bush , citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs , today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order ‘ to protect the American people in our war on terror , ' ” the article joked . The conspiracy theory for the 2008 election was apparently widespread enough for The Times to run an op-ed regarding the claim . “ Here is the latest big-picture conspiracy theory , which has been gathering strength on the blogosphere the way a hurricane feeds on Caribbean waters : It is widely believed , both online and , increasingly , offline , that the Bush administration intends to declare martial law and postpone next month ’ s elections . To prevent Barack Obama ’ s inevitable ascension to the Oval Office , obviously , ” writer Alex Beam explained . Beam described this now long-standing conspiracy as a “ theory/rumor/delusion ” and even pointed out a bookkeeper who had made “ odds that the American election will be postponed. ” Beam noted that , among others , the conspiracy theory was raised as far back as Republican President Richard Nixon ’ s time in office . “ We ’ ve seen this movie before , right ? Writer Ron Rosenbaum remembers a 1972 story averring that Richard Nixon asked the RAND Corporation to study whether he could postpone that election , which he won , handily , ” Beam wrote . “ The financial meltdown evokes Americans ’ longtime fear and hatred of bankers , and people on the right think Obama ’ s candidacy might mean the end of civilization , ” University of California historian Kathryn Olmsted said according to The Times op-ed . “ What ’ s scary to the left right now is that Obama has a good chance of winning , and there is a segment of the far left that thinks ‘ they ’ will never let this happen . ”

For years, mainstream reporters and various publications have suggested that Republican presidents might attempt to stay in the White House even if they aren’t reelected, and the 2020 election is proving to be no different. The conspiracy theory was pushed as recently as June 8, when New Yorker writer Dexter Filkens wondered aloud what would happen “if the president [Donald Trump] refuses to leave the White House.” Filkens, well known for his work as a war correspondent for The New York Times, made the comment during a discussion with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on why Trump went into the White House bunker on May 29. “I think the real — I think the real question here is November and what’s going to happen in November,” Filkens said on “All In with Chris Hayes.” “And, you know, what if we have a close election that’s contested? What happens then? What happens if the president refuses to leave the White House?” WATCH: Despite there being no solid proof that Trump would refuse to leave the White House if he loses the 2020 election, Hayes didn’t push back on the theory. Filkens suggested Monday was “a bit of a dry run in terms of a stress test of various parts of the institutional integrity of the nation should the president try to do something wildly in breaking with American democratic traditions,” as Hayes summed up. Filkens added that he spoke to numerous generals about the situation and many said “there will be no dispute” even amid a contested election. Filkens said he doesn’t think this is “the whole story” and pointed out that one general he talked to “was really concerned about” if America has “a close election.” The Atlantic has also pushed this question, publishing an article in February 2020 wondering what would happen if the president refused to leave after an election loss. Even former Democratic candidates like former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg entertained the idea, The Hill reported that same month. Will the Military Allow President Trump to Use It for Political Advantage? | The New Yorker — “The fear is that [if he loses the election] President Trump refuses to leave, and National Guard troops surround the White House [to back him up].” https://t.co/pvjG7t7gVw — csdickey (@csdickey) June 7, 2020 MSNBC’s Glenn Kirschner: If Trump Refuses To Leave After Losing, Cops Will ‘Drag His Flabby Butt Out’ of White House https://t.co/9orVqt5kZ1 — Mediaite (@Mediaite) June 5, 2020 These reports are far from the first suggesting that a Republican president may refuse to concede his position. Incumbent President George W. Bush made headlines leading up to the 2004 election when it was discovered that U.S. officials had “discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day,” CNN reported. Bush’s then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice attempted to squash claims that Bush was trying to postpone the election, but reporters and publications still appeared to push the theory. “We’ve had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war, and we should have the elections on time. That’s the view of the president. That’s the view of the administration,” Rice said according to CNN. “No one is thinking of postponing the elections.” The World Socialist Web Site headlined a 2004 article as “Bush administration takes steps to cancel US election.” “The request by Bush administration officials for a detailed analysis of the legal steps that would be necessary to postpone the 2004 election represents an implicit threat to abrogate the US Constitution, dispense with democratic rights, and establish a dictatorship based on the military and police,” WSWS wrote, continuing on to claim that Rice’s response occurred during “an apparently rehearsed exchange with anchorman Wolf Blitzer.” Michael R. Isikoff, currently the chief investigative correspondent at Yahoo! News, broke the news that officials were “reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of” a terrorist attack. Isikoff was a reporter for Newsweek at the time. Amy Goodman, the executive producer of Democracy Now!, interviewed Isikoff about the news. The interview did not mention Rice’s assurance that the talks did not mean Bush was trying to postpone the election. “Could Bush Cancel the Election?” Goodman’s interview with Isikoff was headlined. The conspiracy theory did not stop there. Just four years later, Bush was again subject to questions about if he would attempt to postpone the election and remain as president. Goodman produced a segment on Democracy Now! exploring whether Bush had stolen the 2004 election, another theory that has not seen any substantial proof behind it. “Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election?” an article on Common Dreams wondered. This article claimed that the administration had “both the inclination and the power to cancel the 2008 election.” “Those who think this crew will quietly walk away from power are simply not paying attention. The real question is not how or when they might do it. It’s how, realistically, we can stop them,” the article continued. Common Dreams’ article continued on to describe various precedents that would allegedly be important “should Team Bush envision a defeat in the 2008 election and decide to call it off.” Similarly, The Nation published an editorial “humor” article envisioning a world in which Bush did, in fact, postpone the election. “President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order ‘to protect the American people in our war on terror,'” the article joked. The conspiracy theory for the 2008 election was apparently widespread enough for The Times to run an op-ed regarding the claim. “Here is the latest big-picture conspiracy theory, which has been gathering strength on the blogosphere the way a hurricane feeds on Caribbean waters: It is widely believed, both online and, increasingly, offline, that the Bush administration intends to declare martial law and postpone next month’s elections. To prevent Barack Obama’s inevitable ascension to the Oval Office, obviously,” writer Alex Beam explained. Beam described this now long-standing conspiracy as a “theory/rumor/delusion” and even pointed out a bookkeeper who had made “odds that the American election will be postponed.” Beam noted that, among others, the conspiracy theory was raised as far back as Republican President Richard Nixon’s time in office. “We’ve seen this movie before, right? Writer Ron Rosenbaum remembers a 1972 story averring that Richard Nixon asked the RAND Corporation to study whether he could postpone that election, which he won, handily,” Beam wrote. “The financial meltdown evokes Americans’ longtime fear and hatred of bankers, and people on the right think Obama’s candidacy might mean the end of civilization,” University of California historian Kathryn Olmsted said according to The Times op-ed. “What’s scary to the left right now is that Obama has a good chance of winning, and there is a segment of the far left that thinks ‘they’ will never let this happen.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

v6m1w2QDbxFifw4K

test

Av375isX52QIoutM

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38913709

Reality check: Is Donald Trump's cabinet facing historic obstruction?

Anthony Zurcher, North America Reporter

The claim : It has taken longer for Donald Trump to have his `` full cabinet '' confirmed than any president in US history . Reality Check Verdict : Democrats have slow-walked many of Mr Trump 's presidential nominations . It has taken longer so far for him to get the majority of his choices confirmed , although part of that is due to the lateness of a few nominations and delays in submitting background-check paperwork . Mr Trump still has months to go , however , before he sets a record for how long it has taken to have all his cabinet positions filled . On 7 February Donald Trump tweeted that it was a `` disgrace '' that he did not have his full cabinet of top-level presidential appointments confirmed by the US Senate . He called it the `` longest such delay in the history of our country '' and blamed it on Democratic obstruction . His message echoed comments made by other prominent Republicans in Congress and his own administration . Press secretary Sean Spicer said the length of time it has taken to get Mr Trump 's presidential nominations confirmed was `` ridiculous '' . `` The Senate Democrats have done everything in their power to slow the work of the Senate , while the president continues to take decisive action , just like he promised , '' he said . Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said `` Democrat obstruction has reached new extreme levels '' , which he called a `` historic break with tradition '' . `` It 's time to finally accept the results of the election and move on , '' he added . At its most basic level , Mr Trump 's tweet about the historic nature of the delays in assembling his `` full cabinet '' is demonstrably false . As of 8 February , Mr Trump has had six of his 15 cabinet selections confirmed by the Senate , with several more awaiting final Senate approval . While he still has a way to go before his entire team is in place , it 's hardly historic at this point . Bill Clinton did n't have his final spot filled until 11 March . Republican George HW Bush took until 17 March . Barack Obama holds the modern record , as his last pick - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - did n't get her Senate vote until 28 April . Only George W Bush , who like Mr Trump won the presidency without securing a plurality of the popular vote , had his full team in place within weeks of his inauguration , following John Ashcroft 's confirmation as attorney general on 30 January . While Mr Trump 's assertion is without basis in fact , he - and his fellow Republicans - are on firmer ground with a more general complaint about delayed confirmations . Of the past five presidencies , Mr Trump has by far the fewest confirmed cabinet selections at this point . Only two of his nominees - Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly - were approved on inauguration day . Mr Clinton had three , Mr Obama had six , and George W Bush had seven . By mid-February , Mr Obama had all but three of his picks seated . Mr Clinton had all but one . George HW Bush was missing four . Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition . George HW Bush 's defence pick , John Tower , was voted down by the Senate . Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno . Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once . So far , Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times . Puzder is n't the only one of Mr Trump 's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics ' vetting paperwork , which has contributed to confirmation delays . Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements . Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks . He did n't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January . Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact , considering of Mr Trump 's four predecessors , only four original nominations came after New Year 's Day ( George HW Bush 's energy pick James Watkins was the latest , on 12 January ) . This is n't to discount the obvious efforts Democrats have made to drag out the confirmation process for some Trump picks . They staged walk-outs at committee hearings for health and human services nominee Tom Price and treasury 's Steven Mnuchin , delaying approval votes by a day . They gave long speeches that held up votes for Mr Sessions in committee vote and Ms DeVos on the Senate floor . They 've used bits of arcane Senate procedure and parliamentary manoeuvres to gum up the works where they can - although , due to their minority status , they can only delay , not derail . Although the efforts have been futile , Democratic senators are voting `` no '' on Mr Trump 's nominees at an increasingly higher rate . More Democrats cast votes against Ms Devos than all previous education secretaries combined , dating back to the position 's creation in 1980 . There have been a total of 111 no votes in the five nominees who have come up for a full Senate vote so far - compared with only 18 in the entirety of Mr Clinton 's presidency . Mr Obama 's choices had 406 no votes , but that was over the course of eight years and 31 nominations . Democrats have also pumped up the anti-Trump rhetoric , throwing red meat to a Democratic base that is furious at any signs of compromise or accommodation . `` If not total unanimity , we 're going to have near Democratic unity in opposing the remaining nominees for President Trump 's cabinet , '' Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said on Monday . `` This unity makes clear just how bad this cabinet would be for America 's middle class and those struggling to get there . '' While Republicans cite statements like Schumer 's as examples of unprecedented Democratic intransigence , Democrats are quick to note that in the latter days of the Obama administration , conservatives were equally vigorous in their opposition to the president 's selections . Merrick Garland , whose Supreme Court nomination languished for 10 months before expiring without a hearing , is foremost in their minds , but even Mr Obama 's second-term cabinet picks faced record-breaking delays . His choice for labour secretary , Thomas Perez , took 121 days to be confirmed . John Bryson , his commerce pick , waited 126 days . Attorney General Loretta Lynch holds the modern record , as 161 days passed before getting Senate approval . If a Trump nominee had that sort of delay , he or she would n't assume office until well into June .

The claim: It has taken longer for Donald Trump to have his "full cabinet" confirmed than any president in US history. Reality Check Verdict: Democrats have slow-walked many of Mr Trump's presidential nominations. It has taken longer so far for him to get the majority of his choices confirmed, although part of that is due to the lateness of a few nominations and delays in submitting background-check paperwork. Mr Trump still has months to go, however, before he sets a record for how long it has taken to have all his cabinet positions filled. On 7 February Donald Trump tweeted that it was a "disgrace" that he did not have his full cabinet of top-level presidential appointments confirmed by the US Senate. He called it the "longest such delay in the history of our country" and blamed it on Democratic obstruction. His message echoed comments made by other prominent Republicans in Congress and his own administration. Press secretary Sean Spicer said the length of time it has taken to get Mr Trump's presidential nominations confirmed was "ridiculous". "The Senate Democrats have done everything in their power to slow the work of the Senate, while the president continues to take decisive action, just like he promised," he said. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said "Democrat obstruction has reached new extreme levels", which he called a "historic break with tradition". "It's time to finally accept the results of the election and move on," he added. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Do as I say, not as I do? At its most basic level, Mr Trump's tweet about the historic nature of the delays in assembling his "full cabinet" is demonstrably false. As of 8 February, Mr Trump has had six of his 15 cabinet selections confirmed by the Senate, with several more awaiting final Senate approval. While he still has a way to go before his entire team is in place, it's hardly historic at this point. Bill Clinton didn't have his final spot filled until 11 March. Republican George HW Bush took until 17 March. Barack Obama holds the modern record, as his last pick - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - didn't get her Senate vote until 28 April. Only George W Bush, who like Mr Trump won the presidency without securing a plurality of the popular vote, had his full team in place within weeks of his inauguration, following John Ashcroft's confirmation as attorney general on 30 January. While Mr Trump's assertion is without basis in fact, he - and his fellow Republicans - are on firmer ground with a more general complaint about delayed confirmations. Of the past five presidencies, Mr Trump has by far the fewest confirmed cabinet selections at this point. Only two of his nominees - Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly - were approved on inauguration day. Mr Clinton had three, Mr Obama had six, and George W Bush had seven. By mid-February, Mr Obama had all but three of his picks seated. Mr Clinton had all but one. George HW Bush was missing four. Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition. George HW Bush's defence pick, John Tower, was voted down by the Senate. Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno. Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once. So far, Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times. Puzder isn't the only one of Mr Trump's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics' vetting paperwork, which has contributed to confirmation delays. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements. Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks. He didn't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January. Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact, considering of Mr Trump's four predecessors, only four original nominations came after New Year's Day (George HW Bush's energy pick James Watkins was the latest, on 12 January). Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Empty Democrat seats during a committee vote on two cabinet nominee This isn't to discount the obvious efforts Democrats have made to drag out the confirmation process for some Trump picks. They staged walk-outs at committee hearings for health and human services nominee Tom Price and treasury's Steven Mnuchin, delaying approval votes by a day. They gave long speeches that held up votes for Mr Sessions in committee vote and Ms DeVos on the Senate floor. They've used bits of arcane Senate procedure and parliamentary manoeuvres to gum up the works where they can - although, due to their minority status, they can only delay, not derail. Although the efforts have been futile, Democratic senators are voting "no" on Mr Trump's nominees at an increasingly higher rate. More Democrats cast votes against Ms Devos than all previous education secretaries combined, dating back to the position's creation in 1980. There have been a total of 111 no votes in the five nominees who have come up for a full Senate vote so far - compared with only 18 in the entirety of Mr Clinton's presidency. Mr Obama's choices had 406 no votes, but that was over the course of eight years and 31 nominations. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Betsy DeVos confirmation took Vice President's Pence tiebreaker vote Democrats have also pumped up the anti-Trump rhetoric, throwing red meat to a Democratic base that is furious at any signs of compromise or accommodation. "If not total unanimity, we're going to have near Democratic unity in opposing the remaining nominees for President Trump's cabinet," Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said on Monday. "This unity makes clear just how bad this cabinet would be for America's middle class and those struggling to get there." While Republicans cite statements like Schumer's as examples of unprecedented Democratic intransigence, Democrats are quick to note that in the latter days of the Obama administration, conservatives were equally vigorous in their opposition to the president's selections. Merrick Garland, whose Supreme Court nomination languished for 10 months before expiring without a hearing, is foremost in their minds, but even Mr Obama's second-term cabinet picks faced record-breaking delays. His choice for labour secretary, Thomas Perez, took 121 days to be confirmed. John Bryson, his commerce pick, waited 126 days. Attorney General Loretta Lynch holds the modern record, as 161 days passed before getting Senate approval. If a Trump nominee had that sort of delay, he or she wouldn't assume office until well into June. Read more from Reality Check

www.bbc.com

center

Av375isX52QIoutM

test

Ld57N8m7eOI182TL

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/10/why_libertarianism_is_so_popular_on_the_right_its_the_last_bastion_of_white_male_dominance/

Libertarianism is for white men: The ugly truth about the right?s favorite movement

2015-06-10

Conor Lynch

Why are libertarians so overwhelmingly white and male ? This is a question that Jeet Heer of The New Republic explored last Friday , after a new CNN poll found that presidential hopeful Rand Paul , who happens to be the favorite among libertarians , is very competitive in the primaries amongst male voters , but almost completely rejected by females . This is a problem that has long haunted conservatism , but it is even more drastic for ultra-right wing libertarianism . In a 2014 Pew poll , it was found that about one in ten Americans describe themselves as libertarian , and men were more than twice as likely to be libertarians . In a 2013 Pew poll that Heer states in his article , it was found about two-thirds ( 68 percent ) of American ’ s who identify as libertarians are men , and 94 percent are non-hispanic whites . Compare this to `` steadfast conservatives , '' who were found to be 59 percent male and 87 percent white , or `` business conservatives , '' found to be 62 percent male and 85 percent white , according to another survey done by Pew . Clearly , the entire conservative movement is dominated by white males , but libertarians are the most male-dominated . Obviously this is a major problem for anyone who is hoping for libertarianism to take off in American politics . So why are libertarians mostly white guys ? Heer points out a few different possibilities that some libertarian writers have offered . One of them being that libertarianism has attracted many male-dominated subcultures , like computer programming ( think Silicon Valley ) , gaming , mens-rights activists , and organized humanism/Atheism , and another , argued by Katherine Mangu-Ward , that libertarianism has long been a fringe movement , and fringe movements tend to be dominated by men . Okay , so libertarianism attracts nerdy white males , but surely these are not the only ones making up the dedicated crowd ? While looking at the larger conservative movement , it becomes a bit more clear that the hostility towards government and collective movements in general tends to attract white males who want to preserve their dominance in a society where they are quickly becoming minorities . Take the following passage written by a young libertarian activist : “ [ E ] very piece of anti-discrimination legislation passed over the past few decades , ignores one of the basic , inalienable rights of man — the right to discriminate . [ Though ] eliminating racial and sexual prejudice [ had ] noble aspiration , [ anti-discrimination laws ] necessarily utilize the ignoble means of coercive force . ” That young activist ? Rand Paul in 1982 . Sure , that was more than three decades ago , and its not fair to go after someone for something they wrote back in those naive college days . But has Paul ’ s outlook changed at all ? Not really . In his now infamous interview with Rachel Maddow , he admitted that he had a major problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , particularly the provisions that “ harbor in on private businesses and their policies. ” In other words , he didn ’ t like the government telling businesses that they had to serve black people . According to libertarians , this is a clear violation of one 's freedom to discriminate ; that if a business owner does not want to serve a black person , that is their right . Of course this kind of philosophy is going to be very attractive to those racist business owners . Libertarianism is inherently opposed to collective movements , and collective movements have long fought to achieve equal rights for women , minorities , workers , etc . Is it any surprise that libertarianism attracts white ( and generally privileged ) men ? If we take a look at the larger conservative movement , a similar story presents itself . Last year , a study at Northwestern University found that white , independent-minded American ’ s tended to shift towards conservatism when they found out that demographic changes would be making them minorities . “ Perceived group-status threat , triggered by exposure to majority-minority shift , increases Whites ’ endorsement of conservative political ideology and policy positions , ” wrote the researchers , Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson . This study seems to confirm that conservatism , for many white Americans , is the last bastion of hope against the inevitable decline of white dominance . Libertarianism is especially alluring to these individuals , though there are cutthroat strifes within the libertarian movement itself , between the more studious and tolerant factions , like the folks at Reason magazine , and the more reactionary and bigoted groups , like the “ neo-Confederates , ” largely influenced by the libertarian writer Lew Rockwell . You may remember hearing about Rockwell because of his association with Ron Paul . Reason reported back in 2008 that Rockwell had ghostwritten Ron Paul ’ s newsletter , which had written some extremely distasteful and downright racist stuff , like the following comment on the L.A . Riots : “ Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks . ” So , while the libertarian movement as a whole is not inherently bigoted , and many believers despise intolerance , the ideology itself does attract many bigots who see the freedom-obsessed culture as a way to protect their “ right ” of intolerance , and crack down on collective movements that fight for equality . Many of these folks would like to return to the good old days , when robber barons and white men ruled . The free market ideology is particularly well-suited for the robber barons , while the freedom to discriminate comforts the neo-Confederates . Like the larger conservative movement , libertarianism is a sanctuary for nostalgic white males . Fortunately , nothing can prevent the white mans inevitable fall from dominance , and in the future , many white males may very well change their mind on the so-called `` right to discriminate . ''

Why are libertarians so overwhelmingly white and male? This is a question that Jeet Heer of The New Republic explored last Friday, after a new CNN poll found that presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who happens to be the favorite among libertarians, is very competitive in the primaries amongst male voters, but almost completely rejected by females. This is a problem that has long haunted conservatism, but it is even more drastic for ultra-right wing libertarianism. In a 2014 Pew poll, it was found that about one in ten Americans describe themselves as libertarian, and men were more than twice as likely to be libertarians. In a 2013 Pew poll that Heer states in his article, it was found about two-thirds (68 percent) of American’s who identify as libertarians are men, and 94 percent are non-hispanic whites. Compare this to "steadfast conservatives," who were found to be 59 percent male and 87 percent white, or "business conservatives," found to be 62 percent male and 85 percent white, according to another survey done by Pew. Clearly, the entire conservative movement is dominated by white males, but libertarians are the most male-dominated. Obviously this is a major problem for anyone who is hoping for libertarianism to take off in American politics. So why are libertarians mostly white guys? Heer points out a few different possibilities that some libertarian writers have offered. One of them being that libertarianism has attracted many male-dominated subcultures, like computer programming (think Silicon Valley), gaming, mens-rights activists, and organized humanism/Atheism, and another, argued by Katherine Mangu-Ward, that libertarianism has long been a fringe movement, and fringe movements tend to be dominated by men. Okay, so libertarianism attracts nerdy white males, but surely these are not the only ones making up the dedicated crowd? While looking at the larger conservative movement, it becomes a bit more clear that the hostility towards government and collective movements in general tends to attract white males who want to preserve their dominance in a society where they are quickly becoming minorities. Take the following passage written by a young libertarian activist: “[E]very piece of anti-discrimination legislation passed over the past few decades, ignores one of the basic, inalienable rights of man — the right to discriminate. [Though] eliminating racial and sexual prejudice [had] noble aspiration, [anti-discrimination laws] necessarily utilize the ignoble means of coercive force.” That young activist? Rand Paul in 1982. Sure, that was more than three decades ago, and its not fair to go after someone for something they wrote back in those naive college days. But has Paul’s outlook changed at all? Not really. In his now infamous interview with Rachel Maddow, he admitted that he had a major problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly the provisions that “harbor in on private businesses and their policies.” In other words, he didn’t like the government telling businesses that they had to serve black people. According to libertarians, this is a clear violation of one's freedom to discriminate; that if a business owner does not want to serve a black person, that is their right. Of course this kind of philosophy is going to be very attractive to those racist business owners. Advertisement: Libertarianism is inherently opposed to collective movements, and collective movements have long fought to achieve equal rights for women, minorities, workers, etc. Is it any surprise that libertarianism attracts white (and generally privileged) men? If we take a look at the larger conservative movement, a similar story presents itself. Last year, a study at Northwestern University found that white, independent-minded American’s tended to shift towards conservatism when they found out that demographic changes would be making them minorities. “Perceived group-status threat, triggered by exposure to majority-minority shift, increases Whites’ endorsement of conservative political ideology and policy positions,” wrote the researchers, Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson. This study seems to confirm that conservatism, for many white Americans, is the last bastion of hope against the inevitable decline of white dominance. Libertarianism is especially alluring to these individuals, though there are cutthroat strifes within the libertarian movement itself, between the more studious and tolerant factions, like the folks at Reason magazine, and the more reactionary and bigoted groups, like the “neo-Confederates,” largely influenced by the libertarian writer Lew Rockwell. You may remember hearing about Rockwell because of his association with Ron Paul. Reason reported back in 2008 that Rockwell had ghostwritten Ron Paul’s newsletter, which had written some extremely distasteful and downright racist stuff, like the following comment on the L.A. Riots: Advertisement: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” So, while the libertarian movement as a whole is not inherently bigoted, and many believers despise intolerance, the ideology itself does attract many bigots who see the freedom-obsessed culture as a way to protect their “right” of intolerance, and crack down on collective movements that fight for equality. Many of these folks would like to return to the good old days, when robber barons and white men ruled. The free market ideology is particularly well-suited for the robber barons, while the freedom to discriminate comforts the neo-Confederates. Like the larger conservative movement, libertarianism is a sanctuary for nostalgic white males. Fortunately, nothing can prevent the white mans inevitable fall from dominance, and in the future, many white males may very well change their mind on the so-called "right to discriminate."

www.salon.com

left

Ld57N8m7eOI182TL

test

ASin62Q8V08VW0WX

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-feinstein-emails/2015/03/08/id/628880/

Feinstein: Hillary Should 'Step Up and Come Out' on Emails

2015-03-08

Greg Richter

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has n't yet been hurt over her handling of disclosure that she conducted government business on personal email , but that might change if she does n't publicly address the issue , Sen. Dianne Feinstein said.In an appearance Sunday on `` Meet the Press , '' the California Democrat said she wants to see Clinton come forward and tell the public `` just what the situation is . `` Clinton is the `` pre-eminent political figure right now , '' Feinstein said , far outpolling any other possible Democratic presidential candidates for 2016 , and also mostly polling better than Republicans.For that reason , Feinstein said , Clinton should `` step up and come out and state exactly what the situation is . `` Clinton conducted all of her official communications through private email hosted on a server set up in her Chappaqua , New York home . That has led to criticism of using less-secure methods of transmitting potentially top-secret information as well as speculation she was controlling which emails were kept for official records.But Clinton has declined to talk about the issue except to post a late-night tweet on March 4 calling on the Justice Department to release her email `` as soon as possible . `` `` I think at this point , from this point on , the silence is going to hurt her , '' Feinstein said.Clinton says that she 's turned over all relevant emails — totaling 55,000 pages — to the State Department for review . She did not address the issue Saturday night during an event in Coral Gables , Florida , for the Clinton Global Initiative University . One of Clinton 's predecessors , former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he has retained none of the emails sent from his person email account during his tenure at the department in the first George W. Bush administration . `` I do n't have any to turn over , '' he said on Sunday . `` I did not keep a cache of them . I did not print them off . '' Powell added : `` A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system . They were addressed to State Department employees and the State.gov domain . But I do n't know if the servers ( for ) the State Department captured those or not . '' Powell said all the emails from his account were unclassified and most were `` pretty benign , so I 'm not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them . ''

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn't yet been hurt over her handling of disclosure that she conducted government business on personal email, but that might change if she doesn't publicly address the issue, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said.In an appearance Sunday on "Meet the Press," the California Democrat said she wants to see Clinton come forward and tell the public "just what the situation is."Clinton is the "pre-eminent political figure right now," Feinstein said, far outpolling any other possible Democratic presidential candidates for 2016, and also mostly polling better than Republicans.For that reason, Feinstein said, Clinton should "step up and come out and state exactly what the situation is."Clinton conducted all of her official communications through private email hosted on a server set up in her Chappaqua, New York home. That has led to criticism of using less-secure methods of transmitting potentially top-secret information as well as speculation she was controlling which emails were kept for official records.But Clinton has declined to talk about the issue except to post a late-night tweet on March 4 calling on the Justice Department to release her email "as soon as possible.""I think at this point, from this point on, the silence is going to hurt her," Feinstein said.Clinton says that she's turned over all relevant emails — totaling 55,000 pages — to the State Department for review. She did not address the issue Saturday night during an event in Coral Gables, Florida, for the Clinton Global Initiative University. One of Clinton's predecessors, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he has retained none of the emails sent from his person email account during his tenure at the department in the first George W. Bush administration. "I don't have any to turn over," he said on Sunday. "I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off." Powell added: "A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the State.gov domain. But I don't know if the servers (for) the State Department captured those or not." Powell said all the emails from his account were unclassified and most were "pretty benign, so I'm not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them." Powell made his comments on ABC's "This Week."

www.newsmax.com

right

ASin62Q8V08VW0WX

test

VdXDikR30xCRY3kd

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-reignites-gay-marriage-debate/story?id=17915540

Supreme Court Decision to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases Reignites Debate

Alexandra Dukakis, David Kerley

The Supreme Court 's announcement that it would hear two cases challenging laws prohibiting same-sex marriage has reinvigorated one of the most hotly contentious social debates in American history , a debate that has been fueled by a dramatic change in attitudes . With some states taking significant steps towards legalizing gay marriage , the hearings come at a critical moment . This week in Washington State , hundreds of same-sex couples lined up to collect marriage licenses after Gov . Christine Gregoire announced the passing of a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage . `` For the past 20 years we 've been saying just one more step . Just one more fight . Just one more law . But now we can stop saying 'Just one more . ' This is it . We are here . We did it , '' Gregoire told a group of Referendum 74 supporters during the law 's certification . Washington is just the most recent of several states to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage , signifying a significant departure from previous thinking on the controversial subject . A study by the Pew Research Center on changing attitudes on gay marriage showed that in 2001 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage , while 35 percent of Americans supported it . The same poll shows that today opinions have greatly shifted to reflect slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition -- with 48 percent of Americans in favor and 43 percent opposed . In fact , just two years ago , 48 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage while only 42 percent supported it -- indicating that opinions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years alone . Check Out Same-Sex Marriage Status in the U.S. State By State It 's hard to imagine that only 16 years ago , the fervent gay marriage debate led to the conception of the Defense of Marriage Act , which defines marriage as a union solely held between a man and a woman . While debating the Defense of Marriage Act in September 1996 , former Sen. Robert Byrd said : `` If same-sex marriage is accepted , then the announcement will be official : America will have said that children do not need a mother and a father . Two mothers or two fathers will be OK . It 'll be just as good . This would be a catastrophe . '' Even a few short years ago a newly-elected President Obama did not support the legalization of gay marriage . It was n't until earlier this year , at the end of hiss first term and with the impending election in sight , that the president told ABC 's Robin Roberts the he 'd `` been going through an evolution on this issue . '' Obama went on to attribute his shift in stance to the influence of his daughters . `` You know , Malia and Sasha , they 've got friends whose parents are same-sex couples . It would n't dawn on them that somehow their friends ' parents would be treated differently , '' he said . `` That 's the kind of thing that prompts -- a change in perspective . '' Obama is n't the only one to experience an evolution in thinking on the matter of gay marriage . Attitudes towards same-sex marriage have shifted dramatically over the past decade across the board , particularly in the past few years . Gone are the days when a majority of people opposed same-sex marriage ; the days when gay politicians and supporters of same-sex marriage could not get elected . Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com Today , nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex unions -- a number likely considered inconceivable just a few short years ago . And yet , the same-sex marriage debate still begs for the answering of a question : Will this newfound public opinion , largely driven by young people , women and Democrats , have an effect on the Supreme Court 's ultimate decision on the matter ? `` I think ( gay marriage is ) just not a big deal for a lot of young people , '' Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center says . `` The justices are human beings so they 're not completely immune to public opinion . ... I think the real question for them is going to be do they want to be on the wrong side of history ? ''

The Supreme Court's announcement that it would hear two cases challenging laws prohibiting same-sex marriage has reinvigorated one of the most hotly contentious social debates in American history, a debate that has been fueled by a dramatic change in attitudes. With some states taking significant steps towards legalizing gay marriage, the hearings come at a critical moment. This week in Washington State, hundreds of same-sex couples lined up to collect marriage licenses after Gov. Christine Gregoire announced the passing of a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage. "For the past 20 years we've been saying just one more step. Just one more fight. Just one more law. But now we can stop saying 'Just one more.' This is it. We are here. We did it," Gregoire told a group of Referendum 74 supporters during the law's certification. Washington is just the most recent of several states to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, signifying a significant departure from previous thinking on the controversial subject. READ: Court to Take Up Same-Sex Marriage A study by the Pew Research Center on changing attitudes on gay marriage showed that in 2001 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while 35 percent of Americans supported it. The same poll shows that today opinions have greatly shifted to reflect slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition -- with 48 percent of Americans in favor and 43 percent opposed. In fact, just two years ago, 48 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage while only 42 percent supported it -- indicating that opinions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years alone. Check Out Same-Sex Marriage Status in the U.S. State By State It's hard to imagine that only 16 years ago, the fervent gay marriage debate led to the conception of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union solely held between a man and a woman. While debating the Defense of Marriage Act in September 1996, former Sen. Robert Byrd said: "If same-sex marriage is accepted, then the announcement will be official: America will have said that children do not need a mother and a father. Two mothers or two fathers will be OK. It'll be just as good. This would be a catastrophe." Even a few short years ago a newly-elected President Obama did not support the legalization of gay marriage. It wasn't until earlier this year, at the end of hiss first term and with the impending election in sight, that the president told ABC's Robin Roberts the he'd "been going through an evolution on this issue." Obama went on to attribute his shift in stance to the influence of his daughters. "You know, Malia and Sasha, they've got friends whose parents are same-sex couples. It wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently," he said. "That's the kind of thing that prompts -- a change in perspective." Obama isn't the only one to experience an evolution in thinking on the matter of gay marriage. Attitudes towards same-sex marriage have shifted dramatically over the past decade across the board, particularly in the past few years. Gone are the days when a majority of people opposed same-sex marriage; the days when gay politicians and supporters of same-sex marriage could not get elected. Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com Today, nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex unions -- a number likely considered inconceivable just a few short years ago. And yet, the same-sex marriage debate still begs for the answering of a question: Will this newfound public opinion, largely driven by young people, women and Democrats, have an effect on the Supreme Court's ultimate decision on the matter? "I think (gay marriage is) just not a big deal for a lot of young people," Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center says. "The justices are human beings so they're not completely immune to public opinion. ... I think the real question for them is going to be do they want to be on the wrong side of history?"

www.abcnews.go.com

left

VdXDikR30xCRY3kd

test

i2WvIDqEdHtwjwjR

environment

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/greta-thunberg-wouldnt-wasted-time-talking-president-trump/story?id=67983324

Greta Thunberg 'wouldn't have wasted my time' talking to President Trump about climate change

Catherine Thorbecke

Greta Thunberg 'would n't have wasted my time ' talking to President Trump about climate change The teen said speaking to the U.S. leader about climate change would be futile . Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg says she `` would n't have wasted my time '' speaking to President Donald Trump about climate change . The Swedish 16-year-old , who has been traveling the globe , speaking to world leaders and organizing marches to raise awareness for the impacts of climate change , told the BBC 's Today radio program that she did n't see the point of trying to talk to the U.S. leader about it . While she almost bumped into him at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in September , Thunberg told the BBC that if she did come face-to-face with Trump , `` I do n't think I would have said anything because he 's obviously not listening to scientists and experts , why would he listen to me ? '' `` I probably would n't have said anything , would n't have wasted my time , '' she added . Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg watches as President Donald Trump enters the United Nations to speak with reporters in a still image from video taken in New York , Sept. 23 , 2019 . Andrew Hofstetter/Reuters , FILE The teen said she thinks Trump may see the growing climate movement among young people as a `` threat . '' `` Me , myself alone am not much of a threat , but it 's that I 'm a part of a big movement that they probably see as a threat , '' she said . Trump has come after the teen before on social media , tweeting that it is `` so ridiculous '' that Thunberg was selected as Time magazine 's 2019 person of the year and telling her to `` chill . '' `` Greta must work on her Anger Management problem , then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend ! '' the president wrote . `` Chill Greta , Chill ! '' Thunberg seemed to take it in stride . Shortly after , Thunberg changed her Twitter bio to read : `` A teenager working on her anger management problem . Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend . '' While Thunberg has become a symbol of the youth-led climate change movement calling for urgent action , the Trump administration in recent years has taken steps to show it does not consider climate change a priority , including withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement . Trump is n't the only world leader to have attacked the teen . President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil famously called her a `` brat '' earlier this month after she expressed concern for the slaying of indigenous people in the Amazon . `` Those attacks are just funny , '' Thunberg told the BBC of the personal attacks . `` It means they are terrified of young people bringing change , which they do n't want , but that is just a proof that we are actually doing something and they see us as some kind of threat . '' Despite the international attention , Thunberg said she hopes to return to school soon after her gap year of activism and lead a `` normal '' life . `` I am really looking forward to going back to school and I just want to be as everyone else , '' she said . `` I want to just be a normal teenager , but of course this is n't a normal situation . ''

Greta Thunberg 'wouldn't have wasted my time' talking to President Trump about climate change The teen said speaking to the U.S. leader about climate change would be futile. Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg says she "wouldn't have wasted my time" speaking to President Donald Trump about climate change. The Swedish 16-year-old, who has been traveling the globe, speaking to world leaders and organizing marches to raise awareness for the impacts of climate change, told the BBC's Today radio program that she didn't see the point of trying to talk to the U.S. leader about it. While she almost bumped into him at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in September, Thunberg told the BBC that if she did come face-to-face with Trump, "I don't think I would have said anything because he's obviously not listening to scientists and experts, why would he listen to me?" "I probably wouldn't have said anything, wouldn't have wasted my time," she added. Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg watches as President Donald Trump enters the United Nations to speak with reporters in a still image from video taken in New York, Sept. 23, 2019. Andrew Hofstetter/Reuters, FILE The teen said she thinks Trump may see the growing climate movement among young people as a "threat." "Me, myself alone am not much of a threat, but it's that I'm a part of a big movement that they probably see as a threat," she said. Trump has come after the teen before on social media, tweeting that it is "so ridiculous" that Thunberg was selected as Time magazine's 2019 person of the year and telling her to "chill." "Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend!" the president wrote. "Chill Greta, Chill!" Thunberg seemed to take it in stride. Shortly after, Thunberg changed her Twitter bio to read: "A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend." President Donald Trump briefly attends United Nations Climate Action Summit on Sept. 23, 2019, in New York. Spencer Platt/Getty Images, FILE While Thunberg has become a symbol of the youth-led climate change movement calling for urgent action, the Trump administration in recent years has taken steps to show it does not consider climate change a priority, including withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump isn't the only world leader to have attacked the teen. President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil famously called her a "brat" earlier this month after she expressed concern for the slaying of indigenous people in the Amazon. "Those attacks are just funny," Thunberg told the BBC of the personal attacks. "It means they are terrified of young people bringing change, which they don't want, but that is just a proof that we are actually doing something and they see us as some kind of threat." Greta Thunberg speaks at the United Nations where world leaders are holding a summit on climate change, Sept. 23, 2019, in New York. Spencer Platt/Getty Images, FILE Despite the international attention, Thunberg said she hopes to return to school soon after her gap year of activism and lead a "normal" life. "I am really looking forward to going back to school and I just want to be as everyone else," she said. "I want to just be a normal teenager, but of course this isn't a normal situation."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

i2WvIDqEdHtwjwjR

test

yrjbmdPVUoDSsl3R

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police/four-minneapolis-policemen-fired-after-death-of-unarmed-black-man-idUSKBN23234W

Four Minneapolis policemen fired after death of unarmed black man

2020-05-27

Eric Miller

MINNEAPOLIS ( ███ ) - Four Minneapolis police officers were fired on Tuesday over the death of an unarmed black man seen in a video lying face down in the street , gasping for air and groaning , “ I can ’ t breathe , ” while a white officer knelt on his neck for several minutes . Hours after the officers ’ dismissals were announced , thousands of protesters filled the streets around the scene of Monday evening ’ s deadly incident in a boisterous but peaceful rally . Many in the crowd wore facial coverings to protect against spread of the coronavirus . But the gathering took an unruly turn around dusk as police in riot gear fired tear gas and non-lethal bean-bag rounds into the crowds while protesters hurled water bottles and other projectiles , the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported . Local news footage showed some demonstrators vandalizing the outside of a police precinct station and a squad car . The unrest appeared to have dissipated after dark as rain fell . The day began with Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo telling reporters that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had opened an inquiry at his request into the fatal arrest caught on video the night before . Mayor Jacob Frey said at the same news briefing that regardless of the investigation ’ s outcome , it was clear the death of the man in custody , later identified as George Floyd , was unjustified , and that race was a factor . “ Being black in America should not be a death sentence , ” the mayor said . “ For five minutes we watched as a white police officer pressed his knee into the neck of a black man . For five minutes . When you hear someone calling for help , you are supposed to help . ” The mayor later announced the termination of four officers on Twitter , saying , “ This is the right call . ” Protesters gather at the scene where George Floyd , an unarmed black man , was pinned down by a police officer kneeling on his neck before later dying in hospital in Minneapolis , Minnesota , U.S. May 26 , 2020 . ███/Eric Miller The case was eerily reminiscent of the 2014 killing of Eric Garner , an unarmed black man in New York City , who died after being put in a police chokehold and telling the officers , “ I can ’ t breathe . ” The officers involved in Monday ’ s encounter were responding to a report of a forgery in progress , and found a man fitting the suspect ’ s description , Floyd , aged in his 40s , in a car , according to a police department account . After Floyd got out of the car , the department said , there was a physical altercation between the officers and Floyd . Floyd was handcuffed , and he appeared to be in medical distress , according to police . Cell phone footage taken by an onlooker does not show what precipitated the confrontation . It opens with Floyd lying beside the rear wheel of a vehicle , with a white officer pinning him to the street by pressing a knee into Floyd ’ s neck . Floyd can be heard repeatedly moaning and gasping while he pleads , “ Please , I can ’ t breathe , please , man , ” as bystanders gather around , growing increasingly agitated and shouting at police to let him up . After several minutes , Floyd gradually grows quiet and ceases to move . An ambulance took the suspect to the hospital , where he died a short time later , police said . No weapons were involved , and no officers were hurt in the incident , according to police . In the case of Garner , he was placed in a banned chokehold by a white police officer trying to arrest him for illegally selling loose cigarettes on the street . Garner ’ s dying words , “ I can ’ t breathe , ” became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement calling attention to a wave of African-Americans and other minorities who died at the hands of police using unjustified lethal force . Attorney Benjamin Crump , retained by Floyd ’ s family , said in a statement that officers ’ “ abusive , excessive and inhumane use of force cost the life of a man who was being detained by the police for questioning about a non-violent charge . ”

MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Four Minneapolis police officers were fired on Tuesday over the death of an unarmed black man seen in a video lying face down in the street, gasping for air and groaning, “I can’t breathe,” while a white officer knelt on his neck for several minutes. Hours after the officers’ dismissals were announced, thousands of protesters filled the streets around the scene of Monday evening’s deadly incident in a boisterous but peaceful rally. Many in the crowd wore facial coverings to protect against spread of the coronavirus. But the gathering took an unruly turn around dusk as police in riot gear fired tear gas and non-lethal bean-bag rounds into the crowds while protesters hurled water bottles and other projectiles, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported. Local news footage showed some demonstrators vandalizing the outside of a police precinct station and a squad car. The unrest appeared to have dissipated after dark as rain fell. The day began with Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo telling reporters that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had opened an inquiry at his request into the fatal arrest caught on video the night before. Mayor Jacob Frey said at the same news briefing that regardless of the investigation’s outcome, it was clear the death of the man in custody, later identified as George Floyd, was unjustified, and that race was a factor. “Being black in America should not be a death sentence,” the mayor said. “For five minutes we watched as a white police officer pressed his knee into the neck of a black man. For five minutes. When you hear someone calling for help, you are supposed to help.” The mayor later announced the termination of four officers on Twitter, saying, “This is the right call.” Protesters gather at the scene where George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was pinned down by a police officer kneeling on his neck before later dying in hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. May 26, 2020. REUTERS/Eric Miller ‘I CAN’T BREATHE’ The case was eerily reminiscent of the 2014 killing of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man in New York City, who died after being put in a police chokehold and telling the officers, “I can’t breathe.” The officers involved in Monday’s encounter were responding to a report of a forgery in progress, and found a man fitting the suspect’s description, Floyd, aged in his 40s, in a car, according to a police department account. After Floyd got out of the car, the department said, there was a physical altercation between the officers and Floyd. Floyd was handcuffed, and he appeared to be in medical distress, according to police. Cell phone footage taken by an onlooker does not show what precipitated the confrontation. It opens with Floyd lying beside the rear wheel of a vehicle, with a white officer pinning him to the street by pressing a knee into Floyd’s neck. Floyd can be heard repeatedly moaning and gasping while he pleads, “Please, I can’t breathe, please, man,” as bystanders gather around, growing increasingly agitated and shouting at police to let him up. After several minutes, Floyd gradually grows quiet and ceases to move. An ambulance took the suspect to the hospital, where he died a short time later, police said. No weapons were involved, and no officers were hurt in the incident, according to police. In the case of Garner, he was placed in a banned chokehold by a white police officer trying to arrest him for illegally selling loose cigarettes on the street. Slideshow (11 Images) Garner’s dying words, “I can’t breathe,” became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement calling attention to a wave of African-Americans and other minorities who died at the hands of police using unjustified lethal force. Attorney Benjamin Crump, retained by Floyd’s family, said in a statement that officers’ “abusive, excessive and inhumane use of force cost the life of a man who was being detained by the police for questioning about a non-violent charge.”

www.reuters.com

center

yrjbmdPVUoDSsl3R

test

54ntftXGkJl108jo

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rush-fox-fail-torpedo/2015/08/08/id/669157/

Rush: Fox News Tried to Torpedo Trump, But Failed

2015-08-08

Sandy Fitzgerald

Fox News ' moderators , not the candidates , apparently got the orders from `` big-time Republican donors '' to take out Donald Trump during Thursday night 's GOP debate , talk show host Rush Limbaugh claims . `` We all made a mistake , '' Limbaugh said on his radio show on Friday . `` We assumed that the orders went out to the candidates . But the candidates did not make one move toward taking Donald Trump out . The broadcast network did ; the candidates did n't . `` On the day of the debate , Limbaugh talked on his show about an article on the DC Whispers website t hat claimed donors had contacted the candidates and put out an order to make Trump look bad during the debate.It was apparent that Fox News and its moderators got the order instead , Limbaugh said . `` I mean , let 's review , '' said Limbaugh . `` The first question from Megyn Kelly to Trump was , 'You 've called women fat slobs , pigs , whatever , ' and he said , 'No , just Rosie O'Donnell . ' '' The audience began laughing , and Kelly told Trump , `` No , its more than that , '' and then asked him if such statements belong in the White House , Limbaugh continued . `` Trump was clearly caught entirely off guard by it , and even today he said , ' I 'm not ... I do n't know when I 've ever said this stuff , ' '' said Limbaugh.Limbaugh said it 's doubtful Trump writes all the tweets that turn up in his Twitter account , but he does know that the frontrunner does not use a cell phone or email . `` You know , this is the danger that when you start going in the social media stuff and tweeting stuff and maybe you hire somebody to do it for you , '' said Limbaugh . `` My first question is , 'Does he write these tweets himself or does he have somebody on his staff doing it just because it 's hip and it 's hot and he wants a presence in it ? ' '' Limbaugh denied he is attacking Kelly for the question , but he said he knows `` full well '' nobody would dare ask a Democrat the same question or try to make Democrats justify their existence . `` The point is , if you 're going to enter this arena , you have to know that that 's what it 's going to be for you if you 're on the Republican side , and you ca n't complain , '' said Limbaugh , adding that Trump is n't complaining.He said he 's sure Trump regained his footing after that question , because he `` shines when he 's in control . `` Not one of the other nine candidates joined Kelly in taking the shot , Limbaugh said , while there were `` orders from Republican donors to take Trump out . And there were a couple of other instances when Trump restated his views . `` Trump was also cornered in the debate by demands that he prove the Mexican government was sending rapists and more to the United States . `` But I 've reported stories like the Mexican government is advertising in Mexico how to get on the American welfare rolls , how to get food stamps , '' said Limbaugh . `` The Mexican government is doing it all . Trump was right . `` The candidates were given more chances to pile onto Trump , but they did n't , even after Kelly 's question or on the topic of immigration . Some , like Ohio Gov . John Kasich , even praised Trump.And even while New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul dueled over government spying , Trump was not targeted.Trump has said that the phrase `` illegal immigration '' would not have been a topic under so much discussion if not for him , and Limbaugh said that ca n't be denied . `` There is n't anybody in the political class that has been discussing illegal immigration and sanctuary cities and the criminal element that 's coming across the border , and nobody doing anything about it , in either party , '' Limbaugh said.Despite the efforts taken Thursday night , Trump still tops the post-debate online polls , showing he did not take himself out , Limbaugh said . `` Some in the Republican Party establishment might think so , but we 'll find out , '' he said . `` You know , it 's gon na be almost like one of these incidents we had with the illegal immigrant comment followed by the McCain comment . Remember the political class thought Trump ended it ? They 've been waiting for him to step in it and they thought he did , particularly with the McCain comment . It turned out he grew his support . `` Some think that after the Kelly question and his refusal to take a pledge about not running as a third-party candidate , Trump 's campaign is over , Limbaugh said . `` But they 're not gon na go out and brag about it right now in case they 're wrong . So time will tell on that . `` If Trump 's support stays steady or grows , Limbaugh concluded , `` you are gon na see a mainstream establishment that will not have any idea how to explain it . They will not believe it , and it might drive 'em nuts . ''

Fox News' moderators, not the candidates, apparently got the orders from "big-time Republican donors" to take out Donald Trump during Thursday night's GOP debate, talk show host Rush Limbaugh claims."We all made a mistake," Limbaugh said on his radio show on Friday . "We assumed that the orders went out to the candidates. But the candidates did not make one move toward taking Donald Trump out. The broadcast network did; the candidates didn't."On the day of the debate, Limbaugh talked on his show about an article on the DC Whispers website t hat claimed donors had contacted the candidates and put out an order to make Trump look bad during the debate.It was apparent that Fox News and its moderators got the order instead, Limbaugh said."I mean, let's review," said Limbaugh. "The first question from Megyn Kelly to Trump was, 'You've called women fat slobs, pigs, whatever,' and he said, 'No, just Rosie O'Donnell.'"The audience began laughing, and Kelly told Trump, "No, its more than that," and then asked him if such statements belong in the White House, Limbaugh continued."Trump was clearly caught entirely off guard by it, and even today he said, 'I'm not... I don't know when I've ever said this stuff,'" said Limbaugh.Limbaugh said it's doubtful Trump writes all the tweets that turn up in his Twitter account, but he does know that the frontrunner does not use a cell phone or email."You know, this is the danger that when you start going in the social media stuff and tweeting stuff and maybe you hire somebody to do it for you," said Limbaugh. "My first question is, 'Does he write these tweets himself or does he have somebody on his staff doing it just because it's hip and it's hot and he wants a presence in it?'"Limbaugh denied he is attacking Kelly for the question, but he said he knows "full well" nobody would dare ask a Democrat the same question or try to make Democrats justify their existence."The point is, if you're going to enter this arena, you have to know that that's what it's going to be for you if you're on the Republican side, and you can't complain," said Limbaugh, adding that Trump isn't complaining.He said he's sure Trump regained his footing after that question, because he "shines when he's in control."Not one of the other nine candidates joined Kelly in taking the shot, Limbaugh said, while there were "orders from Republican donors to take Trump out. And there were a couple of other instances when Trump restated his views."Trump was also cornered in the debate by demands that he prove the Mexican government was sending rapists and more to the United States."But I've reported stories like the Mexican government is advertising in Mexico how to get on the American welfare rolls, how to get food stamps," said Limbaugh. "The Mexican government is doing it all. Trump was right."The candidates were given more chances to pile onto Trump, but they didn't, even after Kelly's question or on the topic of immigration. Some, like Ohio Gov. John Kasich, even praised Trump.And even while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul dueled over government spying, Trump was not targeted.Trump has said that the phrase "illegal immigration" would not have been a topic under so much discussion if not for him, and Limbaugh said that can't be denied."There isn't anybody in the political class that has been discussing illegal immigration and sanctuary cities and the criminal element that's coming across the border, and nobody doing anything about it, in either party," Limbaugh said.Despite the efforts taken Thursday night, Trump still tops the post-debate online polls, showing he did not take himself out, Limbaugh said."Some in the Republican Party establishment might think so, but we'll find out," he said."You know, it's gonna be almost like one of these incidents we had with the illegal immigrant comment followed by the McCain comment. Remember the political class thought Trump ended it? They've been waiting for him to step in it and they thought he did, particularly with the McCain comment. It turned out he grew his support."Some think that after the Kelly question and his refusal to take a pledge about not running as a third-party candidate, Trump's campaign is over, Limbaugh said. "But they're not gonna go out and brag about it right now in case they're wrong. So time will tell on that."If Trump's support stays steady or grows, Limbaugh concluded, "you are gonna see a mainstream establishment that will not have any idea how to explain it. They will not believe it, and it might drive 'em nuts."

www.newsmax.com

right

54ntftXGkJl108jo

test

LvjI1HqauPaFKJJv

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40703571

US-Russia probe: Trump son-in-law Kushner denies collusion

President Donald Trump 's son-in-law has said neither he nor anyone in the Trump campaign team colluded with Russian officials over the US election . Jared Kushner said he had no improper contacts and did not rely on Russian funds to finance business activities . Mr Kushner released his opening statement ahead of giving testimony before a Senate panel on Monday . The Senate , the House and a special counsel are all investigating Russian interference in the election . Mr Kushner , 36 , is a senior adviser to the president and was in charge of the Trump campaign 's digital strategy . He is married to Mr Trump 's daughter , Ivanka . Mr Kushner , who keeps a very low media profile , was due to attend a closed-door session on Monday before the Senate Intelligence Committee , and then appear before the House version on Tuesday . In the statement to both congressional committees he released on Monday , he says : `` I did not collude , nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded , with any foreign government . '' `` With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign , there were hardly any , '' he says . At the end of the statement he speaks of `` perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives '' both during the campaign and after . He does refer to a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June last year . She had allegedly promised damaging material on Hillary Clinton . Mr Kushner said he arrived late at the meeting , realised little of note was being discussed and that it was `` time not well-spent '' . He said : `` I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for 10 or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell ? Need excuse to get out of meeting ' . '' Mr Trump Jr said former campaign chief Paul Manafort was also at the meeting and that no compromising material on Mrs Clinton was provided . In his Senate testimony Jared Kushner says he has nothing to hide and is `` happy '' to share information with those investigating possible Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign . His written statement , however , is an exercise in caution and lawyerly discretion . He addresses only the controversies already in the public sphere , then offers his explanation for why they are no big deal . He receives hundreds of emails a day and did n't read his brother-in-law 's forwarded message that said the Russian government wanted to help the Trump campaign . Reports of an effort to set up back-channel communications with Russia after the election were a halted effort to get information about Syria from Russian generals . He met with an influential Russian banker because the Russian ambassador - whose name he could n't initially remember - was so persistent . The incomplete security form was the result of a `` miscommunication '' with an assistant who submitted it too soon . Beyond that , there are no new revelations ; no new disclosures . If what 's already out is all there is , Mr Kushner and his lawyers have done their best to defuse the bombs . When walking in a minefield , it 's the ones you do n't know about that pose the greatest risk . One matter on which Mr Kushner may face a grilling is his security clearance declaration , as he accepts he failed initially to reveal his contacts with Russians . He says the first form , a `` rough draft that still had many omissions '' , was filed by an assistant in error on 18 January and that declarations on his foreign contacts , not just with Russians , were added over the next six months `` in the normal course '' . Ambassador Sergei Kislyak ( above ) . Brief meeting of `` pleasantries '' in April 2016 in Washington . Meeting at Trump Tower on 1 December . Discussed Syria and trying to improve relations . Mr Kushner insists he did not suggest a `` secret back channel '' for communication or discuss sanctions . Mr Kislyak 's term ended on Saturday ( ) . Brief meeting of `` pleasantries '' in April 2016 in Washington . Meeting at Trump Tower on 1 December . Discussed Syria and trying to improve relations . Mr Kushner insists he did not suggest a `` secret back channel '' for communication or discuss sanctions . Mr Kislyak 's term ended on Saturday Sergei Gorkov . Mr Kushner says he met the banker on 12 December at the request of Mr Kislyak , who presented him as a man with direct links to President Vladimir Putin . Mr Kushner insists he did not discuss sanctions , business interests or specific policy issues and has had no contacts with him since . Mr Kushner says he met the banker on 12 December at the request of Mr Kislyak , who presented him as a man with direct links to President Vladimir Putin . Mr Kushner insists he did not discuss sanctions , business interests or specific policy issues and has had no contacts with him since Guccifer400 . Mr Kushner says he received a `` random email '' trying to extort 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing Mr Trump 's tax details . Mr Kushner says he ignored the email . Mr Kushner says he received a `` random email '' trying to extort 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing Mr Trump 's tax details . Mr Kushner says he ignored the email Natalia Veselnitskaya . Mr Kushner said he had not spoken to the lawyer before or since the June 2016 meeting and had forgotten about it until an email exchange involving President Trump 's son , Donald Jr , came to light last month . He says : `` No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign , there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of , I do not recall how many people were there ( or their names ) , and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted . '' Mr Kushner was not expected to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at the Congress meetings . In his statement , he says : `` I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies . I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to co-operate as I have nothing to hide . '' His statement concludes : `` Hopefully , this puts these matters to rest . '' Mr Kushner was also not expected to be under oath on Monday . However , what he says could be used against him at a later date and may well be passed to the special counsel , Robert Mueller , to help his investigation . Adam Schiff , the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel , said : `` There 's a lot we want to know . We have a lot of ground to cover . '' Mr Trump Jr and Mr Manafort had been scheduled to appear before Congress on Wednesday to testify but that has been delayed indefinitely as lawyers negotiate on the documentation and information to be discussed . He continued his tirade against the investigation process on Sunday , tweeting : `` As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues , two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost election taking hold , Democrats and Russians ! ''

Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mr Kushner appears before the Senate on Monday and the House on Tuesday President Donald Trump's son-in-law has said neither he nor anyone in the Trump campaign team colluded with Russian officials over the US election. Jared Kushner said he had no improper contacts and did not rely on Russian funds to finance business activities. Mr Kushner released his opening statement ahead of giving testimony before a Senate panel on Monday. The Senate, the House and a special counsel are all investigating Russian interference in the election. Mr Kushner, 36, is a senior adviser to the president and was in charge of the Trump campaign's digital strategy. He is married to Mr Trump's daughter, Ivanka. Mr Kushner, who keeps a very low media profile, was due to attend a closed-door session on Monday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and then appear before the House version on Tuesday. In the statement to both congressional committees he released on Monday, he says: "I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government." "With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any," he says. At the end of the statement he speaks of "perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives" both during the campaign and after. He does refer to a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June last year. She had allegedly promised damaging material on Hillary Clinton. Mr Kushner said he arrived late at the meeting, realised little of note was being discussed and that it was "time not well-spent". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Sarah Rainsford tries to get Russian pop star Emin Agalarov to comment on his links to Donald Trump. He said: "I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for 10 or so minutes and wrote 'Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting'." Mr Trump Jr said former campaign chief Paul Manafort was also at the meeting and that no compromising material on Mrs Clinton was provided. Analysis: An exercise in caution Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter In his Senate testimony Jared Kushner says he has nothing to hide and is "happy" to share information with those investigating possible Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. His written statement, however, is an exercise in caution and lawyerly discretion. He addresses only the controversies already in the public sphere, then offers his explanation for why they are no big deal. He receives hundreds of emails a day and didn't read his brother-in-law's forwarded message that said the Russian government wanted to help the Trump campaign. Reports of an effort to set up back-channel communications with Russia after the election were a halted effort to get information about Syria from Russian generals. He met with an influential Russian banker because the Russian ambassador - whose name he couldn't initially remember - was so persistent. The incomplete security form was the result of a "miscommunication" with an assistant who submitted it too soon. Beyond that, there are no new revelations; no new disclosures. If what's already out is all there is, Mr Kushner and his lawyers have done their best to defuse the bombs. When walking in a minefield, it's the ones you don't know about that pose the greatest risk. One matter on which Mr Kushner may face a grilling is his security clearance declaration, as he accepts he failed initially to reveal his contacts with Russians. He says the first form, a "rough draft that still had many omissions", was filed by an assistant in error on 18 January and that declarations on his foreign contacts, not just with Russians, were added over the next six months "in the normal course". Mr Kushner on his meetings with Russians: Image copyright Reuters Ambassador Sergei Kislyak ( above ). Brief meeting of "pleasantries" in April 2016 in Washington. Meeting at Trump Tower on 1 December. Discussed Syria and trying to improve relations. Mr Kushner insists he did not suggest a "secret back channel" for communication or discuss sanctions. Mr Kislyak's term ended on Saturday ( ). Brief meeting of "pleasantries" in April 2016 in Washington. Meeting at Trump Tower on 1 December. Discussed Syria and trying to improve relations. Mr Kushner insists he did not suggest a "secret back channel" for communication or discuss sanctions. Mr Kislyak's term ended on Saturday Sergei Gorkov . Mr Kushner says he met the banker on 12 December at the request of Mr Kislyak, who presented him as a man with direct links to President Vladimir Putin. Mr Kushner insists he did not discuss sanctions, business interests or specific policy issues and has had no contacts with him since . Mr Kushner says he met the banker on 12 December at the request of Mr Kislyak, who presented him as a man with direct links to President Vladimir Putin. Mr Kushner insists he did not discuss sanctions, business interests or specific policy issues and has had no contacts with him since Guccifer400 . Mr Kushner says he received a "random email" trying to extort 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing Mr Trump's tax details. Mr Kushner says he ignored the email . Mr Kushner says he received a "random email" trying to extort 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing Mr Trump's tax details. Mr Kushner says he ignored the email Natalia Veselnitskaya. Mr Kushner said he had not spoken to the lawyer before or since the June 2016 meeting and had forgotten about it until an email exchange involving President Trump's son, Donald Jr, came to light last month. He says: "No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted." Mr Kushner was not expected to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at the Congress meetings. In his statement, he says: "I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies. I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to co-operate as I have nothing to hide." His statement concludes: "Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest." Mr Kushner was also not expected to be under oath on Monday. However, what he says could be used against him at a later date and may well be passed to the special counsel, Robert Mueller, to help his investigation. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, said: "There's a lot we want to know. We have a lot of ground to cover." Mr Trump Jr and Mr Manafort had been scheduled to appear before Congress on Wednesday to testify but that has been delayed indefinitely as lawyers negotiate on the documentation and information to be discussed. President Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion with Russia. He continued his tirade against the investigation process on Sunday, tweeting: "As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!" Russia has also denied any involvement. Six months of Trump

www.bbc.com

center

LvjI1HqauPaFKJJv

test

RcTFAXpnpg4hLD5J

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/18/republicans-want-to-end-perception-as-stuffy-old-men/?hpt=po_c1

Republicans want to end perception as 'stuffy old men'

2013-03-18

Washington ( CNN ) – The beleaguered Republican Party put into writing Monday what many of its top strategists and leaders have been saying since last year 's election losses : The GOP is too old , too white , and too insular to win national contests . In a months-in-the-making report - which tops out at 100 pages and includes hundreds of recommended fixes - the Republican National Committee acknowledges its messaging problems , identifies structural setbacks to the primary calendar and spells out how to target specific demographic groups that voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in 2012 . `` The report notes the way we communicate our principles isn ’ t resonating widely enough , '' RNC Chairman Reince Priebus , who also happened to be celebrating his birthday , said at the report 's release in Washington . `` Focus groups described our party as 'narrow minded , ' 'out of touch , ' and 'Stuffy old men . ' I ’ m only 41 , by the way . Today . '' `` It all goes back to what our moms used to tell us : It 's not just what we say ; it 's how we say it , '' Priebus continued . `` The promise of opportunity will be our message , and a spirit of optimism will infuse everything that we do . '' The report was initiated by the RNC soon after last November 's vote , which saw Republicans lose the presidency as well as seats in the U.S. House . Mitt Romney , the party 's White House hopeful , lost big among Latinos , African-Americans and Asians , a fact that helped spur collective soul searching among the party 's leaders . `` Public perception of the Party is at record lows , '' the report states . `` Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents , and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country . When someone rolls their eyes at us , they are not likely to open their ears to us . '' Romney won only 27 % of Latino voters - a lower percentage than the last two GOP presidential candidates . Many pointed to Romney 's hardline stance on immigration , including his endorsement of a policy of `` self-deportation , '' as a reason . In Monday 's report , that policy was specifically shunned as a turnoff for voters who could potentially vote Republican . `` If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States ( i.e . self-deportation ) , they will not pay attention to our next sentence , '' it states . In one of its few policy recommendations , the report counsels Republicans to `` embrace and champion '' comprehensive immigration reform . And in order to attract young voters , the party recommends a `` change in tone , '' particularly on social issues . `` In every session with young voters , social issues were at the forefront of the discussion ; many see them as the civil rights issues of our time . We must be a party that is welcoming and inclusive for all voters , '' it states , adding later that it 's imperative that young people not regard the GOP as `` totally intolerant of alternative points of view . '' `` Our policies are sound , but I think that in many ways the way that we communicate can be a real problem , '' Priebus said at the report 's release . He continued , `` Decent people can disagree on issues . I do n't agree with my wife on 100 % of the issues , but it does n't mean we do n't have a good marriage . I think that we have to be a welcoming party . I think that we have to have a party that says , 'If you want to support our party and you want to walk through that door , I do n't need to agree with you on every single issue . ' '' `` Republican Party is , indeed , a big tent , '' said Ari Fleischer , a CNN contributor who was one of the report 's authors , on Monday . `` We need to make sure that 's a big tent , and not just rhetoric . '' `` Take the issue of gay marriage , for example , and gay rights . There is a genuine generational split in the Republican Party on that issue . Many , many young conservatives are for gay rights , are for gay marriage . And we openly talk about that and acknowledge that and we welcome that . That 's part of what a big tent should be about , '' Fleischer said on CNN 's `` Starting Point . '' The party 's primary process has also generated problems for Republicans , the report finds , including the months-long primary process that saw candidates ripping each other in front of too many debates . The number of debates should be cut in half , the report recommends , and the Republican National Convention should be moved earlier in the summer , so that the party 's presidential candidate can start using RNC money earlier - the candidate is prevented from using those funds until they are officially nominated at the convention . Also necessary , according to the report : a more robust digital effort , including the creation of a chief technology and digital officer for the RNC , to compete with Democrats online . `` Digital can simply no longer be an afterthought in our campaigns , '' the report states . `` It has to be embedded in every function and backed up with appropriate staffing and funding . ''

7 years ago Washington (CNN) – The beleaguered Republican Party put into writing Monday what many of its top strategists and leaders have been saying since last year's election losses: The GOP is too old, too white, and too insular to win national contests. In a months-in-the-making report - which tops out at 100 pages and includes hundreds of recommended fixes - the Republican National Committee acknowledges its messaging problems, identifies structural setbacks to the primary calendar and spells out how to target specific demographic groups that voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in 2012. "The report notes the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, who also happened to be celebrating his birthday, said at the report's release in Washington. "Focus groups described our party as 'narrow minded,' 'out of touch,' and 'Stuffy old men.' I’m only 41, by the way. Today." "It all goes back to what our moms used to tell us: It's not just what we say; it's how we say it," Priebus continued. "The promise of opportunity will be our message, and a spirit of optimism will infuse everything that we do." The report was initiated by the RNC soon after last November's vote, which saw Republicans lose the presidency as well as seats in the U.S. House. Mitt Romney, the party's White House hopeful, lost big among Latinos, African-Americans and Asians, a fact that helped spur collective soul searching among the party's leaders. "Public perception of the Party is at record lows," the report states. "Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country. When someone rolls their eyes at us, they are not likely to open their ears to us." Romney won only 27% of Latino voters - a lower percentage than the last two GOP presidential candidates. Many pointed to Romney's hardline stance on immigration, including his endorsement of a policy of "self-deportation," as a reason. In Monday's report, that policy was specifically shunned as a turnoff for voters who could potentially vote Republican. "If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence," it states. In one of its few policy recommendations, the report counsels Republicans to "embrace and champion" comprehensive immigration reform. And in order to attract young voters, the party recommends a "change in tone," particularly on social issues. "In every session with young voters, social issues were at the forefront of the discussion; many see them as the civil rights issues of our time. We must be a party that is welcoming and inclusive for all voters," it states, adding later that it's imperative that young people not regard the GOP as "totally intolerant of alternative points of view." "Our policies are sound, but I think that in many ways the way that we communicate can be a real problem," Priebus said at the report's release. He continued, "Decent people can disagree on issues. I don't agree with my wife on 100% of the issues, but it doesn't mean we don't have a good marriage. I think that we have to be a welcoming party. I think that we have to have a party that says, 'If you want to support our party and you want to walk through that door, I don't need to agree with you on every single issue.'" "Republican Party is, indeed, a big tent," said Ari Fleischer, a CNN contributor who was one of the report's authors, on Monday. "We need to make sure that's a big tent, and not just rhetoric." "Take the issue of gay marriage, for example, and gay rights. There is a genuine generational split in the Republican Party on that issue. Many, many young conservatives are for gay rights, are for gay marriage. And we openly talk about that and acknowledge that and we welcome that. That's part of what a big tent should be about," Fleischer said on CNN's "Starting Point." The party's primary process has also generated problems for Republicans, the report finds, including the months-long primary process that saw candidates ripping each other in front of too many debates. The number of debates should be cut in half, the report recommends, and the Republican National Convention should be moved earlier in the summer, so that the party's presidential candidate can start using RNC money earlier - the candidate is prevented from using those funds until they are officially nominated at the convention. Also necessary, according to the report: a more robust digital effort, including the creation of a chief technology and digital officer for the RNC, to compete with Democrats online. "Digital can simply no longer be an afterthought in our campaigns," the report states. "It has to be embedded in every function and backed up with appropriate staffing and funding." CNN's Paul Steinhauser, Kevin Liptak and Ashley Killough contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

RcTFAXpnpg4hLD5J

test

x5VPXWEF70sgo7Dl

fbi

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-claims-government-violated-privacy/story?id=68001195

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok claims government violated his privacy, free speech rights

Luke Barr

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok claims government violated his privacy , free speech rights He argues the Justice Department improperly released his text messages . Former FBI agent Peter Strzok is claiming the government violated his First Amendment rights by releasing his private text messages that contained his political opinion about President Donald Trump . In a new court filing Monday , Strzok and his attorneys argue that the Justice Department violated his protected free speech by releasing the text messages he exchanged with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page . Trump is “ not ever going to become president , right ? Right ? ! ” Page wrote in one text . “ No . No he won ’ t , ” Strzok responded . “ We ’ ll stop it. ” He also called Trump an `` idiot . '' Strozk , citing what appears to be a private exchange between him and Page , claims that the FBI fired him because he expressed his political beliefs . Justice Department lawyers argue that it wasn ’ t the political speech that he was fired for , but because Page and Strozk used their work phones . Strozk claims others who made similar political remarks , but in favor of President Trump , were not punished . “ This disparate and discriminatory treatment is but one example of a broader pattern , '' his suit says . `` Throughout the Trump Administration , there has been a pattern of treating political speech by federal employees differently based on its content . While Plaintiff and many others who have criticized the President have faced discipline , up to and including termination , revocation of security clearances , and threats of criminal prosecution , federal employees who praise President Trump and/or attack his political rivals have faced no consequences . ” Strozk originally sued DOJ in August , claiming that the FBI and DOJ unlawfully disclosed his private text messages that disparaged Trump before and after the 2016 presidential election -- including the time frame during which Strzok helped lead the agency 's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's private email server and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . Then-FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok testifies on Capitol Hill , July 12 , 2018 , in Washington . Evan Vucci/AP , FILE President Trump has made Strzok a frequent target , citing those disparaging texts , and has repeatedly argued that Strzok 's political bias tainted the early stages of the Russia investigation . Strzok 's claims of privacy and free speech violations mirror those made in a lawsuit filed by Page . Page sued the FBI and DOJ earlier this year , alleging her privacy was violated by the release of texts she exchanged with Strzok . Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page arrives for a House Judiciary Committee deposition as part of the ongoing congressional investigation related to decisions made by the Justice Department and FBI surrounding the 2016 election on Capitol Hill in Washington , July 13 , 2018 . Leah Millis/Reuters , FILE She contends that , after the disclosure of the text messages , she was targeted by President Trump and his allies . Both claim that DOJ violated the Privacy Act by releasing the text messages to the press . “ Upon information and belief , the disclosures to the media were intended to discredit the Mueller investigation , engender public distrust of the FBI and the intelligence community , and otherwise serve the partisan political agenda of President Trump and his political allies , ” Strzok ’ s recent court filing says . Former DOJ spokesperson Sarah Isagur Flores refuted the claim that DOJ mislead Congress and didn ’ t conduct a “ thoughtful review ” from career officials . `` As the DAG said , after initial inquiries from Congress , the DAG consulted with the IG , and the IG determined that he had no objection to the Department providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested it ( discussion w IG was only about Congress ) , '' she tweeted in December 2017 . `` After that consultation , senior career ethics advisors determined that there were no legal or ethical concerns , including under the Privacy Act , that prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of Congress or by the Department , '' Flores said . In the new court filing , Strozk also takes issue with the process by which he was terminated . “ Plaintiff also expressed deep concerns with the lack of due process in his disciplinary process , citing the following facts : repeated public and private statements by President Trump demanding that Plaintiff be fired ; Plaintiff ’ s inability to access his own files or the thousands of pages of materials relied upon by OPR ( Office of Professional Responsibility ) ; and “ the unusual and unprecedented speed of OPR ’ s process , ” evidenced by the fact that OPR ’ s letter to Plaintiff still contained language keyed to a prior version of the OIG report that had been changed in the final report , which suggested “ a rush to judgment which undermines [ Plaintiff ’ s ] right to due process . ”

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok claims government violated his privacy, free speech rights He argues the Justice Department improperly released his text messages. Former FBI agent Peter Strzok is claiming the government violated his First Amendment rights by releasing his private text messages that contained his political opinion about President Donald Trump. In a new court filing Monday, Strzok and his attorneys argue that the Justice Department violated his protected free speech by releasing the text messages he exchanged with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page wrote in one text. “No. No he won’t,” Strzok responded. “We’ll stop it.” He also called Trump an "idiot." Strozk, citing what appears to be a private exchange between him and Page, claims that the FBI fired him because he expressed his political beliefs. Justice Department lawyers argue that it wasn’t the political speech that he was fired for, but because Page and Strozk used their work phones. Strozk claims others who made similar political remarks, but in favor of President Trump, were not punished. “This disparate and discriminatory treatment is but one example of a broader pattern," his suit says. "Throughout the Trump Administration, there has been a pattern of treating political speech by federal employees differently based on its content. While Plaintiff and many others who have criticized the President have faced discipline, up to and including termination, revocation of security clearances, and threats of criminal prosecution, federal employees who praise President Trump and/or attack his political rivals have faced no consequences.” Strozk originally sued DOJ in August, claiming that the FBI and DOJ unlawfully disclosed his private text messages that disparaged Trump before and after the 2016 presidential election -- including the time frame during which Strzok helped lead the agency's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server and Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Then-FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok testifies on Capitol Hill, July 12, 2018, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP, FILE President Trump has made Strzok a frequent target, citing those disparaging texts, and has repeatedly argued that Strzok's political bias tainted the early stages of the Russia investigation. Strzok's claims of privacy and free speech violations mirror those made in a lawsuit filed by Page. Page sued the FBI and DOJ earlier this year, alleging her privacy was violated by the release of texts she exchanged with Strzok. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page arrives for a House Judiciary Committee deposition as part of the ongoing congressional investigation related to decisions made by the Justice Department and FBI surrounding the 2016 election on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 13, 2018. Leah Millis/Reuters, FILE She contends that, after the disclosure of the text messages, she was targeted by President Trump and his allies. Both claim that DOJ violated the Privacy Act by releasing the text messages to the press. “Upon information and belief, the disclosures to the media were intended to discredit the Mueller investigation, engender public distrust of the FBI and the intelligence community, and otherwise serve the partisan political agenda of President Trump and his political allies,” Strzok’s recent court filing says. Former DOJ spokesperson Sarah Isagur Flores refuted the claim that DOJ mislead Congress and didn’t conduct a “thoughtful review” from career officials. "As the DAG said, after initial inquiries from Congress, the DAG consulted with the IG, and the IG determined that he had no objection to the Department providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested it (discussion w IG was only about Congress)," she tweeted in December 2017. "After that consultation, senior career ethics advisors determined that there were no legal or ethical concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of Congress or by the Department," Flores said. In the new court filing, Strozk also takes issue with the process by which he was terminated. “Plaintiff also expressed deep concerns with the lack of due process in his disciplinary process, citing the following facts: repeated public and private statements by President Trump demanding that Plaintiff be fired; Plaintiff’s inability to access his own files or the thousands of pages of materials relied upon by OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility); and “the unusual and unprecedented speed of OPR’s process,” evidenced by the fact that OPR’s letter to Plaintiff still contained language keyed to a prior version of the OIG report that had been changed in the final report, which suggested “a rush to judgment which undermines [Plaintiff’s] right to due process.” ABC News' Alexander Mallin contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

x5VPXWEF70sgo7Dl

test

eWwTLdp5gYt0dBqp

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/21/10-things-libertarians-need-to-know-abou

10 Things Libertarians Need to Know About Trump and Pence, Hamilton, and Political Correctness

2016-11-21

Jacob Sullum, Eugene Volokh, Noah Shepardson, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon

You might have heard about the latest cultural outrage incident : Vice President-Elect Mike Pence attended a performance of the mega-hit musical Hamilton and , after it was over , a member of the cast read a brief statement expressing `` alarm and anxiousness '' about President-Elect Donald Trump 's policies . After thanking Pence for attending , Brandon Victor Davis ( who plays Aaron Burr in the production ) said this : `` We , sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us , our planet , our children , our parents , or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights . We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us . '' Tonight , VP-Elect Mike Pence attended # HamiltonBway . After the show , @ BrandonVDixon delivered the following statement on behalf of the show . pic.twitter.com/Jsg9Q1pMZs — Hamilton ( @ HamiltonMusical ) November 19 , 2016 Pence later noted that he was n't offended by the statement and remained committed to bringing all Americans together in the wake of a highly divisive presidential campaign . The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man , Mike Pence . Apologize ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) November 19 , 2016 Public reaction was similarly mixed : liberals cheered the cast of Hamilton for exercising their free speech rights to stand up on behalf of marginalized Americans who have every ███ to fear a Trump presidency , while conservatives lamented the disrespect shown the vice president . But libertarians appear split , too . Libertarian economist and author Steve Horwitz echoed my political-correctness-backlash-aided-Trump theory in his post on the Hamilton kerfuffle , writing on Facebook : `` Want to understand one big ███ why Trump won ? Just look at what the cast of Hamilton did when they discovered Pence was in attendance last night . There is your urban/professional media consumers elitism right there . '' My point in the Hamilton post was not that I disagree with the cast 's concerns , but that when leftists do things like that , it 's exactly what makes many people feel like they are being condescended to and treated like rubes for having voted a certain way or thinking a certain way . Or because they do n't think everything should be politicized . You piss them off at your own peril . They do n't respond well to seeing elected officials disrespected too , even if I 'm all in favor of it . Meanwhile , libertarian comedian Jeremy McLellan complained about libertarians who believe , `` Trump won because of some stuff I already thought before he won . Truly an amazing coincidence . '' ( Yeah , he considers me to be one of those libertarians . ) On Hamilton and Pence , he writes : One of the most common characteristics of abusers that I noticed when I worked with people with disabilities was the attitude that the client 's resistance to the abuse was itself thought of as justification for the abuse . Once that feedback loop is established , control is justified through both acquiescence and resistance , and there 's nothing the client can do ( behavior wise ) to escape . The same holds true for abusive relationships , prisons , police , or any other kind of authoritarian regime . The broader message is `` Your resistance to my behavior is the ███ I behave this way in the first place . '' Remember this over the next four years when you hear the trope `` See this is why Trump won . '' If you call his appointees racist , that 's why Trump won . If you boo Mike Pence , that 's why Trump won . If you protest in the streets , that 's why Trump won . If you insult him or his supporters , that 's why Trump won . It 's a rhetorical tool for neutering resistance . Always ask what function it serves . 1 . This should go without saying , but it 's absolutely fine for actors to use their platform to criticize the president or vice president after a performance . This is n't bullying . You ca n't really bully the second most powerful person in the country . He always has more power than you . 2 . The actor 's statement was n't even particularly mean-spirited . Rather , it expressed well-founded concerns about the kinds of policies President Trump has vowed to enact . Trump has promised to deport immigrants , bar Muslims from entering the country , and generally sides with the police over communities of color . It 's perfectly legitimate for members of those groups to be worried—and for their allies to be worried , on their behalf . 3 . As evidence of the fact that the statement was n't `` offensive '' ( and who cares if it was ? ) , I would cite the fact that Pence was n't offended . 4 . Trump 's tweets about the incident were revealing in that they appropriate the language of leftist grievance mongering . Trump said Pence was `` harassed '' and that the theater should be a safe space . If you think it 's pathetic when students complain about their delicate feelings being hurt by inappropriate Halloween costumes , you should probably also roll your eyes at the idea of the most-powerful man in the country feeling micro-aggressed by an encore . 5 . The fact that Trump complains about this sort of thing is yet more evidence of a disturbing truth : he is vastly more easily offended than the average politician . No one should actually expect Trump to destroy political correctness : he is just as offended by hard truths and defined by identity politics as the leftists he defeated in the election . 6 . One more thing about Trump : narcissism , thin skin , and a penchant for authoritarian solutions are quite the toxic mixture . 7 . All that said , it could still be the case that people are wrong to be outraged about Hamilton standing up to Pence , but are outraged , nevertheless . Perhaps some people are sick of the relentless politicization of all facets of life . Maybe they think they should be able to attend a play , or watch an awards show , or sit through a Thanksgiving dinner without being constantly lectured about how wrong and stupid they are . 8 . Like Horwitz , I would prefer to live in a world where elected officials were shown less respect , because people who want to take away our rights ( and that 's nearly all of them ) do n't deserve it . But supporters of individual liberty have to be tactical . If Hamilton-esque demonstrations actually drive people into the arms of Trump , there may be cause to eschew such theatrics on purely pragmatic grounds . 9 . Many people , including many libertarians ( McLellan , for instance ) think this thesis is fundamentally wrong , or at least unproven : political correctness is n't a significant factor that explains Trump 's win . Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting points out that most of the people promoting this explanation—Bill Maher , Jonathan Haidt , George Will , David Brooks , Damon Linker , and yours truly— '' hated identity politics to begin with '' and are thus guilty of confirmation bias . It 's true that we do n't know exactly what 's in the hearts and minds of Trump voters , and there are no comprehensive polls asking them why they did what they did . So yes , the political correctness theory is a bit speculative , and is being advanced by people who were already concerned about political correctness . But it 's not hard to connect the dots : when surveys of Trump voters are done , political correctness invariably comes up . Personally , I have received emails from Trump voters who told me that political correctness was exactly why they voted the way they did . If there 's a danger in making too much of this theory , there 's also a danger in writing it off . 10 . That 's because virtually no one in the media saw Trump 's win coming , and political correctness has something to do with that . The polls were wrong ( partly ) because people who planned to vote for Trump did not admit this to pollsters . The kind of person who supported Trump is someone who believes that he could n't be honest or vocal about what he thinks , and saved his rebellion against political correctness for the ballot box . This left foes of Trump less prepared for what was coming . The `` unbearable smugness '' of the liberal media , as CBS 's Will Rahn describes it , blinded us to reality . Libertarians and other advocates of a free society should recognize that those inclined to resist Trump and Pence are allies , and that includes the cast of Hamilton­ . But such tactics deserve serious scrutiny , even if they are justified . The point is to stop Trump , not just feel better about having made some futile gesture of resistance .

You might have heard about the latest cultural outrage incident: Vice President-Elect Mike Pence attended a performance of the mega-hit musical Hamilton and, after it was over, a member of the cast read a brief statement expressing "alarm and anxiousness" about President-Elect Donald Trump's policies. After thanking Pence for attending, Brandon Victor Davis (who plays Aaron Burr in the production) said this: "We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us." Tonight, VP-Elect Mike Pence attended #HamiltonBway. After the show, @BrandonVDixon delivered the following statement on behalf of the show. pic.twitter.com/Jsg9Q1pMZs — Hamilton (@HamiltonMusical) November 19, 2016 Pence later noted that he wasn't offended by the statement and remained committed to bringing all Americans together in the wake of a highly divisive presidential campaign. But Trump was furious, and penned several critical tweets. The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2016 Public reaction was similarly mixed: liberals cheered the cast of Hamilton for exercising their free speech rights to stand up on behalf of marginalized Americans who have every reason to fear a Trump presidency, while conservatives lamented the disrespect shown the vice president. But libertarians appear split, too. Libertarian economist and author Steve Horwitz echoed my political-correctness-backlash-aided-Trump theory in his post on the Hamilton kerfuffle, writing on Facebook: "Want to understand one big reason why Trump won? Just look at what the cast of Hamilton did when they discovered Pence was in attendance last night. There is your urban/professional media consumers elitism right there." He later added: My point in the Hamilton post was not that I disagree with the cast's concerns, but that when leftists do things like that, it's exactly what makes many people feel like they are being condescended to and treated like rubes for having voted a certain way or thinking a certain way. Or because they don't think everything should be politicized. You piss them off at your own peril. They don't respond well to seeing elected officials disrespected too, even if I'm all in favor of it. Meanwhile, libertarian comedian Jeremy McLellan complained about libertarians who believe, "Trump won because of some stuff I already thought before he won. Truly an amazing coincidence." (Yeah, he considers me to be one of those libertarians.) On Hamilton and Pence, he writes: One of the most common characteristics of abusers that I noticed when I worked with people with disabilities was the attitude that the client's resistance to the abuse was itself thought of as justification for the abuse. Once that feedback loop is established, control is justified through both acquiescence and resistance, and there's nothing the client can do (behavior wise) to escape. The same holds true for abusive relationships, prisons, police, or any other kind of authoritarian regime. The broader message is "Your resistance to my behavior is the reason I behave this way in the first place." Remember this over the next four years when you hear the trope "See this is why Trump won." If you call his appointees racist, that's why Trump won. If you boo Mike Pence, that's why Trump won. If you protest in the streets, that's why Trump won. If you insult him or his supporters, that's why Trump won. It's a rhetorical tool for neutering resistance. Always ask what function it serves. A couple things. 1. This should go without saying, but it's absolutely fine for actors to use their platform to criticize the president or vice president after a performance. This isn't bullying. You can't really bully the second most powerful person in the country. He always has more power than you. 2. The actor's statement wasn't even particularly mean-spirited. Rather, it expressed well-founded concerns about the kinds of policies President Trump has vowed to enact. Trump has promised to deport immigrants, bar Muslims from entering the country, and generally sides with the police over communities of color. It's perfectly legitimate for members of those groups to be worried—and for their allies to be worried, on their behalf. 3. As evidence of the fact that the statement wasn't "offensive" (and who cares if it was?), I would cite the fact that Pence wasn't offended. 4. Trump's tweets about the incident were revealing in that they appropriate the language of leftist grievance mongering. Trump said Pence was "harassed" and that the theater should be a safe space. If you think it's pathetic when students complain about their delicate feelings being hurt by inappropriate Halloween costumes, you should probably also roll your eyes at the idea of the most-powerful man in the country feeling micro-aggressed by an encore. 5. The fact that Trump complains about this sort of thing is yet more evidence of a disturbing truth: he is vastly more easily offended than the average politician. No one should actually expect Trump to destroy political correctness: he is just as offended by hard truths and defined by identity politics as the leftists he defeated in the election. 6. One more thing about Trump: narcissism, thin skin, and a penchant for authoritarian solutions are quite the toxic mixture. 7. All that said, it could still be the case that people are wrong to be outraged about Hamilton standing up to Pence, but are outraged, nevertheless. Perhaps some people are sick of the relentless politicization of all facets of life. Maybe they think they should be able to attend a play, or watch an awards show, or sit through a Thanksgiving dinner without being constantly lectured about how wrong and stupid they are. 8. Like Horwitz, I would prefer to live in a world where elected officials were shown less respect, because people who want to take away our rights (and that's nearly all of them) don't deserve it. But supporters of individual liberty have to be tactical. If Hamilton-esque demonstrations actually drive people into the arms of Trump, there may be cause to eschew such theatrics on purely pragmatic grounds. 9. Many people, including many libertarians (McLellan, for instance) think this thesis is fundamentally wrong, or at least unproven: political correctness isn't a significant factor that explains Trump's win. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting points out that most of the people promoting this explanation—Bill Maher, Jonathan Haidt, George Will, David Brooks, Damon Linker, and yours truly—"hated identity politics to begin with" and are thus guilty of confirmation bias. It's true that we don't know exactly what's in the hearts and minds of Trump voters, and there are no comprehensive polls asking them why they did what they did. So yes, the political correctness theory is a bit speculative, and is being advanced by people who were already concerned about political correctness. But it's not hard to connect the dots: when surveys of Trump voters are done, political correctness invariably comes up. Personally, I have received emails from Trump voters who told me that political correctness was exactly why they voted the way they did. If there's a danger in making too much of this theory, there's also a danger in writing it off. 10. That's because virtually no one in the media saw Trump's win coming, and political correctness has something to do with that. The polls were wrong (partly) because people who planned to vote for Trump did not admit this to pollsters. The kind of person who supported Trump is someone who believes that he couldn't be honest or vocal about what he thinks, and saved his rebellion against political correctness for the ballot box. This left foes of Trump less prepared for what was coming. The "unbearable smugness" of the liberal media, as CBS's Will Rahn describes it, blinded us to reality. Libertarians and other advocates of a free society should recognize that those inclined to resist Trump and Pence are allies, and that includes the cast of Hamilton­. But such tactics deserve serious scrutiny, even if they are justified. The point is to stop Trump, not just feel better about having made some futile gesture of resistance.

www.reason.com

right

eWwTLdp5gYt0dBqp

test

occduCPyVTBhySj3

media_bias

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/bc8b3670f9284186ac9a2699566b9baf/US-newspapers-to-Trump:-We're-not-enemies-of-the-people

US newspapers to Trump: We’re not enemies of the people

2018-08-16

An editorial titled `` A Free Press Needs You '' is published in The New York Times , Thursday , Aug. 16 , 2018 , in New York . Newspapers from Maine to Hawaii pushed back against President Donald Trump 's attacks on `` fake news '' Thursday with a coordinated series of editorials speaking up for a free and vigorous press . The Boston Globe , which set the campaign in motion by urging the unified voice , had estimated that some 350 newspapers would participate . ( AP Photo/Mark Lennihan ) An editorial titled `` A Free Press Needs You '' is published in The New York Times , Thursday , Aug. 16 , 2018 , in New York . Newspapers from Maine to Hawaii pushed back against President Donald Trump 's attacks on `` fake news '' Thursday with a coordinated series of editorials speaking up for a free and vigorous press . The Boston Globe , which set the campaign in motion by urging the unified voice , had estimated that some 350 newspapers would participate . ( AP Photo/Mark Lennihan ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — Newspapers from Maine to Hawaii pushed back against President Donald Trump ’ s attacks on “ fake news ” with a coordinated series of editorials in defense of a free press on Thursday — and , not surprisingly , Trump didn ’ t take it silently . The campaign was set in motion by an editor at the Boston Globe , which argued in its own editorial that Trump ’ s label of the media as the enemy of the people “ is as un-American as it is dangerous to the civic compact we have shared for more than two centuries . ” Trump denounced the effort on Twitter , saying the Globe was in collusion with other newspapers . “ There is nothing that I would want more for our country than true FREEDOM OF THE PRESS , ” the president typed . “ The fact is that the press is FREE to write and say anything it wants , but much of what it says is FAKE NEWS , pushing a political agenda or just plain trying to hurt people . ” Meanwhile , the U.S. Senate on Thursday passed a resolution with no objections stating that “ the press is not the enemy of the people . ” Cognizant of heated feelings on the issue , the Globe hired extra security on Thursday , said Jane Bowman , newspaper spokeswoman . “ Journalistic outlets have had threats throughout time but it ’ s the president ’ s rhetoric that gives us the most concern , ” Bowman said . It was not clear how many newspapers participated . Marjorie Pritchard , the editor who launched the campaign , said earlier in the week that some 350 news organizations indicated they would , but she did not immediately return messages on Thursday . Even with the coordinated effort , there was some significant blowback from newspapers that wrote to say they would not participate . The Radio Television Digital News Association called on broadcasters and web sites to express support . Since Monday , there have been 2,240 mentions of either “ First Amendment ” or “ free press ” by broadcasters across the country , said Dan Shelley , the group ’ s executive director . One TV station , WPSD in Paducah , Kentucky , showed a copy of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press on its screen before every commercial during newscasts , he said . “ It has been a big source of conversation all across the country , ” Shelley said . “ Just because people are talking about it , it ’ s a victory in my book . ” Editorial boards at the Portland ( Maine ) Press-Herald and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and many places in between weighed in to support the effort . “ The true enemies of the people — and democracy — are those who try to suffocate truth by vilifying and demonizing the messenger , ” wrote the Des Moines Register in Iowa . In St. Louis , the Post-Dispatch called journalists “ the truest of patriots. ” The Chicago Sun-Times said it believed most Americans know that Trump is talking nonsense . The Fayetteville ( North Carolina ) Observer said it hoped Trump would stop , “ but we ’ re not holding our breath . ” The Morning News of Savannah , Georgia , said it was a confidant of the people . “ Like any true friend , we don ’ t always tell you what you want to hear , ” the Morning News said . “ Our news team presents the happenings and issues in this community through the lens of objectivity . And like any true friend , we refuse to mislead you . Our reporters and editors strive for fairness . ” The New York Times encouraged readers to subscribe to a local newspaper . “ We ’ re all in this together , ” the Times said . That last sentiment made some journalists skittish . Some newspapers , including the Wall Street Journal , the San Francisco Chronicle , the Times-Picayune in New Orleans , the Rome ( N.Y. ) Daily Sentinel and the Richmond ( Virginia ) Times-Dispatch , contained editorials or columns explaining why they weren ’ t joining the Globe ’ s effort . Some worried that it played into the hands of Trump and his supporters who think the media is out to get him . The idea of a coordinated campaign simply left others cold , with one newspaper referencing a longtime rivalry . “ We prize our independence , both from government and from other media outlets , ” the New York Daily News wrote . “ Coordination , especially with Boston , isn ’ t in our nature . ” There was also some scolding of the press — from the press — for letting distaste for Trump show up where it shouldn ’ t in news stories . “ Just as his lack of restraint has often been the president ’ s self-inflicted wound , the bias of some of the press has hurt journalism , at the very moment when it is most needed to save itself , ” said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . “ It is time for a truce . ” It remains unclear how much sway the effort will have . Newspaper editorial boards overwhelmingly opposed Trump ’ s election in 2016 . Polls show Republicans have grown more negative toward the news media in recent years : Pew Research Center said 85 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said in June 2017 that the news media has a negative effect on the country , up from 68 percent in 2010 . At the Capital Gazette in Annapolis , Maryland , where five staff members were killed by a gunman in June , editors said Thursday they were not participating in the effort because they care more about what the community thinks than the president . But Trump can do some good by giving a Presidential Medal of Freedom to one of the slain employees , Wendi Winters , who had tried to stop the gunman by charging at him before being killed , they said . “ The president could use the occasion of presenting the medal to Wendi ’ s family as a moment of change in his approach toward those whose job it is to question his presidency , ” the newspaper ’ s editorial board wrote . “ He could honor her work by expressing his belief in the importance of journalism to our country — even when he feels unfairly treated . ”

An editorial titled "A Free Press Needs You" is published in The New York Times, Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018, in New York. Newspapers from Maine to Hawaii pushed back against President Donald Trump's attacks on "fake news" Thursday with a coordinated series of editorials speaking up for a free and vigorous press. The Boston Globe, which set the campaign in motion by urging the unified voice, had estimated that some 350 newspapers would participate. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) An editorial titled "A Free Press Needs You" is published in The New York Times, Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018, in New York. Newspapers from Maine to Hawaii pushed back against President Donald Trump's attacks on "fake news" Thursday with a coordinated series of editorials speaking up for a free and vigorous press. The Boston Globe, which set the campaign in motion by urging the unified voice, had estimated that some 350 newspapers would participate. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) NEW YORK (AP) — Newspapers from Maine to Hawaii pushed back against President Donald Trump’s attacks on “fake news” with a coordinated series of editorials in defense of a free press on Thursday — and, not surprisingly, Trump didn’t take it silently. The campaign was set in motion by an editor at the Boston Globe, which argued in its own editorial that Trump’s label of the media as the enemy of the people “is as un-American as it is dangerous to the civic compact we have shared for more than two centuries.” Trump denounced the effort on Twitter, saying the Globe was in collusion with other newspapers. “There is nothing that I would want more for our country than true FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,” the president typed. “The fact is that the press is FREE to write and say anything it wants, but much of what it says is FAKE NEWS, pushing a political agenda or just plain trying to hurt people.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate on Thursday passed a resolution with no objections stating that “the press is not the enemy of the people.” Cognizant of heated feelings on the issue, the Globe hired extra security on Thursday, said Jane Bowman, newspaper spokeswoman. “Journalistic outlets have had threats throughout time but it’s the president’s rhetoric that gives us the most concern,” Bowman said. It was not clear how many newspapers participated. Marjorie Pritchard, the editor who launched the campaign, said earlier in the week that some 350 news organizations indicated they would, but she did not immediately return messages on Thursday. Even with the coordinated effort, there was some significant blowback from newspapers that wrote to say they would not participate. The Radio Television Digital News Association called on broadcasters and web sites to express support. Since Monday, there have been 2,240 mentions of either “First Amendment” or “free press” by broadcasters across the country, said Dan Shelley, the group’s executive director. One TV station, WPSD in Paducah, Kentucky, showed a copy of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press on its screen before every commercial during newscasts, he said. “It has been a big source of conversation all across the country,” Shelley said. “Just because people are talking about it, it’s a victory in my book.” Editorial boards at the Portland (Maine) Press-Herald and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and many places in between weighed in to support the effort. “The true enemies of the people — and democracy — are those who try to suffocate truth by vilifying and demonizing the messenger,” wrote the Des Moines Register in Iowa. In St. Louis, the Post-Dispatch called journalists “the truest of patriots.” The Chicago Sun-Times said it believed most Americans know that Trump is talking nonsense. The Fayetteville (North Carolina) Observer said it hoped Trump would stop, “but we’re not holding our breath.” The Morning News of Savannah, Georgia, said it was a confidant of the people. “Like any true friend, we don’t always tell you what you want to hear,” the Morning News said. “Our news team presents the happenings and issues in this community through the lens of objectivity. And like any true friend, we refuse to mislead you. Our reporters and editors strive for fairness.” The New York Times encouraged readers to subscribe to a local newspaper. “We’re all in this together,” the Times said. That last sentiment made some journalists skittish. Some newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Times-Picayune in New Orleans, the Rome (N.Y.) Daily Sentinel and the Richmond (Virginia) Times-Dispatch, contained editorials or columns explaining why they weren’t joining the Globe’s effort. Some worried that it played into the hands of Trump and his supporters who think the media is out to get him. The idea of a coordinated campaign simply left others cold, with one newspaper referencing a longtime rivalry. “We prize our independence, both from government and from other media outlets,” the New York Daily News wrote. “Coordination, especially with Boston, isn’t in our nature.” There was also some scolding of the press — from the press — for letting distaste for Trump show up where it shouldn’t in news stories. “Just as his lack of restraint has often been the president’s self-inflicted wound, the bias of some of the press has hurt journalism, at the very moment when it is most needed to save itself,” said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “It is time for a truce.” It remains unclear how much sway the effort will have. Newspaper editorial boards overwhelmingly opposed Trump’s election in 2016. Polls show Republicans have grown more negative toward the news media in recent years: Pew Research Center said 85 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said in June 2017 that the news media has a negative effect on the country, up from 68 percent in 2010. At the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, where five staff members were killed by a gunman in June, editors said Thursday they were not participating in the effort because they care more about what the community thinks than the president. But Trump can do some good by giving a Presidential Medal of Freedom to one of the slain employees, Wendi Winters, who had tried to stop the gunman by charging at him before being killed, they said. “The president could use the occasion of presenting the medal to Wendi’s family as a moment of change in his approach toward those whose job it is to question his presidency,” the newspaper’s editorial board wrote. “He could honor her work by expressing his belief in the importance of journalism to our country — even when he feels unfairly treated.” ___ Associated Press correspondents Ted Anthony, Alanna Durkin Richer, Hannah Fingerhut, Skip Foreman, Amanda Kell, Jack Jones, Herb McCann, David Runk and Juliet Williams contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

occduCPyVTBhySj3

test

yHxKfAcPYMwsD2Mp

treasury

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/18/cnn-poll-did-white-house-order-irs-targeting/?hpt=po_c1

CNN Poll: Did White House order IRS targeting?

2013-06-18

Washington ( CNN ) - A growing number of Americans believe that senior White House officials ordered the Internal Revenue Service to target conservative political groups , according to a new national poll . And a CNN/ORC International survey released Tuesday morning also indicates that a majority of the public says the controversy , which involves increased IRS scrutiny of tea party and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status , is very important to the nation . Republicans argue that the Obama administration used the IRS to intimidate and harass political opponents . Democrats say poor management at the tax agency , rather than political bias , is to blame . Congressional sources on both sides say that interviews with IRS workers so far have found no evidence of political dealings by the White House . White House Press Secretary Jay Carney , touting an independent IRS inspector general report , has said the scrutiny appears to have originated with `` IRS officials in Cincinnati , '' where the agency 's tax exempt division is centered . Last month only 37 % of the public thought that the IRS controversy led to the White House , with 55 % saying that agency officials acted on their own without direct orders from Washington . Now the number who say the White House directed that IRS program has increased 10 points , to 47 % , virtually the same as the 49 % who believe the IRS agents acted on their own . `` Younger Americans are much less likely than older Americans to believe in White House involvement , and there is , not surprisingly , a partisan divide as well , '' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . `` But the Obama administration may be losing independents on this matter . In May , only 36 % felt the White House ordered the IRS to target conservative groups ; now that number has crossed the 50 % threshold . '' Fifty-one percent of those questioned said the IRS controversy is a very important issue to the nation , compared to 55 % who felt that way in May . In the past week and a half , the IRS story has been put a bit on the backburner , as the controversy over the federal government 's massive surveillance program has dominated the spotlight . The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International June 11-13 , with 1,014 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points .

6 years ago Updated 8:01 a.m. ET, Tuesday, 6/18 Washington (CNN) - A growing number of Americans believe that senior White House officials ordered the Internal Revenue Service to target conservative political groups, according to a new national poll. And a CNN/ORC International survey released Tuesday morning also indicates that a majority of the public says the controversy, which involves increased IRS scrutiny of tea party and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, is very important to the nation. Republicans argue that the Obama administration used the IRS to intimidate and harass political opponents. Democrats say poor management at the tax agency, rather than political bias, is to blame. Congressional sources on both sides say that interviews with IRS workers so far have found no evidence of political dealings by the White House. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, touting an independent IRS inspector general report, has said the scrutiny appears to have originated with "IRS officials in Cincinnati," where the agency's tax exempt division is centered. GOP tries to keep focus on IRS targeting scandal Last month only 37% of the public thought that the IRS controversy led to the White House, with 55% saying that agency officials acted on their own without direct orders from Washington. Now the number who say the White House directed that IRS program has increased 10 points, to 47%, virtually the same as the 49% who believe the IRS agents acted on their own. "Younger Americans are much less likely than older Americans to believe in White House involvement, and there is, not surprisingly, a partisan divide as well," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But the Obama administration may be losing independents on this matter. In May, only 36% felt the White House ordered the IRS to target conservative groups; now that number has crossed the 50% threshold." Fifty-one percent of those questioned said the IRS controversy is a very important issue to the nation, compared to 55% who felt that way in May. In the past week and a half, the IRS story has been put a bit on the backburner, as the controversy over the federal government's massive surveillance program has dominated the spotlight. The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International June 11-13, with 1,014 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points. CNN Political Editor Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

yHxKfAcPYMwsD2Mp

test

Kv0hBbkQRZKS4Aiy

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/06/23/exposefacebook-project-veritas-reveals-anti-trump-bias-within-facebook-moderation-teams/

#ExposeFacebook: Project Veritas Reveals Anti-Trump Bias Within Facebook Moderation Teams

2020-06-23

Breitbart Tech

An exposé of Facebook by James O ’ Keefe and the investigative journalists at Project Veritas reveals the depths of the anti-conservative bias within the company ’ s content moderation team . James O ’ Keefe ’ s investigative journalism team Project Veritas released a new video today featuring comments from Facebook insiders and contractor employees revealing just how deep anti-conservative bias runs at the company . Project Veritas went undercover at Facebook along with Accenture and Cognizant , which provide the contractors that handle Facebook ’ s content moderation . In undercover videos captured by Project Veritas , employees can be seen and heard acknowledging anti-Trump and anti-conservative bias at Mark Zuckerberg ’ s company , with some employees outright stating their intention to ban pro-Trump content on the platform . “ I think they ’ re ( @ Facebook ) very biased with who they protect . They already shadowban , Facebook is notorious for it . They say they don ’ t , but its clear that peoples content don ’ t come up because its been de-filtered off the queue ” – Daniel Will , Content Moderator # ExposeFacebook pic.twitter.com/hSYBLSRp00 — James O'Keefe ( @ JamesOKeefeIII ) June 23 , 2020 In another video , a Cognizant employee working as a social media content moderator states “ if someone is wearing a MAGA hat , I ’ m going to delete them for terrorism . ” BREAKING : Facebook Insider records coworkers Anti-Trump content moderation practices ; prepared to testify over FB political bias “ If someone is wearing a MAGA hat I 'm going to delete them for terrorism ” – Lara Kontakos , Content Moderator # ExposeFacebook pic.twitter.com/qA83x3Cx5V — James O'Keefe ( @ JamesOKeefeIII ) June 23 , 2020 A former Cognizant employee named Zach McElroy came to Project Veritas with his findings while working at the content moderation company , outlining the bias he perceived within the company and across Facebook . McElroy wrote in a post on Medium.com : During the interview I found out the platform I ’ d be working for would be Facebook/Instagram , which I had already suspected given the nature of the job description . I was shown examples of just what “ content ” I would be “ moderating ” , which included racist memes , people bullying each other , and gore like you ’ d have seen on /b/ or LiveLeak years ago . But for the most part , my day-to-day content feed was largely incoherent rants and WorldStar fight videos . I should note that the focus of most reporting on this job by other outlets seems to have focused entirely on this aspect of the job . The PTSD that workers have claimed to develop as a result of viewing such vile imagery has been brought to light multiple times in multiple high-profile articles , even resulting in a class-action lawsuit which Facebook recently settled for $ 52M — in fact , this negative press is precisely what led to all my coworkers and I being laid off earlier this year . Training for the job lasted about a month and covered their entire internal policy in detail . I came into this job as a conservative , and immediately I took notice of highly objectionable biases in Facebook ’ s guidelines , from ideologically-based policies and definitions to allowing things to be posted that could get people killed . But what was I going to do about it ? Leak documents on 4chan ? Go to the media ? No one cares . I was just some nobody in a sea of nobodies . Indeed , Facebook famously seems to want to ignore their content moderators ’ existence , which is most likely the reason this work is subcontracted in the first place — “ it ’ s not their problem ” . Their response to criticism of this has even been so astonishingly tone-deaf as to put signs around their campus which read “ Contractors Are People Too ” , as reported by Bloomberg in May 2019 . McElroy stated that upon seeing the work done by Project Veritas with Pinterest whistleblower Eric Cochran , he chose to come forward with his story . McElroy reached out to Project Veritas and within a short period of time was undercover within Cognizant recording employee ’ s conversations and exposing bias within the firm . McElroy claimed that while working at Cognizant , a graphic image of President Trump having this throat cut was allowed on the platform while memes and cartoons about former Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O ’ Rourke were removed from the platform : BREAKING : Facebook Insider @ ZachMcE discusses an internal memo from @ Facebook that allowed for a graphic image of President @ realDonaldTrump getting his throat cut to remain on the platform while cartoon memes of @ BetoORourke were removed. # ExposeFacebook pic.twitter.com/uEDsHxIGME — James O'Keefe ( @ JamesOKeefeIII ) June 23 , 2020 Donald Trump Jr. commented on Project Veritas ’ video stating : “ More truth about Facebook and the social media masters . Enough is enough we can ’ t let them interfere with elections any longer . ” More truth about Facebook and the social media masters . Enough is enough we can ’ t let them interfere with elections any longer . Election interference is such a hot topic except when it ’ s done by the left , then everyone is silent . https : //t.co/HNR5y9QHZt — Donald Trump Jr. ( @ DonaldJTrumpJr ) June 23 , 2020

An exposé of Facebook by James O’Keefe and the investigative journalists at Project Veritas reveals the depths of the anti-conservative bias within the company’s content moderation team. James O’Keefe’s investigative journalism team Project Veritas released a new video today featuring comments from Facebook insiders and contractor employees revealing just how deep anti-conservative bias runs at the company. Project Veritas went undercover at Facebook along with Accenture and Cognizant, which provide the contractors that handle Facebook’s content moderation. In undercover videos captured by Project Veritas, employees can be seen and heard acknowledging anti-Trump and anti-conservative bias at Mark Zuckerberg’s company, with some employees outright stating their intention to ban pro-Trump content on the platform. One Cognizant employee, Daniel Will, stated on video: “I think they’re [Facebook] very biased with who they protect. They already shadowban, Facebook is notorious for it. They say they don’t, but it’s clear that people’s content doesn’t come up because its been de-filtered off the queue.” “I think they’re(@Facebook)very biased with who they protect. They already shadowban, Facebook is notorious for it. They say they don’t, but its clear that peoples content don’t come up because its been de-filtered off the queue” – Daniel Will, Content Moderator #ExposeFacebook pic.twitter.com/hSYBLSRp00 — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 23, 2020 In another video, a Cognizant employee working as a social media content moderator states “if someone is wearing a MAGA hat, I’m going to delete them for terrorism.” BREAKING: Facebook Insider records coworkers Anti-Trump content moderation practices; prepared to testify over FB political bias “If someone is wearing a MAGA hat I'm going to delete them for terrorism” – Lara Kontakos, Content Moderator#ExposeFacebook pic.twitter.com/qA83x3Cx5V — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 23, 2020 A former Cognizant employee named Zach McElroy came to Project Veritas with his findings while working at the content moderation company, outlining the bias he perceived within the company and across Facebook. McElroy wrote in a post on Medium.com: During the interview I found out the platform I’d be working for would be Facebook/Instagram, which I had already suspected given the nature of the job description. I was shown examples of just what “content” I would be “moderating”, which included racist memes, people bullying each other, and gore like you’d have seen on /b/ or LiveLeak years ago. But for the most part, my day-to-day content feed was largely incoherent rants and WorldStar fight videos. I should note that the focus of most reporting on this job by other outlets seems to have focused entirely on this aspect of the job. The PTSD that workers have claimed to develop as a result of viewing such vile imagery has been brought to light multiple times in multiple high-profile articles, even resulting in a class-action lawsuit which Facebook recently settled for $52M — in fact, this negative press is precisely what led to all my coworkers and I being laid off earlier this year. Training for the job lasted about a month and covered their entire internal policy in detail. I came into this job as a conservative, and immediately I took notice of highly objectionable biases in Facebook’s guidelines, from ideologically-based policies and definitions to allowing things to be posted that could get people killed. But what was I going to do about it? Leak documents on 4chan? Go to the media? No one cares. I was just some nobody in a sea of nobodies. Indeed, Facebook famously seems to want to ignore their content moderators’ existence, which is most likely the reason this work is subcontracted in the first place — “it’s not their problem”. Their response to criticism of this has even been so astonishingly tone-deaf as to put signs around their campus which read “Contractors Are People Too”, as reported by Bloomberg in May 2019. McElroy stated that upon seeing the work done by Project Veritas with Pinterest whistleblower Eric Cochran, he chose to come forward with his story. McElroy reached out to Project Veritas and within a short period of time was undercover within Cognizant recording employee’s conversations and exposing bias within the firm. McElroy claimed that while working at Cognizant, a graphic image of President Trump having this throat cut was allowed on the platform while memes and cartoons about former Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke were removed from the platform: BREAKING: Facebook Insider @ZachMcE discusses an internal memo from @Facebook that allowed for a graphic image of President @realDonaldTrump getting his throat cut to remain on the platform while cartoon memes of @BetoORourke were removed.#ExposeFacebook pic.twitter.com/uEDsHxIGME — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 23, 2020 Donald Trump Jr. commented on Project Veritas’ video stating: “More truth about Facebook and the social media masters. Enough is enough we can’t let them interfere with elections any longer.” More truth about Facebook and the social media masters. Enough is enough we can’t let them interfere with elections any longer. Election interference is such a hot topic except when it’s done by the left, then everyone is silent. https://t.co/HNR5y9QHZt — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 23, 2020 Read more at Project Veritas here.

www.breitbart.com

right

Kv0hBbkQRZKS4Aiy

test

hqcY8eTrZD72gktq

nuclear_weapons

The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/the-guardian-view-on-obama-in-hiroshima-facing-a-nuclear-past-not-fixing-a-post-nuclear-future

Facing a nuclear past, not fixing a post-nuclear future: Editorial

2016-05-26

What Barack Obama will see , when on Friday he becomes the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima , is a large esplanade lined with trees , with a cenotaph monument to the victims of the A-bomb , with the words : “ the error of the past will not be repeated ” . In the memorial park , he will see the gutted , skeletal , dome-shaped building that was once an exhibition hall ; it has been preserved as the only structure left standing in the area where the Enola Gay dropped its charge at 8:15am , on 6 August 1945 . He will also visit a museum exhibiting pictures of the city before and after the blast , as well as descriptions of what its inhabitants suffered in the inferno . Mr Obama will not offer an apology for the decision taken by his wartime predecessor , Harry Truman – that would mean breaking a decades-old taboo among successive US administrations , and the White House has made clear Mr Obama would avoid such a move . But he will no doubt find the words to make the call that has been a hallmark of his presidency : the call to work towards a “ world without nuclear weapons ” . Mr Obama first pronounced those words in a 2009 speech in Prague , and they helped him secure the Nobel peace prize later that same year . But seven years on , the message – and the dream – has run up against a wall of geopolitical realities . The Japanese have long awaited a US presidential acknowledgement of the horrors unleashed on Hiroshima 71 years ago and then , three days later , Nagasaki . Some may take Mr Obama ’ s visit as vindicating pacifist views , but the strategic context in Asia is not supportive of these . American nuclear deterrence is something many US allies in the region want to see consolidated , not dismantled or diminished . As he burnishes his legacy with this symbolic gesture , the president knows he needs to tread carefully , in an Asia in which China ’ s rise has caused disruptive , and sometimes alarming shifts , in the balance of power . At the heart of this visit is a striking paradox : nuclear weapons are terrifying , but , amid bitter regional standoffs , the nuclear umbrella is as much in demand as ever . And while Japan continues to officially campaign – as Mr Obama has done – for the global elimination of atomic weapons , both it and South Korea actually want to see American defence assurances reiterated , if not strengthened . As well as China ’ s new military assertiveness , US allies in Asia have the unpredictability of North Korea to reckon with . China and Japan have been embroiled in a long-running dispute over ownership of the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea . China has put nerves on edge among its neighbours by building and militarising artificial islands in the South China Sea , and by claiming swaths of water . Earlier this year , North Korea carried out its fourth nuclear test and it has pushed ahead with ballistic missile development in defiance of international sanctions . So while Mr Obama will use his visit to Hiroshima to revisit his anti-nuclear ideals , the substantive US-Japanese dialogue will be concerned with nuclear deterrence in the face of China ’ s military build-up . The US commitment to nuclear military power will not have been reduced in any way under the Obama presidency : this year , his administration released budget proposals which include plans to spend an estimated $ 1tn over 30 years on modernising the nuclear arsenal . Those who hoped for substantive gestures towards disarmament will be left just as disappointed as those who had hoped that a 2010 US-Russia agreement on limiting the number of deployed nuclear warheads would be followed by further efforts . Mr Obama ’ s abolitionist message strikes , at best , a discordant note with current policies , and at worst may sound like outright hypocrisy . Geopolitical constraints have caught up with Mr Obama . The behaviour of China , North Korea and also Russia , which has indulged in nuclear sabre-rattling across Europe since the Ukraine war , have led some experts to describe a new era of nuclear deterrence , 25 years after the end of the cold war . These are certainly not developments the president wished for , but they are the circumstances that fate has dealt him . More than 200,000 people were killed by the A-bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 . The devastating power of atomic warfare opened up an era where humanity ’ s very survival was suddenly at stake . The world continues to live in the shadow of the bomb , and looks set to do so after the age of Mr Obama , too . It can only be a good thing that , for the first time , a sitting American president will pay respect to Hiroshima ’ s victims . Mr Obama likes symbols and is good at speeches . But the visit also lays bare the daunting gap between a laudable , idealistic vision , and the hard realities and choices that presidents must so often confront .

What Barack Obama will see, when on Friday he becomes the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima, is a large esplanade lined with trees, with a cenotaph monument to the victims of the A-bomb, with the words: “the error of the past will not be repeated”. In the memorial park, he will see the gutted, skeletal, dome-shaped building that was once an exhibition hall; it has been preserved as the only structure left standing in the area where the Enola Gay dropped its charge at 8:15am, on 6 August 1945. He will also visit a museum exhibiting pictures of the city before and after the blast, as well as descriptions of what its inhabitants suffered in the inferno. Mr Obama will not offer an apology for the decision taken by his wartime predecessor, Harry Truman – that would mean breaking a decades-old taboo among successive US administrations, and the White House has made clear Mr Obama would avoid such a move. But he will no doubt find the words to make the call that has been a hallmark of his presidency: the call to work towards a “world without nuclear weapons”. Mr Obama first pronounced those words in a 2009 speech in Prague, and they helped him secure the Nobel peace prize later that same year. But seven years on, the message – and the dream – has run up against a wall of geopolitical realities. The Japanese have long awaited a US presidential acknowledgement of the horrors unleashed on Hiroshima 71 years ago and then, three days later, Nagasaki. Some may take Mr Obama’s visit as vindicating pacifist views, but the strategic context in Asia is not supportive of these. American nuclear deterrence is something many US allies in the region want to see consolidated, not dismantled or diminished. As he burnishes his legacy with this symbolic gesture, the president knows he needs to tread carefully, in an Asia in which China’s rise has caused disruptive, and sometimes alarming shifts, in the balance of power. At the heart of this visit is a striking paradox: nuclear weapons are terrifying, but, amid bitter regional standoffs, the nuclear umbrella is as much in demand as ever. And while Japan continues to officially campaign – as Mr Obama has done – for the global elimination of atomic weapons, both it and South Korea actually want to see American defence assurances reiterated, if not strengthened. As well as China’s new military assertiveness, US allies in Asia have the unpredictability of North Korea to reckon with. China and Japan have been embroiled in a long-running dispute over ownership of the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. China has put nerves on edge among its neighbours by building and militarising artificial islands in the South China Sea, and by claiming swaths of water. Earlier this year, North Korea carried out its fourth nuclear test and it has pushed ahead with ballistic missile development in defiance of international sanctions. So while Mr Obama will use his visit to Hiroshima to revisit his anti-nuclear ideals, the substantive US-Japanese dialogue will be concerned with nuclear deterrence in the face of China’s military build-up. The US commitment to nuclear military power will not have been reduced in any way under the Obama presidency: this year, his administration released budget proposals which include plans to spend an estimated $1tn over 30 years on modernising the nuclear arsenal. Those who hoped for substantive gestures towards disarmament will be left just as disappointed as those who had hoped that a 2010 US-Russia agreement on limiting the number of deployed nuclear warheads would be followed by further efforts. Mr Obama’s abolitionist message strikes, at best, a discordant note with current policies, and at worst may sound like outright hypocrisy. Geopolitical constraints have caught up with Mr Obama. The behaviour of China, North Korea and also Russia, which has indulged in nuclear sabre-rattling across Europe since the Ukraine war, have led some experts to describe a new era of nuclear deterrence, 25 years after the end of the cold war. These are certainly not developments the president wished for, but they are the circumstances that fate has dealt him. More than 200,000 people were killed by the A-bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. The devastating power of atomic warfare opened up an era where humanity’s very survival was suddenly at stake. The world continues to live in the shadow of the bomb, and looks set to do so after the age of Mr Obama, too. It can only be a good thing that, for the first time, a sitting American president will pay respect to Hiroshima’s victims. Mr Obama likes symbols and is good at speeches. But the visit also lays bare the daunting gap between a laudable, idealistic vision, and the hard realities and choices that presidents must so often confront.

www.theguardian.com

left

hqcY8eTrZD72gktq

test

sRvB3JbEoTwYRmEc

race_and_racism

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-52919418

Undocumented workers an 'invisible public health risk'

Danny Vincent

There are an estimated one million undocumented workers in the UK . The coronavirus pandemic has presented them with a new set of challenges and fears over how to maintain an income , remain healthy or even stay alive . On an old square television in a shared house in a suburb of London , Filipina nanny Carla watches the government coronavirus daily briefings well aware the updates are not intended for her . Carla , whose name - along with others in this article - has been changed to protect her identity , is among an estimated one million undocumented workers living in the UK . Of the 12 tenants living in the house , only one has the right to work in the country - a nurse working for the NHS on the front line of the pandemic . `` We are worried for her and worried for ourselves , '' Carla said over an encrypted messenger app . She was speaking over her six-month-old baby 's cries and sporadically broke down in tears herself . `` I fear for my family . If I get sick I wo n't have anywhere to self-isolate , '' she told the BBC . For seven years Carla has worked illegally as a domestic worker in London 's grey economy , caring for the elderly and working as a nanny for various families . Before the lockdown she would send part of her salary to her relatives in the Philippines . With no access to the financial assistance announced by the UK government , Carla found herself down to her last £3 . `` If I get sick , I 'm afraid to phone the 111 helpline . They will find out that I do n't have papers , '' she said . As the lockdown eases across England , charities have said they fear London 's undocumented workers could be among the most vulnerable in society . Despite reassurances from the government that the NHS would not carry out immigration checks in hospitals , many undocumented workers have worried about seeking medical help . `` The consequences have been tragic , '' said Susan Cueva , from Kanlungan Filipino consortium , an alliance of Filipino nationals in the UK . `` Some refuse to get help despite the fact their situation is deteriorating . '' Ms Cueva estimated there could be as many as 10,000 undocumented Filipino carers and domestic workers in the country . Undocumented workers are at risk not only of contracting Covid-19 , but also starving because of the crisis created by the pandemic . `` We are also front-line workers , '' said Shell , an undocumented carer from the Philippines . `` We know it 's against the law . We do the work people do n't want to do . `` We try our best not to be a burden for the country . If they give us a chance to work we will pay taxes . '' There are no exact numbers of undocumented workers living in the UK . In 2017 , Pew Research Centre claimed there may have been between 800,000 and 1.2 million unauthorised migrants living in the UK . `` The government lost count a long time ago and never wanted to confront the question of numbers , '' said Dr Rhetta Moran from Rapar , a human rights charity . She has been campaigning for the government to provide housing and healthcare for all during the pandemic , irrespective of their status . Some have overstayed their visas and begun working in the illegal economy . Many travelled to the UK to seek asylum but had their applications rejected . Some have been smuggled into the country . `` I was trafficked multiple times and finally boarded a ship which took me to the UK , '' said Mrs Zhao , a restaurant worker , who has lived in the UK for 12 years . She spoke to the BBC through the Chinese Information and Advice centre , under the condition of anonymity . During the lockdown many have been relying on communities for financial support . `` I am glad that I managed to get this far , '' she said . `` Most of the time my mind is blank but luckily my friends who are in similar situations are being very supportive and caring . '' Jean has been self-isolating in a west London house since the lockdown began in March . The Jamaican national has been living in the UK for more than a decade and pays rent to a family of five who sublet her a tiny room . She entered the country on a student visa and worked part time to support her studies but when she changed colleges her visa application was rejected and Jean became an undocumented worker . Via WhatsApp she tells me : `` I sometimes feel like I 'm British . I talk like them . `` Now I feel if I could run away from here I would , but borders are closed and there are no flights . `` Even if there were flights and if I went home they would treat me so badly and say 'you brought the virus into the country ' . '' As the lockdown eased Jean said she became aware of the risks of returning to work . `` I think now I am becoming more vulnerable to everything , '' she said . Last month the domestic worker was called by her long-term employer and asked to return . She was paid one day 's wages for three days of work . After complaining she was asked not to return . `` I do n't know what to do . I do n't want to get trapped again . I do n't know how to survive . '' She now faces a greater risk of exploitation and fears she could fall victim to modern-day slavery . With no income for the duration of the lockdown and no government support , she says she must now accept more risky work . Jean said she felt unsafe in her own home and her landlord was demanding she paid a lump sum of rent owed that she did not pay during the lockdown . `` He keeps banging on my door and asking me to give him money , '' she said . Charities have said illegal workers faced new risks of exploitation when returning to employment . And charity groups fear undocumented migrants would now face challenges beyond the coronavirus . `` As the coronavirus pandemic continues to unfold , many workers have already lost their jobs , '' said Matt Friedman from Mekong Club , an anti-slavery charity . Natural disasters around the world usually lead to a rise in modern-day slavery and human trafficking , Mr Friedman says . He expects to see a rise in the number of people trafficked into cities like London once borders reopen while illegal migrants face greater exploitation . Mr Friedman says : `` With few options available to them , these people often become desperate . `` This combination of factors significantly increases the potential for human traffickers to take advantage of this vulnerability . '' A Home Office spokesperson said : `` Illegal migrants are not eligible for mainstream benefits . `` However , we have made sure that coronavirus treatment is available on the NHS for free , regardless of someone 's immigration status . `` Local authorities may provide a basic safety net especially in cases involving children . ''

Image caption "Clara" said she was too scared to call the 111 helpline if she gets sick There are an estimated one million undocumented workers in the UK. The coronavirus pandemic has presented them with a new set of challenges and fears over how to maintain an income, remain healthy or even stay alive. On an old square television in a shared house in a suburb of London, Filipina nanny Carla watches the government coronavirus daily briefings well aware the updates are not intended for her. Carla, whose name - along with others in this article - has been changed to protect her identity, is among an estimated one million undocumented workers living in the UK. Of the 12 tenants living in the house, only one has the right to work in the country - a nurse working for the NHS on the front line of the pandemic. "We are worried for her and worried for ourselves," Carla said over an encrypted messenger app. 'I fear for my family' She was speaking over her six-month-old baby's cries and sporadically broke down in tears herself. "I fear for my family. If I get sick I won't have anywhere to self-isolate," she told the BBC. For seven years Carla has worked illegally as a domestic worker in London's grey economy, caring for the elderly and working as a nanny for various families. Before the lockdown she would send part of her salary to her relatives in the Philippines. With no access to the financial assistance announced by the UK government, Carla found herself down to her last £3. "If I get sick, I'm afraid to phone the 111 helpline. They will find out that I don't have papers," she said. Image copyright PA Media Image caption Many undocumented workers fear seeking medical help fearing they will face immigration enforcement if identified As the lockdown eases across England, charities have said they fear London's undocumented workers could be among the most vulnerable in society. Despite reassurances from the government that the NHS would not carry out immigration checks in hospitals, many undocumented workers have worried about seeking medical help. "The consequences have been tragic," said Susan Cueva, from Kanlungan Filipino consortium, an alliance of Filipino nationals in the UK. "Some refuse to get help despite the fact their situation is deteriorating." Risk of starving Ms Cueva estimated there could be as many as 10,000 undocumented Filipino carers and domestic workers in the country. Charities fear they represent an invisible public health risk. Undocumented workers are at risk not only of contracting Covid-19, but also starving because of the crisis created by the pandemic. "We are also front-line workers," said Shell, an undocumented carer from the Philippines. "We know it's against the law. We do the work people don't want to do. "We try our best not to be a burden for the country. If they give us a chance to work we will pay taxes." Image copyright Reuters Image caption Many undocumented workers enter the UK on legal visas There are no exact numbers of undocumented workers living in the UK. In 2017, Pew Research Centre claimed there may have been between 800,000 and 1.2 million unauthorised migrants living in the UK. "The government lost count a long time ago and never wanted to confront the question of numbers," said Dr Rhetta Moran from Rapar, a human rights charity. She has been campaigning for the government to provide housing and healthcare for all during the pandemic, irrespective of their status. Undocumented workers have varied back stories and experiences. Some have overstayed their visas and begun working in the illegal economy. Many travelled to the UK to seek asylum but had their applications rejected. Some have been smuggled into the country. "I was trafficked multiple times and finally boarded a ship which took me to the UK," said Mrs Zhao, a restaurant worker, who has lived in the UK for 12 years. She spoke to the BBC through the Chinese Information and Advice centre, under the condition of anonymity. During the lockdown many have been relying on communities for financial support. "I am glad that I managed to get this far," she said. "Most of the time my mind is blank but luckily my friends who are in similar situations are being very supportive and caring." Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Undocumented workers could become more vulnerable to modern-day slavery because of lockdown Jean has been self-isolating in a west London house since the lockdown began in March. The Jamaican national has been living in the UK for more than a decade and pays rent to a family of five who sublet her a tiny room. She entered the country on a student visa and worked part time to support her studies but when she changed colleges her visa application was rejected and Jean became an undocumented worker. Via WhatsApp she tells me: "I sometimes feel like I'm British. I talk like them. "Now I feel if I could run away from here I would, but borders are closed and there are no flights. "Even if there were flights and if I went home they would treat me so badly and say 'you brought the virus into the country'." 'I don't know how to survive' As the lockdown eased Jean said she became aware of the risks of returning to work. "I think now I am becoming more vulnerable to everything," she said. Last month the domestic worker was called by her long-term employer and asked to return. She was paid one day's wages for three days of work. After complaining she was asked not to return. "I don't know what to do. I don't want to get trapped again. I don't know how to survive." She now faces a greater risk of exploitation and fears she could fall victim to modern-day slavery. With no income for the duration of the lockdown and no government support, she says she must now accept more risky work. Jean said she felt unsafe in her own home and her landlord was demanding she paid a lump sum of rent owed that she did not pay during the lockdown. "He keeps banging on my door and asking me to give him money," she said. Charities have said illegal workers faced new risks of exploitation when returning to employment. And charity groups fear undocumented migrants would now face challenges beyond the coronavirus. "As the coronavirus pandemic continues to unfold, many workers have already lost their jobs," said Matt Friedman from Mekong Club, an anti-slavery charity. Natural disasters around the world usually lead to a rise in modern-day slavery and human trafficking, Mr Friedman says. He expects to see a rise in the number of people trafficked into cities like London once borders reopen while illegal migrants face greater exploitation. Mr Friedman says: "With few options available to them, these people often become desperate. "This combination of factors significantly increases the potential for human traffickers to take advantage of this vulnerability." A Home Office spokesperson said: "Illegal migrants are not eligible for mainstream benefits. "However, we have made sure that coronavirus treatment is available on the NHS for free, regardless of someone's immigration status. "Local authorities may provide a basic safety net especially in cases involving children."

www.bbc.com

center

sRvB3JbEoTwYRmEc

test

AKE6rHZBw04a7gpa

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44359434

Trump: I have 'absolute right' to pardon myself

US President Donald Trump has said he has the `` absolute right '' to pardon himself in the Russia inquiry , while insisting he has done nothing wrong . He echoed the argument his lawyers made in a January memo to the US special counsel leading the investigation . In his tweet , Mr Trump once again lashed out at the inquiry into whether his election campaign had colluded with Russia or obstructed justice . Constitutional scholars are divided on whether a president can pardon himself . The exact legality of a self-pardon is unclear . There is no precedent for a US president pardoning himself . The US constitution allows the president the `` power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States , except in cases of impeachment '' . A president could offer clemency , commutation or a full pardon , even if an individual has not been charged or convicted . However , he can not pardon people over state-level crimes . But the broad application of presidential pardons has left some constitutional scholars divided on the matter . Some legal experts say no , citing an opinion issued by the justice department that President Richard Nixon could not pardon himself `` under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case '' . Other experts have said the action would be improper , but acknowledge that the constitution does not technically preclude a self-pardon . The `` 13 Democrats '' Mr Trump refers to appear to be among the 17 investigators on Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's team , but it unclear to whom he is referring . Some of the investigators on Mr Mueller 's team have previously registered as Democrats and nine of them have made financial donations to the Democratic party in the past , according to US media reports . Mr Mueller is a lifelong registered Republican who was chosen by Republican president George W Bush to serve as FBI director . Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , who appointed Mr Mueller to head the Russia probe , is also a registered Republican . According to federal guidelines , Department of Justice managers are prohibited from considering employees ' political affiliation when choosing their assignments . Donald Trump may be preparing to weaponise the pardon - a silver-tipped arrow in the presidential quiver that could protect Mr Trump and his inner circle from Robert Mueller 's team of investigators . The groundwork is being laid for total war against the special counsel . For months the president and his defenders have been chipping away at the foundations of the investigation , questioning whether it was improvidently established , accusing it of conflict of interest and outright partisan bias , and decrying its duration and cost . If they can establish , at least in the minds of Republican politicians and party faithful , that the investigation is illegitimate , then the pardon becomes a noble tool for protecting the innocent and the unfairly prosecuted . The weapon has already been test fired - in granting reprieves to conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza , former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio , all the victims in the president 's view of unfair , politically motivated federal investigations . The stage is set , if Mr Mueller 's team makes a move against those closest to the president or even Mr Trump himself , for the pardon power to be unleashed . Then a theoretical legal debate becomes a very real one , with very real consequences . Also on Monday morning , White House adviser Kellyanne Conway was asked by a reporter why the president talked about pardoning himself . She replied : `` Why would he need to pardon himself if he 's done nothing wrong ? You just like to engage in these hypothetical exercises constantly . `` I presume it 's easier than understanding the ins and outs of North Korea and trade policy . '' Mr Trump 's tweet comes a day after one of his lawyers addressed the self-pardon issue on the Sunday talk shows . Rudy Giuliani told ABC 's This Week programme that Mr Trump `` has no intention of pardoning himself '' , while adding that he `` probably does '' have that power . Mr Giuliani told NBC 's Meet the Press : `` Pardoning himself would be unthinkable and probably lead to immediate impeachment . `` And he has no need to do it , he 's done nothing wrong . '' But speaking on CNN on Sunday , House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said no president should pardon himself .

Image copyright AFP US President Donald Trump has said he has the "absolute right" to pardon himself in the Russia inquiry, while insisting he has done nothing wrong. He echoed the argument his lawyers made in a January memo to the US special counsel leading the investigation. In his tweet, Mr Trump once again lashed out at the inquiry into whether his election campaign had colluded with Russia or obstructed justice. Constitutional scholars are divided on whether a president can pardon himself. Could Trump pardon himself? The exact legality of a self-pardon is unclear. There is no precedent for a US president pardoning himself. The US constitution allows the president the "power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment". A president could offer clemency, commutation or a full pardon, even if an individual has not been charged or convicted. However, he cannot pardon people over state-level crimes. But the broad application of presidential pardons has left some constitutional scholars divided on the matter. Some legal experts say no, citing an opinion issued by the justice department that President Richard Nixon could not pardon himself "under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case". Other experts have said the action would be improper, but acknowledge that the constitution does not technically preclude a self-pardon. What did Trump say? The "13 Democrats" Mr Trump refers to appear to be among the 17 investigators on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, but it unclear to whom he is referring. Some of the investigators on Mr Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats and nine of them have made financial donations to the Democratic party in the past, according to US media reports. Mr Mueller is a lifelong registered Republican who was chosen by Republican president George W Bush to serve as FBI director. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr Mueller to head the Russia probe, is also a registered Republican. According to federal guidelines, Department of Justice managers are prohibited from considering employees' political affiliation when choosing their assignments. Image copyright PA/reuters Image caption Mr Trump has repeatedly attacked the investigation by Mr Mueller (right) Why is Trump doing this? Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington Donald Trump may be preparing to weaponise the pardon - a silver-tipped arrow in the presidential quiver that could protect Mr Trump and his inner circle from Robert Mueller's team of investigators. The groundwork is being laid for total war against the special counsel. For months the president and his defenders have been chipping away at the foundations of the investigation, questioning whether it was improvidently established, accusing it of conflict of interest and outright partisan bias, and decrying its duration and cost. If they can establish, at least in the minds of Republican politicians and party faithful, that the investigation is illegitimate, then the pardon becomes a noble tool for protecting the innocent and the unfairly prosecuted. The weapon has already been test fired - in granting reprieves to conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, all the victims in the president's view of unfair, politically motivated federal investigations. The stage is set, if Mr Mueller's team makes a move against those closest to the president or even Mr Trump himself, for the pardon power to be unleashed. Then a theoretical legal debate becomes a very real one, with very real consequences. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption All you need to know about the Trump-Russia investigation Also on Monday morning, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway was asked by a reporter why the president talked about pardoning himself. She replied: "Why would he need to pardon himself if he's done nothing wrong? You just like to engage in these hypothetical exercises constantly. "I presume it's easier than understanding the ins and outs of North Korea and trade policy." Mr Trump's tweet comes a day after one of his lawyers addressed the self-pardon issue on the Sunday talk shows. Rudy Giuliani told ABC's This Week programme that Mr Trump "has no intention of pardoning himself", while adding that he "probably does" have that power. Mr Giuliani told NBC's Meet the Press: "Pardoning himself would be unthinkable and probably lead to immediate impeachment. "And he has no need to do it, he's done nothing wrong." But speaking on CNN on Sunday, House Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said no president should pardon himself.

www.bbc.com

center

AKE6rHZBw04a7gpa

test

ONs61Y8znqRh8cQs

national_defense

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security/iranian-missiles-target-u-s-troops-in-iraq-trump-consults-advisers-idUSKBN1Z60NL

Iranian missiles target U.S. troops in Iraq, Trump consults advisers

2020-01-09

Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD/DUBAI ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday tempered days of angry rhetoric and suggested Iran was “ standing down ” after it fired missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq , as both sides looked to defuse a crisis over the U.S. killing of an Iranian general . Trump said the United States did not necessarily have to hit back after Iran ’ s attack on military bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq , itself an act of retaliation for the Jan. 3 U.S. strike that killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani . Trump said no Americans were hurt in the overnight attacks . The Pentagon said Iran had launched 16 short-range ballistic missiles , at least 11 of which hit Iraq ’ s al-Asad air base and one that hit a facility in Erbil but caused no major damage . “ The fact that we have this great military and equipment , however , does not mean we have to use it . We do not want to use it . American strength , both military and economic , is the best deterrent , ” Trump said . “ Our great American forces are prepared for anything . Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world , ” he said . Trump said the United States “ will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime ” in response to what he called “ Iranian aggression. ” He offered no specifics . Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , addressing a gathering of Iranians chanting “ Death to America , ” said the missile attacks were a “ slap on the face ” of the United States and said U.S. troops should leave the region . Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had said the strikes “ concluded ” Tehran ’ s response to the killing of Soleimani , who built up Iran ’ s network of proxy armies across the Middle East . He was buried in his hometown , Kerman , after days of national mourning . GRAPHIC : Iran fires missiles at U.S bases in Iraq - here “ We do not seek escalation or war , but will defend ourselves against any aggression , ” Zarif wrote on Twitter . Influential Iraqi Shi ’ ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr , who casts himself as a nationalist rejecting both U.S. and Iranian interference in Iraq , also said the crisis Iraq was experiencing was over and he urged militia groups not to carry out attacks . “ I call on the Iraqi factions to be deliberate , patient , and not to start military actions , , ” said Sadr , whom Washington has long regarded as an Iranian ally . U.S. Vice President Mike Pence told CBS News in an interview the United States was receiving “ encouraging intelligence that Iran is sending messages ” to its allied militias not to attack U.S. targets . But Army General Mark Milley , chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff , said he and others in the military “ fully expect ” Shi ’ ite militia groups in Iraq , backed by Iran , to carry out attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Syria . Two rockets fell on Wednesday in Baghdad ’ s heavily fortified Green Zone , causing no casualties , the Iraqi military said . There was no immediate claim of responsibility . In a letter to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday , U.S . Ambassador Kelly Craft said the killing of Soleimani was self-defense and vowed to take additional action “ as necessary ” in the Middle East to protect U.S. personnel and interests . The United States also stood “ ready to engage without preconditions in serious negotiations with Iran , ” to maintain peace and security , she said . U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a statement about Iran flanked by U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper , Vice President Mike Pence and military leaders in the Grand Foyer at the White House in Washington , U.S. , January 8 , 2020 . ███/Kevin Lamarque U.S. Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans said administration officials had not provided evidence in classified briefings to back up Trump ’ s assertion that Soleimani had posed an “ imminent ” threat to the United States . House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic-led chamber would vote on a resolution intended to limit his military actions against Iran . Trump ’ s address contrasted with his recent harsh rhetoric . The Republican , who was impeached in December and faces an election in November , had vowed to respond “ disproportionately ” if Iran retaliated strongly against Soleimani ’ s killing . On Wednesday , Trump again vowed he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and urged world powers to quit a 2015 nuclear accord with Iran that Washington abandoned in 2018 and work for a new deal , an issue at the heart of rising tensions between Washington and Tehran . Iran has rejected new talks . There was no immediate reaction from Iranian officials to Trump ’ s comments . The semi-official Fars news agency described the U.S. president ’ s remarks as a “ big retreat from threats . ” Soon after Wednesday ’ s attacks , Trump had said on Twitter that “ All is well ! ” and Washington was assessing damage . That tweet and the comment by Iran ’ s foreign minister eased some concerns about a wider war and calmed jittery financial markets . U.S. stock prices hit record highs before paring their gains , while world oil prices , after an early spike , fell about 4 % . U.S. and European government sources said they believed Iran had deliberately sought to avoid U.S. military casualties in its missile strikes to prevent an escalation . But an Iranian army spokesman denied “ foreign media reports ” suggesting there was some kind of coordination between Iran and the United States before the attack to evacuate bases . Iranian television reported an official in the supreme leader ’ s office as saying the attacks were the “ weakest ” of several retaliation scenarios . It quoted another source saying Iran had lined up 100 other potential targets . After the Iranian missile attack , state television showed footage of the Soleimani burial , with hundreds of people chanting : “ God is greatest ” when the strikes were announced over loudspeakers . “ His revenge was taken and now he can rest in peace , ” Iranian television said . Hours after the Iranian missile strike , a Ukrainian airliner crashed shortly after takeoff from Tehran on Wednesday , killing all 176 people on board . A Canadian security source said Western intelligence agencies ’ initial assessment was that the plane was not brought down by a missile .

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD/DUBAI (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday tempered days of angry rhetoric and suggested Iran was “standing down” after it fired missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, as both sides looked to defuse a crisis over the U.S. killing of an Iranian general. Trump said the United States did not necessarily have to hit back after Iran’s attack on military bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq, itself an act of retaliation for the Jan. 3 U.S. strike that killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Trump said no Americans were hurt in the overnight attacks. The Pentagon said Iran had launched 16 short-range ballistic missiles, at least 11 of which hit Iraq’s al-Asad air base and one that hit a facility in Erbil but caused no major damage. “The fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean we have to use it. We do not want to use it. American strength, both military and economic, is the best deterrent,” Trump said. “Our great American forces are prepared for anything. Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world,” he said. Trump said the United States “will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime” in response to what he called “Iranian aggression.” He offered no specifics. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, addressing a gathering of Iranians chanting “Death to America,” said the missile attacks were a “slap on the face” of the United States and said U.S. troops should leave the region. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had said the strikes “concluded” Tehran’s response to the killing of Soleimani, who built up Iran’s network of proxy armies across the Middle East. He was buried in his hometown, Kerman, after days of national mourning. GRAPHIC: Iran fires missiles at U.S bases in Iraq - here “We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression,” Zarif wrote on Twitter. Influential Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who casts himself as a nationalist rejecting both U.S. and Iranian interference in Iraq, also said the crisis Iraq was experiencing was over and he urged militia groups not to carry out attacks. “I call on the Iraqi factions to be deliberate, patient, and not to start military actions,,” said Sadr, whom Washington has long regarded as an Iranian ally. U.S. Vice President Mike Pence told CBS News in an interview the United States was receiving “encouraging intelligence that Iran is sending messages” to its allied militias not to attack U.S. targets. But Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he and others in the military “fully expect” Shi’ite militia groups in Iraq, backed by Iran, to carry out attacks against U.S.-led forces in Iraq and Syria. Two rockets fell on Wednesday in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, causing no casualties, the Iraqi military said. There was no immediate claim of responsibility. In a letter to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, U.S. Ambassador Kelly Craft said the killing of Soleimani was self-defense and vowed to take additional action “as necessary” in the Middle East to protect U.S. personnel and interests. The United States also stood “ready to engage without preconditions in serious negotiations with Iran,” to maintain peace and security, she said. U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a statement about Iran flanked by U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence and military leaders in the Grand Foyer at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 8, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque U.S. Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans said administration officials had not provided evidence in classified briefings to back up Trump’s assertion that Soleimani had posed an “imminent” threat to the United States. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic-led chamber would vote on a resolution intended to limit his military actions against Iran. NUCLEAR DEAL Trump’s address contrasted with his recent harsh rhetoric. The Republican, who was impeached in December and faces an election in November, had vowed to respond “disproportionately” if Iran retaliated strongly against Soleimani’s killing. On Wednesday, Trump again vowed he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and urged world powers to quit a 2015 nuclear accord with Iran that Washington abandoned in 2018 and work for a new deal, an issue at the heart of rising tensions between Washington and Tehran. Iran has rejected new talks. There was no immediate reaction from Iranian officials to Trump’s comments. The semi-official Fars news agency described the U.S. president’s remarks as a “big retreat from threats.” Soon after Wednesday’s attacks, Trump had said on Twitter that “All is well!” and Washington was assessing damage. That tweet and the comment by Iran’s foreign minister eased some concerns about a wider war and calmed jittery financial markets. U.S. stock prices hit record highs before paring their gains, while world oil prices, after an early spike, fell about 4%. U.S. and European government sources said they believed Iran had deliberately sought to avoid U.S. military casualties in its missile strikes to prevent an escalation. But an Iranian army spokesman denied “foreign media reports” suggesting there was some kind of coordination between Iran and the United States before the attack to evacuate bases. Slideshow (18 Images) Iranian television reported an official in the supreme leader’s office as saying the attacks were the “weakest” of several retaliation scenarios. It quoted another source saying Iran had lined up 100 other potential targets. After the Iranian missile attack, state television showed footage of the Soleimani burial, with hundreds of people chanting: “God is greatest” when the strikes were announced over loudspeakers. “His revenge was taken and now he can rest in peace,” Iranian television said. Hours after the Iranian missile strike, a Ukrainian airliner crashed shortly after takeoff from Tehran on Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board. A Canadian security source said Western intelligence agencies’ initial assessment was that the plane was not brought down by a missile.

www.reuters.com

center

ONs61Y8znqRh8cQs

test

pkUFOekxHo35ECTZ

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-trump-democrats/mueller-report-is-blow-to-u-s-democrats-plans-to-probe-trump-idUSKCN1R604C

Mueller report is blow to U.S. Democrats' plans to probe Trump

2019-03-25

Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s conclusion that U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s campaign did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election is a serious blow to Democrats who had hoped Mueller ’ s report would boost their own wide-ranging probes into Trump ’ s business dealings . U.S. President Donald Trump makes brief remarks to the press on Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation as he arrives on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington , U.S. , after returning from a weekend at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida , March 24 , 2019 . ███/Mike Theiler Democrats promptly called for the release of Mueller ’ s full report and noted that he did not exonerate Trump on the question of whether the president obstructed justice in trying to undermine investigations into the election campaign . Still , Attorney General William Barr ’ s summary of Mueller ’ s final report appeared to significantly reduce the risk of impeachment that had hovered over Trump almost since he took office on Jan. 20 , 2017 . “ Bad day for those hoping the Mueller investigation would take President Trump down , ” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham observed . “ It ’ s one of those hard realities that sometimes things don ’ t turn out the way you wanted them to , ” said Democratic political consultant Colin Strother , who is based in Austin , Texas . Even some high-level Democrats were talking not so much of ramping up investigations but the need to address bread-and-butter domestic issues . There is already a crowded field of Democratic presidential candidates hoping to deny Trump re-election next year . “ The President should get off the golf course and end his constant vacations . Back in Washington @ HouseDemocrats are fighting to lower healthcare costs and fix our crumbling infrastructure , ” tweeted Hakeem Jeffries , who heads the House of Representatives ’ Democratic Caucus , as word of Mueller ’ s findings spread across the world . Other Democrats tweeted about the need to curb gun violence and impose tougher constraints on offshore oil drilling . Democrats won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in congressional elections last November and have used their power since January to launch blockbuster hearings in the powerful House Judiciary and House Oversight committees . Jerrold Nadler , the Judiciary Committee chair , put the White House on notice earlier this month when he said his panel was seeking documents from 81 individuals , government agencies and other entities for a broad probe into the 2016 campaign as well as corruption and obstruction of justice . Democratic chairmen of three key committees - Intelligence , Oversight and Foreign Affairs - also sought documents about Trump ’ s conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Those moves were part of an effort to lay the groundwork for possible impeachment proceedings against Trump - a move that has been undertaken only three other times in U.S. history . All they needed was a stinging condemnation from Mueller of Trump ’ s behavior to give their probes liftoff . Now , with Barr notifying Congress that Mueller found no evidence that Trump or anyone in his presidential campaign colluded with Russia ’ s meddling in the 2016 election , impeachment was seen as much less likely , barring new developments . “ It doesn ’ t look like there ’ s impeachment . Democratic leaders were already backing away from it , ” said Elaine Kamarck , a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution in Washington . Kamarck was referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , the top U.S. Democrat , who recently said in a Washington Post interview that the country should not go down the path of impeachment because Trump is “ just not worth it . ” All through last year ’ s congressional election campaigns , Pelosi warned that any impeachment effort against Trump would fail unless Republicans joined Democrats in the effort . That appears virtually impossible now that Republicans can point to Mueller finding no collusion and not recommending any definitive action on obstruction of justice on Trump ’ s part . “ Clearly for Democrats to propose pursuing impeachment when Mueller apparently did not find evidence of collusion and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians would be a mistake , ” said Bruce Gyory , a Democratic political consultant based in Albany , New York . Barr noted in his letter to Congress that Mueller said his report did not conclude Trump committed any crimes but “ it also does not exonerate him . ” That did not stop Trump from claiming “ complete and total exoneration . ” Still , senior Democrats were in no mood to accept total defeat . Nadler and other House committee chairmen said Barr should testify to Congress “ without delay . ” Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called on Barr to make Mueller ’ s report public , and gave their support to continuing the probes of Trump . Those investigations could now shift to issues involving emoluments and potential conflicts of interest posed by Trump ’ s business empire , especially as Trump and close allies still face federal investigations in New York . While Democrats ’ congressional hearings are not likely to quietly fade away in coming days and weeks , there is now more risk attached to them . “ We ’ ll look as ridiculous as the Republicans did during the Obama administration if we continue down some path of calling for an impeachment when there is no cause , ” Strother said . If Mueller did not find any impeachable offenses , Strother advised , Democrats should “ accept it and move on . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election is a serious blow to Democrats who had hoped Mueller’s report would boost their own wide-ranging probes into Trump’s business dealings. U.S. President Donald Trump makes brief remarks to the press on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation as he arrives on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., after returning from a weekend at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, March 24, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Theiler Democrats promptly called for the release of Mueller’s full report and noted that he did not exonerate Trump on the question of whether the president obstructed justice in trying to undermine investigations into the election campaign. Still, Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s final report appeared to significantly reduce the risk of impeachment that had hovered over Trump almost since he took office on Jan. 20, 2017. “Bad day for those hoping the Mueller investigation would take President Trump down,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham observed. “It’s one of those hard realities that sometimes things don’t turn out the way you wanted them to,” said Democratic political consultant Colin Strother, who is based in Austin, Texas. Even some high-level Democrats were talking not so much of ramping up investigations but the need to address bread-and-butter domestic issues. There is already a crowded field of Democratic presidential candidates hoping to deny Trump re-election next year. “The President should get off the golf course and end his constant vacations. Back in Washington @HouseDemocrats are fighting to lower healthcare costs and fix our crumbling infrastructure,” tweeted Hakeem Jeffries, who heads the House of Representatives’ Democratic Caucus, as word of Mueller’s findings spread across the world. Other Democrats tweeted about the need to curb gun violence and impose tougher constraints on offshore oil drilling. Democrats won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in congressional elections last November and have used their power since January to launch blockbuster hearings in the powerful House Judiciary and House Oversight committees. Jerrold Nadler, the Judiciary Committee chair, put the White House on notice earlier this month when he said his panel was seeking documents from 81 individuals, government agencies and other entities for a broad probe into the 2016 campaign as well as corruption and obstruction of justice. Democratic chairmen of three key committees - Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs - also sought documents about Trump’s conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. IMPEACHMENT OFF THE TABLE? Those moves were part of an effort to lay the groundwork for possible impeachment proceedings against Trump - a move that has been undertaken only three other times in U.S. history. All they needed was a stinging condemnation from Mueller of Trump’s behavior to give their probes liftoff. Now, with Barr notifying Congress that Mueller found no evidence that Trump or anyone in his presidential campaign colluded with Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, impeachment was seen as much less likely, barring new developments. “It doesn’t look like there’s impeachment. Democratic leaders were already backing away from it,” said Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution in Washington. Kamarck was referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the top U.S. Democrat, who recently said in a Washington Post interview that the country should not go down the path of impeachment because Trump is “just not worth it.” All through last year’s congressional election campaigns, Pelosi warned that any impeachment effort against Trump would fail unless Republicans joined Democrats in the effort. That appears virtually impossible now that Republicans can point to Mueller finding no collusion and not recommending any definitive action on obstruction of justice on Trump’s part. “Clearly for Democrats to propose pursuing impeachment when Mueller apparently did not find evidence of collusion and conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians would be a mistake,” said Bruce Gyory, a Democratic political consultant based in Albany, New York. Barr noted in his letter to Congress that Mueller said his report did not conclude Trump committed any crimes but “it also does not exonerate him.” That did not stop Trump from claiming “complete and total exoneration.” Still, senior Democrats were in no mood to accept total defeat. Nadler and other House committee chairmen said Barr should testify to Congress “without delay.” Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called on Barr to make Mueller’s report public, and gave their support to continuing the probes of Trump. Those investigations could now shift to issues involving emoluments and potential conflicts of interest posed by Trump’s business empire, especially as Trump and close allies still face federal investigations in New York. While Democrats’ congressional hearings are not likely to quietly fade away in coming days and weeks, there is now more risk attached to them. “We’ll look as ridiculous as the Republicans did during the Obama administration if we continue down some path of calling for an impeachment when there is no cause,” Strother said. If Mueller did not find any impeachable offenses, Strother advised, Democrats should “accept it and move on.”

www.reuters.com

center

pkUFOekxHo35ECTZ

test

5DftCLw5uP7V8ERI

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/21/despite-pauls-opposition-controversial-obama-nominee-expected-to-clear-senate-hurdle/

Despite Paul's opposition, controversial Obama nominee expected to clear Senate hurdle

2014-05-21

Washington ( CNN ) – Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor Wednesday to deliver a 31-minute speech in opposition to the judicial nomination of a former Justice Department official , David Barron . Barron has drawn the ire of senators on the right and left for legal memos he wrote justifying the killing of an American terrorism suspect overseas with drones . `` I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat , '' Paul said on the Senate floor . Senators , however , believe they have the votes needed to break to break the GOP filibuster of the Harvard law professor to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit , which is based in Boston . In order to secure at least 51 Democratic votes to overcome the filibuster , the White House took the extraordinary step last week of sending the unredacted Justice Department memos to Capitol Hill where senators from both parties could review them in a classified setting in the basement of the Capitol . Top White House lawyers also met privately with Democratic senators to explain the memos and respond to concerns . `` Once everything was explained , '' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , the Democratic leader , said Tuesday . `` Most everyone in our caucus is satisfied . '' The administration is preparing to release one of those memos to the public for the first time , officials said Tuesday , though it wo n't be made public right away . It has to go through a redaction process that will need to be approved by a judge , according to the administration officials . Paul , who has spearheaded GOP opposition to Barron , is joined by a handful of Democratic senators and the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in opposing Barron . At issue are memos Barron wrote while working in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department , which gave the legal reasoning for killing Anwar al-Awlaki , a suspected American al Qaeda operative who was killed with CIA drones in September , 2011 . `` It is n't about seeing the Barron memos , '' Paul said . `` It is about what they say . I believe the Barron memos disrespect the Bill of Rights . '' The Kentucky Republican , who has loudly opposed this issue in the past , said he 's not trying to defend `` traitors . '' `` I ca n't stand the thought of Americans who consort with and advocate for the enemy . I want to punish Americans who are traitors to their country . But I am also conscious of what these traitors have betrayed , '' he said . `` These traitors are betraying a country that holds dear the precept that we are innocent until proven guilty , '' he continued . `` Are n't we , in a way , betraying our country 's principles when we relinquish the right to a jury trial ? '' The potential presidential contender famously carried out a 13-hour filibuster over a similar issue . Last time , he was trying to block the nomination of John Brennan to become director of the CIA . However , Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the `` nuclear option '' late last year , making it incredibly difficult for filibusters to occur against certain presidential nominations . Paul lamented Wednesday that he would not be able to effectively try and block the nomination under the new Senate rules . `` This nomination would not go forward were it not for the elimination of the filibuster , '' he said . Paul said he would come back to the floor later Wednesday to propose postponing the vote until after the public has had a chance to read the Barron memo . It 's unlikely Democrats , who have pushed hard for Barron 's confirmation , would agree to Paul 's request .

5 years ago Washington (CNN) – Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor Wednesday to deliver a 31-minute speech in opposition to the judicial nomination of a former Justice Department official, David Barron. Barron has drawn the ire of senators on the right and left for legal memos he wrote justifying the killing of an American terrorism suspect overseas with drones. "I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat," Paul said on the Senate floor. Senators, however, believe they have the votes needed to break to break the GOP filibuster of the Harvard law professor to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which is based in Boston. In order to secure at least 51 Democratic votes to overcome the filibuster, the White House took the extraordinary step last week of sending the unredacted Justice Department memos to Capitol Hill where senators from both parties could review them in a classified setting in the basement of the Capitol. Top White House lawyers also met privately with Democratic senators to explain the memos and respond to concerns. "Once everything was explained," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said Tuesday. "Most everyone in our caucus is satisfied." The administration is preparing to release one of those memos to the public for the first time, officials said Tuesday, though it won't be made public right away. It has to go through a redaction process that will need to be approved by a judge, according to the administration officials. Paul, who has spearheaded GOP opposition to Barron, is joined by a handful of Democratic senators and the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in opposing Barron. At issue are memos Barron wrote while working in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, which gave the legal reasoning for killing Anwar al-Awlaki, a suspected American al Qaeda operative who was killed with CIA drones in September, 2011. "It isn't about seeing the Barron memos," Paul said. "It is about what they say. I believe the Barron memos disrespect the Bill of Rights." The Kentucky Republican, who has loudly opposed this issue in the past, said he's not trying to defend "traitors." "I can't stand the thought of Americans who consort with and advocate for the enemy. I want to punish Americans who are traitors to their country. But I am also conscious of what these traitors have betrayed," he said. "These traitors are betraying a country that holds dear the precept that we are innocent until proven guilty," he continued. "Aren't we, in a way, betraying our country's principles when we relinquish the right to a jury trial?" The potential presidential contender famously carried out a 13-hour filibuster over a similar issue. Last time, he was trying to block the nomination of John Brennan to become director of the CIA. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option" late last year, making it incredibly difficult for filibusters to occur against certain presidential nominations. Paul lamented Wednesday that he would not be able to effectively try and block the nomination under the new Senate rules. "This nomination would not go forward were it not for the elimination of the filibuster," he said. Paul said he would come back to the floor later Wednesday to propose postponing the vote until after the public has had a chance to read the Barron memo. It's unlikely Democrats, who have pushed hard for Barron's confirmation, would agree to Paul's request.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

5DftCLw5uP7V8ERI

test

flocwk9A6kbPnrrb

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/11/the-guardian-view-on-assange-and-extradition-say-no-to-the-us

The Guardian view on Assange and extradition: say no to the US

2019-04-11

On Thursday , British police bundled Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London , his refuge of almost seven years . With his emergence into daylight , so too came some clarity on the case which the US has been pursuing against him , and on which it seeks his extradition . The indictment relates to the secret military and diplomatic files provided by Chelsea Manning , the army whistleblower , which unveiled shocking US abuses and shed light on corrupt and repressive governments worldwide . That Ms Manning is once again in jail , for refusing to give evidence to a secret grand jury in a WikiLeaks investigation , is a disgrace . The importance of the material , published by ███ , the New York Times and others , was undeniable . But subsequently we and others strongly disagreed with Mr Assange ’ s decision to bulk-publish unredacted documents . Two obstacles initially paused the US pursuit . The first was Ecuador ’ s decision to grant him asylum . A change in government has led it to rescind that protection , on the promise he would not be extradited to potentially face the death penalty . The second was the Obama administration ’ s conclusion that pursuing him for publishing the files would set a dangerous precedent , imperilling press freedoms protected by the first amendment . As a candidate , Donald Trump declared his love for WikiLeaks when the organisation published emails stolen by Russian state hackers from the Democratic National Committee . But six months later , after WikiLeaks released information on the CIA ’ s hacking operations , the service ’ s then director Mike Pompeo declared it a “ hostile intelligence service ” and the US described arresting Mr Assange as a priority . US authorities say they are charging him on the grounds of conspiracy to access a computer , rather than for the publication of the material obtained . This is an important distinction . The high court last year ruled against the extradition of Lauri Love , accused of breaking into US government websites , in a judgment hailed as setting a precedent for trying hacking suspects in the UK , though the circumstances were very different . The US may also add further charges to the sheet . But it would be naive to regard this charge as the cause of the extradition request , rather than the technical grounds for it . And while Mr Assange is accused in this case of assisting in the cracking of a password , many will fear that the conspiracy charge could be more broadly applied , particularly by an administration so hostile to a free , independent press . Mr Assange now faces up to a year in prison for skipping bail . He was wrong to do so . He entered the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden , where he faced allegations of rape and molestation ( which he denies ) , citing fears that Stockholm would hand him to the US . It would be entirely appropriate for Swedish prosecutors to reopen their investigation , as the lawyer representing one of his accusers has requested . None of this alters the dangers of agreeing to his extradition to the US .

On Thursday, British police bundled Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, his refuge of almost seven years. With his emergence into daylight, so too came some clarity on the case which the US has been pursuing against him, and on which it seeks his extradition. The indictment relates to the secret military and diplomatic files provided by Chelsea Manning, the army whistleblower, which unveiled shocking US abuses and shed light on corrupt and repressive governments worldwide. That Ms Manning is once again in jail, for refusing to give evidence to a secret grand jury in a WikiLeaks investigation, is a disgrace. The importance of the material, published by the Guardian, the New York Times and others, was undeniable. But subsequently we and others strongly disagreed with Mr Assange’s decision to bulk-publish unredacted documents. Two obstacles initially paused the US pursuit. The first was Ecuador’s decision to grant him asylum. A change in government has led it to rescind that protection, on the promise he would not be extradited to potentially face the death penalty. The second was the Obama administration’s conclusion that pursuing him for publishing the files would set a dangerous precedent, imperilling press freedoms protected by the first amendment. As a candidate, Donald Trump declared his love for WikiLeaks when the organisation published emails stolen by Russian state hackers from the Democratic National Committee. But six months later, after WikiLeaks released information on the CIA’s hacking operations, the service’s then director Mike Pompeo declared it a “hostile intelligence service” and the US described arresting Mr Assange as a priority. US authorities say they are charging him on the grounds of conspiracy to access a computer, rather than for the publication of the material obtained. This is an important distinction. The high court last year ruled against the extradition of Lauri Love, accused of breaking into US government websites, in a judgment hailed as setting a precedent for trying hacking suspects in the UK, though the circumstances were very different. The US may also add further charges to the sheet. But it would be naive to regard this charge as the cause of the extradition request, rather than the technical grounds for it. And while Mr Assange is accused in this case of assisting in the cracking of a password, many will fear that the conspiracy charge could be more broadly applied, particularly by an administration so hostile to a free, independent press. Mr Assange now faces up to a year in prison for skipping bail. He was wrong to do so. He entered the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faced allegations of rape and molestation (which he denies), citing fears that Stockholm would hand him to the US. It would be entirely appropriate for Swedish prosecutors to reopen their investigation, as the lawyer representing one of his accusers has requested. None of this alters the dangers of agreeing to his extradition to the US.

www.theguardian.com

left

flocwk9A6kbPnrrb

test

UWuHfUKethUWB6ZS

fbi

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/exclusive-fbi-agents-say-comey-stood-in-the-way-of-clinton-email-investigation/

FBI Agents Say Comey ‘Stood In The Way’ Of Clinton Email Investigation

2016-10-17

FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey urging the Justice Department to not prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information . According to an interview transcript given to ███ , provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday , agents are frustrated by Comey ’ s leadership . “ This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not . That is appalling , ” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision . “ We talk about it in the office and don ’ t know how Comey can keep going . ” The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton ’ s house during the investigation . “ We didn ’ t search their house . We always search the house . The search should not just have been for private electronics , which contained classified material , but even for printouts of such material , ” he said . “ There should have been a complete search of their residence , ” the agent pointed out . “ That the FBI did not seize devices is unbelievable . The FBI even seizes devices that have been set on fire . ” Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey ’ s saying : “ we ” and “ I ’ ve been an investigator . ” After graduating from law school , Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city . Upon Bush ’ s exit from the White House , Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin , among other private sector posts . President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller . “ Comey was never an investigator or special agent . The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in ‘ collective we ’ statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute , ” the second agent said . “ All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way . ” He added , “ The idea that [ the Clinton e-mail case ] didn ’ t go to a grand jury is ridiculous . ” According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova , more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at the bureau . DiGenova notes the agents will specifically point to the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena . DiGenova told WMAL radio ’ s Drive at Five last week , “ People are starting to talk . They ’ re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help . We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk . Comey thought this was going to go away . ” He explained , “ It ’ s not . People inside the bureau are furious . They are embarrassed . They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he ’ s a crook . They think he ’ s fundamentally dishonest . They have no confidence in him . The bureau inside right now is a mess . ” He added , “ The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk . ”

FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey urging the Justice Department to not prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information. According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey’s leadership. “This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.” The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton’s house during the investigation. “We didn’t search their house. We always search the house. The search should not just have been for private electronics, which contained classified material, but even for printouts of such material,” he said. “There should have been a complete search of their residence,” the agent pointed out. “That the FBI did not seize devices is unbelievable. The FBI even seizes devices that have been set on fire.” Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey’s saying: “we” and “I’ve been an investigator.” After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. Upon Bush’s exit from the White House, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller. “Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in ‘collective we’ statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,” the second agent said. “All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way.” He added, “The idea that [the Clinton e-mail case] didn’t go to a grand jury is ridiculous.” According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at the bureau. DiGenova notes the agents will specifically point to the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena. DiGenova told WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.” He explained, “It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.” He added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.” Follow Kerry on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

UWuHfUKethUWB6ZS

test

tPYbU8LMBnFm2mcO

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lois-lerner-not-charged/2015/04/02/id/635936/

US Won't Charge Ex-IRS Official Lois Lerner With Contempt

2015-04-02

Richard Rubin, Del Quentin Wilber

Lois Lerner , the former IRS official whose office gave improper scrutiny to Tea Party groups seeking tax- exempt status , won ’ t be charged with contempt of Congress . Outgoing U.S. Attorney Ron Machen disclosed the Justice Department ’ s decision in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner dated March 31 . Machen is resigning Wednesday as the top federal prosecutor in Washington . The decision comes 11 months after the U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Lerner in contempt . The House ’ s allegations stem from a May 2013 committee hearing in which Lerner read a statement proclaiming her innocence and then refused to answer questions , citing her constitutional right not to incriminate herself . House Republicans said she had waived her right to remain silent . “ Ms . Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by making general claims of innocence , ” Machen ’ s office said in a statement , explaining his decision not to take the case to a grand jury . “ The Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense if she were prosecuted for contempt . ” Until May 2013 , Lerner worked for the Internal Revenue Service , overseeing nonprofit groups and the employees who decide whether groups seeking non-profit status were too involved in politics to qualify for a tax exemption . Her employees gave extra attention to Tea Party groups and others aligned with Republicans , delaying their applications and asking them what an inspector general said were inappropriate questions . The decision not to prosecute Lerner “ in no way clears her of wrongdoing , ” said Representative Peter Roskam , an Illinois Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight , in a statement . He said lawmakers will continue to investigate and “ hold her accountable for any criminal wrongdoing . ” Representative Jim Jordan , an Ohio Republican , said Machen “ unilaterally decided to ignore the will of the House of Representatives . ” Lerner ’ s lawyer , William Taylor , said in an e-mailed statement , “ We are gratified but not surprised by today ’ s news . ” “ Anyone who takes a serious and impartial look at this issue would conclude that Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights , ” Taylor said . Lerner revealed what the agency had done in response to a planted question at a tax conference . Lerner was suspended and retired later that year . Congressional and criminal investigations into the agency ’ s actions continue . Machen ’ s letter refers only to the possible contempt case , not other potential charges against Lerner or other IRS officials .

Lois Lerner, the former IRS official whose office gave improper scrutiny to Tea Party groups seeking tax- exempt status, won’t be charged with contempt of Congress. Outgoing U.S. Attorney Ron Machen disclosed the Justice Department’s decision in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner dated March 31. Machen is resigning Wednesday as the top federal prosecutor in Washington. The decision comes 11 months after the U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Lerner in contempt. The House’s allegations stem from a May 2013 committee hearing in which Lerner read a statement proclaiming her innocence and then refused to answer questions, citing her constitutional right not to incriminate herself. House Republicans said she had waived her right to remain silent. “Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by making general claims of innocence,” Machen’s office said in a statement, explaining his decision not to take the case to a grand jury. “The Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense if she were prosecuted for contempt.” Until May 2013, Lerner worked for the Internal Revenue Service, overseeing nonprofit groups and the employees who decide whether groups seeking non-profit status were too involved in politics to qualify for a tax exemption. Tea Party Her employees gave extra attention to Tea Party groups and others aligned with Republicans, delaying their applications and asking them what an inspector general said were inappropriate questions. The decision not to prosecute Lerner “in no way clears her of wrongdoing,” said Representative Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight, in a statement. He said lawmakers will continue to investigate and “hold her accountable for any criminal wrongdoing.” Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said Machen “unilaterally decided to ignore the will of the House of Representatives.” Lerner’s lawyer, William Taylor, said in an e-mailed statement, “We are gratified but not surprised by today’s news.” “Anyone who takes a serious and impartial look at this issue would conclude that Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights,” Taylor said. Lerner revealed what the agency had done in response to a planted question at a tax conference. Lerner was suspended and retired later that year. Congressional and criminal investigations into the agency’s actions continue. Machen’s letter refers only to the possible contempt case, not other potential charges against Lerner or other IRS officials. The letter was first reported by Politico.

www.newsmax.com

right

tPYbU8LMBnFm2mcO

test

1gKk5cRfR9lMG9y8

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rick-perry-hillary-drama/2015/03/24/id/634178/

Rick Perry: Hillary Unlikely to Win Because of 'All the Drama'

2015-03-24

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry sounded an awful lot like a candidate for president as he questioned U.S. policies on energy , immigration and education at a Bloomberg-sponsored forum in Houston . Perry also cited his blue-collar background and military service Tuesday , and said he could win Iowa and Pennsylvania 's presidential nominating contests if he runs in what is expected to be a crowded Republican field in 2016 . Whoever wins , it will have nothing to do with `` what your last name is , '' Perry said , referring to pundits ' assertions that the White House will be won by another Bush or a Clinton . Instead , the winner will be `` who it is that gives us hope that the best days are ahead of us , '' Perry said . Perry cited the questions that have been raised over foreign donations to the Clinton family 's charitable foundation , and Hillary Clinton 's handling of the Benghazi attack while she was secretary of state . `` I ca n't get past all the drama we see with the Clintons , '' Perry said . Perry did n't step all the way in the race , as Texas Senator Ted Cruz did on Monday . He did say that if he were president , he would put an end to the days of big government . `` The heavy hand of government works against you , '' Perry said . `` It kills jobs all too often . '' Sounding familiar Republican themes , Perry said he supports lifting the U.S. ban on most crude oil exports , and he wants to secure the U.S. border with Mexico as a prelude to comprehensive immigration reform . He also said TransCanada Corp 's Keystone XL pipeline to bring more Canadian crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast should be approved . `` I would get North America in the worldwide energy business in a big way , '' Perry said . `` I think it is a major error we are making not allowing our crude to be used . '' He added , `` If energy is going to be used as a weapon , we need to have the largest arsenal . '' On education , Perry said he disagrees with Washington putting in place policies that tell states what to do . He did say that accountable public schools translate into a skilled workforce . He also addressed foreign affairs . Perry described Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin as a fool , and said continuing to grow American energy production is the best way to force Putin to change his stance against the rest of the world . `` Mr. Putin , there is going to be massive amounts of American liquefied natural gas coming , '' Perry said . Low oil prices will continue to challenge producers , and will have a significant impact on Texas shale communities like Odessa and Midland , Perry said . He said the pain will be temporary , and prices will rebound .

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry sounded an awful lot like a candidate for president as he questioned U.S. policies on energy, immigration and education at a Bloomberg-sponsored forum in Houston. Perry also cited his blue-collar background and military service Tuesday, and said he could win Iowa and Pennsylvania's presidential nominating contests if he runs in what is expected to be a crowded Republican field in 2016. Whoever wins, it will have nothing to do with "what your last name is," Perry said, referring to pundits' assertions that the White House will be won by another Bush or a Clinton. Instead, the winner will be "who it is that gives us hope that the best days are ahead of us," Perry said. Perry cited the questions that have been raised over foreign donations to the Clinton family's charitable foundation, and Hillary Clinton's handling of the Benghazi attack while she was secretary of state. ``I can't get past all the drama we see with the Clintons," Perry said. Perry didn't step all the way in the race, as Texas Senator Ted Cruz did on Monday. He did say that if he were president, he would put an end to the days of big government. "The heavy hand of government works against you," Perry said. "It kills jobs all too often." Sounding familiar Republican themes, Perry said he supports lifting the U.S. ban on most crude oil exports, and he wants to secure the U.S. border with Mexico as a prelude to comprehensive immigration reform. He also said TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline to bring more Canadian crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast should be approved. "I would get North America in the worldwide energy business in a big way," Perry said. "I think it is a major error we are making not allowing our crude to be used." He added, "If energy is going to be used as a weapon, we need to have the largest arsenal." On education, Perry said he disagrees with Washington putting in place policies that tell states what to do. He did say that accountable public schools translate into a skilled workforce. He also addressed foreign affairs. Perry described Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin as a fool, and said continuing to grow American energy production is the best way to force Putin to change his stance against the rest of the world. "Mr. Putin, there is going to be massive amounts of American liquefied natural gas coming,'' Perry said. Low oil prices will continue to challenge producers, and will have a significant impact on Texas shale communities like Odessa and Midland, Perry said. He said the pain will be temporary, and prices will rebound.

www.newsmax.com

right

1gKk5cRfR9lMG9y8

test

5gf20DJv7UZy2IkJ

treasury

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/02/irs-controversy-turns-personal-nasty/?hpt=po_c1

IRS controversy turns personal, nasty

2013-06-02

( CNN ) - An unusually harsh and personal war of words erupted on Sunday , even for the current hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington , DC , with one of President Obama 's top advisers bringing up the 40-year-old criminal record of the Republican congressman leading the investigation into alleged IRS abuses . `` Strong words from Mr Grand Theft Auto and suspected arsonist/insurance swindler , '' tweeted David Plouffe , the political guru ( and unofficial adviser ) for President Obama , referring to the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee , Rep. Darrell Issa , R-Calif . `` And loose ethically today , '' Plouffe ended his tweet , linking to a story about Issa answering questions on CNN 's “ State of the Union ” with Candy Crowley about the controversy over IRS staffers targeting conservative groups for scrutiny , in which Issa referred to White House press secretary Jay Carney as a `` paid liar . '' Asked for a response to Plouffe 's tweet , Issa 's spokesman Frederick Hill told CNN , `` Looks like the Chairman hit a nerve today . Hopefully President Obama follows Plouffe on Twitter and may finally see some information from a senior advisor about what 's going on at the IRS . '' According to a source close to Issa , the congressman thought Plouffe 's tweet about allegations against him from 1972 and 1982 particularly below the belt , given that `` Rep. Issa has never used his position to investigate President Obama for things before he took office like his land deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko . '' Issa using the `` L '' word - liar - is unusual in a town where pols and members of the media regularly dance around such a direct accusation , preferring words that allow for the possibility of misspeaking or misleading , but not deliberately speaking an untruth . Plouffe 's reference to charges and suspicions against Issa from a generation and two generations ago is also unusual in a city where such mentions are considered gauche and uncollegial . ( Take , as but two examples , those whose careers managed quite well despite Chappaquiddick and Iran-Contra . ) It began when Issa told Crowley that the White House was misleading the public about the extent of the IRS controversy . `` Their paid liar , their spokesperson , pictured behind , he 's still making up things about what happens in calling this local rogue , '' Issa said , motioning towards a photograph of Carney on the screen behind Crowley . `` The reason the ( IRS official ) Lois Lerner tried to take the Fifth is not because there is a rogue in Cincinnati , it 's because this is a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters and we 're getting to proving it . '' These claims were based , Issa said , on interviews with IRS officials conducted by his committee and the House Ways and Means Committee , though as of now no definitive account has been made public establishing that the IRS officials engaged in the targeting of conservative groups , in the Cincinnati office , were doing so at the direction of officials in Washington , D.C . `` The president 's spokesperson is saying whatever is convenient at the time and the story changes , '' Issa told Crowley . `` What we have is people coming in to transcribed interviews . They 're saying under penalty of crimes that certain things are true . We have subpoenaed documents that would support that , that they say , e-mails that went back and forth . The administration is so far not providing those documents . As we get those documents , as we will get Fast and Furious documents eventually and so on , we will learn the whole truth . '' Asked what `` lies '' Issa was referring to Carney having said , a source close to Issa said `` he was most directly referring to Jay Carney 's multiple statements placing blame for the IRS scandal on IRS Cincinnati office employees while pointedly omitting the fact that these employees contend their direction came from the D.C. office and have testified to Congress as such . I 'm sure that Carney 's previous statement about the White House 's role in editing the Benghazi talkers being limited to just one technical point was in the back of his mind as well . '' Plouffe , however , is clearly interested in another focus , allegations one or two generations old about Issa , not current questions about the IRS and the Obama administration . Asked what his tweet allegations have to do with whether IRS officials in Cincinnati took direction from officials in Washington , Plouffe told CNN `` the credibility and motivation of accusers are valid here . '' Republicans suggest that this is part and parcel of the Obama team 's modus operandi , that every time a critic begins to succeed , a presidential ally begins to attack his character and change the subject . To , say , 41-year-old charges against a House GOP chairman , ones that were eventually dropped . Issa , one of the wealthiest members of Congress , is the former owner of a car alarm company - it 's his voice that warns would-be burglars `` Protected by Viper . Stand back , '' which you can hear HERE . Issa once noted to a Washington Post interviewer that `` For years , I used to tell everyone that I went into it because my brother was a car thief . Then they found out when I ran for office my brother did spend time in prison as a car thief , and it ruined the whole joke . '' In 1972 , then-19-year-old Issa too was arrested under suspicion of stealing a car , but Issa claims it was a case of mistaken identity and the charges were ultimately dropped . In 1982 , the office and factory of two companies Issa had purchased , Quantum Enterprises and Steal Stopper International , caught on fire . The insurance company 's investigation found `` suspicious burn patterns '' and company officials noted that in the month before the fire Issa had increased his insurance from $ 100,000 to $ 462,000 . As the New Yorker 's Ryan Lizza noted , the `` Ohio state fire marshal never determined the cause of the fire and no one was ever charged with a crime '' ; Issa and the insurance company settled out of court . Asked why he brought up Issa 's criminal record from 1972 ( when the charges were dismissed ) and an arson investigation from 21 years ago where no one was charged with a crime , Plouffe told CNN that Issa 's `` ethics issues are far more recent . Look at ethics complaints filed . '' There have been at least three ethics complaints filed against Issa , all from left-leaning groups . Complains filed in and of themselves do n't necessarily mean anything , of course . House Ethics Committee or Office of Congressional Ethics judgments are much more important , and as of now there have been none against Issa . Issa 's office says neither the committee nor OCE `` has ever contacted the Congressman 's office seeking any response or additional information . '' Issa spokesman Hill called them all `` nuisance complaints . ''

6 years ago (CNN) - An unusually harsh and personal war of words erupted on Sunday, even for the current hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington, DC, with one of President Obama's top advisers bringing up the 40-year-old criminal record of the Republican congressman leading the investigation into alleged IRS abuses. "Strong words from Mr Grand Theft Auto and suspected arsonist/insurance swindler," tweeted David Plouffe, the political guru (and unofficial adviser) for President Obama, referring to the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. "And loose ethically today," Plouffe ended his tweet, linking to a story about Issa answering questions on CNN's “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley about the controversy over IRS staffers targeting conservative groups for scrutiny, in which Issa referred to White House press secretary Jay Carney as a "paid liar." Asked for a response to Plouffe's tweet, Issa's spokesman Frederick Hill told CNN, "Looks like the Chairman hit a nerve today. Hopefully President Obama follows Plouffe on Twitter and may finally see some information from a senior advisor about what's going on at the IRS." According to a source close to Issa, the congressman thought Plouffe's tweet about allegations against him from 1972 and 1982 particularly below the belt, given that "Rep. Issa has never used his position to investigate President Obama for things before he took office like his land deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko." Issa using the "L" word - liar - is unusual in a town where pols and members of the media regularly dance around such a direct accusation, preferring words that allow for the possibility of misspeaking or misleading, but not deliberately speaking an untruth. Plouffe's reference to charges and suspicions against Issa from a generation and two generations ago is also unusual in a city where such mentions are considered gauche and uncollegial. (Take, as but two examples, those whose careers managed quite well despite Chappaquiddick and Iran-Contra.) It began when Issa told Crowley that the White House was misleading the public about the extent of the IRS controversy. (You can read the entire transcript HERE.) "Their paid liar, their spokesperson, pictured behind, he's still making up things about what happens in calling this local rogue," Issa said, motioning towards a photograph of Carney on the screen behind Crowley. "The reason the (IRS official) Lois Lerner tried to take the Fifth is not because there is a rogue in Cincinnati, it's because this is a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters and we're getting to proving it." These claims were based, Issa said, on interviews with IRS officials conducted by his committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, though as of now no definitive account has been made public establishing that the IRS officials engaged in the targeting of conservative groups, in the Cincinnati office, were doing so at the direction of officials in Washington, D.C. "The president's spokesperson is saying whatever is convenient at the time and the story changes," Issa told Crowley. "What we have is people coming in to transcribed interviews. They're saying under penalty of crimes that certain things are true. We have subpoenaed documents that would support that, that they say, e-mails that went back and forth. The administration is so far not providing those documents. As we get those documents, as we will get Fast and Furious documents eventually and so on, we will learn the whole truth." Asked what "lies" Issa was referring to Carney having said, a source close to Issa said "he was most directly referring to Jay Carney's multiple statements placing blame for the IRS scandal on IRS Cincinnati office employees while pointedly omitting the fact that these employees contend their direction came from the D.C. office and have testified to Congress as such. I'm sure that Carney's previous statement about the White House's role in editing the Benghazi talkers being limited to just one technical point was in the back of his mind as well." Plouffe, however, is clearly interested in another focus, allegations one or two generations old about Issa, not current questions about the IRS and the Obama administration. Asked what his tweet allegations have to do with whether IRS officials in Cincinnati took direction from officials in Washington, Plouffe told CNN "the credibility and motivation of accusers are valid here." Republicans suggest that this is part and parcel of the Obama team's modus operandi, that every time a critic begins to succeed, a presidential ally begins to attack his character and change the subject. To, say, 41-year-old charges against a House GOP chairman, ones that were eventually dropped. Issa, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, is the former owner of a car alarm company - it's his voice that warns would-be burglars "Protected by Viper. Stand back," which you can hear HERE. Issa once noted to a Washington Post interviewer that "For years, I used to tell everyone that I went into it because my brother was a car thief. Then they found out when I ran for office my brother did spend time in prison as a car thief, and it ruined the whole joke." In 1972, then-19-year-old Issa too was arrested under suspicion of stealing a car, but Issa claims it was a case of mistaken identity and the charges were ultimately dropped. In 1982, the office and factory of two companies Issa had purchased, Quantum Enterprises and Steal Stopper International, caught on fire. The insurance company's investigation found "suspicious burn patterns" and company officials noted that in the month before the fire Issa had increased his insurance from $100,000 to $462,000. As the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza noted, the "Ohio state fire marshal never determined the cause of the fire and no one was ever charged with a crime"; Issa and the insurance company settled out of court. Asked why he brought up Issa's criminal record from 1972 (when the charges were dismissed) and an arson investigation from 21 years ago where no one was charged with a crime, Plouffe told CNN that Issa's "ethics issues are far more recent. Look at ethics complaints filed." There have been at least three ethics complaints filed against Issa, all from left-leaning groups. Complains filed in and of themselves don't necessarily mean anything, of course. House Ethics Committee or Office of Congressional Ethics judgments are much more important, and as of now there have been none against Issa. Issa's office says neither the committee nor OCE "has ever contacted the Congressman's office seeking any response or additional information." Issa spokesman Hill called them all "nuisance complaints."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

5gf20DJv7UZy2IkJ

test

dFnKXFuiwnr023uN

banking_and_finance

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/b64cf00f37d8da2fad3533aa7686c53d

Millions holed up at home as U.S. routines shift profoundly

2020-03-16

Christopher Rugaber, Tim Sullivan

Tony Berastegui , left , and his sister Giselle , age 12 and nine respectively , do their school work at home on the dining room table as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic forced schools to close Monday , March 16 , 2020 , in Laveen , Ariz. ( AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin ) Tony Berastegui , left , and his sister Giselle , age 12 and nine respectively , do their school work at home on the dining room table as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic forced schools to close Monday , March 16 , 2020 , in Laveen , Ariz. ( AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin ) The United States implemented dramatic new restrictions on Americans going out in public and 7 million people in the San Francisco area were put on a near-total lockdown to control the coronavirus emergency that has walloped the global economy . On the same day that the Trump administration called on Americans to not gather in groups of more than 10 people and urged older people to stay home , Arizona , Florida and Illinois went ahead with plans to hold presidential primaries Tuesday . Ohio called off its primary just hours before polls were to open . Beaches on Florida ’ s Gulf coast near Tampa stayed open , including one that was was flooded with spring breakers . Gov . Ron Desantis said he would leave it up to communities whether to restrict access to beaches . “ It ’ s not probably advisable to have spring break gatherings ” but that people in small groups at the beach is probably OK , he said . “ I think the communities can work that out . ” Texas Gov . Greg Abbott , a Republican , praised the federal government ’ s response as he took only limited action amid the outbreak . Unlike other governors of heavily populated states , Abbott has not made explicit calls for limiting mass gatherings . “ This is not a time to panic , ” he said . “ It ’ s not as if we have never been through this before . We ’ ve been through this many , many times . ” The comments came on the same day that the number of infections in the U.S. climbed to nearly 4,500 , with at least 81 deaths , two-thirds of them in hard-hit Washington state . Worldwide , more than 7,100 have died . With the U.S. economy shuddering to a near-halt , the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted nearly 3,000 points , or 13 % , its biggest one-day percentage loss since the Black Monday crash of 1987 . The rapid work stoppage had Americans fretting about their jobs and their savings , threatened to overwhelm unemployment benefit programs , and heightened fears the country could plunge into a recession . The decision to move ahead with primaries ran counter to stern new guidelines put in place by the Trump administration . Over the next half month , Americans should not gather in groups of more than 10 people , schooling should be at home and discretionary travel and social visits should be avoided . The president for the first time acknowledged that the pandemic may send the economy into a recession and suggested that the nation may be dealing with the virus until “ July or August . ” Elections officials in Arizona , Florida and Illinois said they were taking precautions to make sure voters could safely cast their ballots , despite widening calls for people to avoid going in public . A handful of other states already postponed their elections . Growing public unease over the coronavirus spread was causing disruptions to polling places in some states before they even opened . In Pasco County , Florida , the number of poll workers dropping out surged from 20 last week to more than 150 by Monday after a case of coronavirus was confirmed in the county . “ It ’ s a skeleton crew at a lot of locations , ” said Okaloosa County Supervisor of Elections Paul Lux . “ We are at the honest end of the rope in terms of who I can grab and who I can get trained and get deployed . ” In Illinois , counties were moving polling places out of nursing homes , offering ballot drop-off options for jittery voters and scrambling to find replacements for poll workers canceling at the last minute . Chicago elections officials worked late Monday to find replacements for 168 polling sites . And the city elections commission was begging healthy people to volunteer to work at the polls amid a “ tsumani ” of cancellations . “ Please , please heed our call and volunteer , ” said Marisel Hernandez , the commission ’ s chair . “ Help us . ” Meanwhile , millions of Americans were holed up at home , with many thrown out of work until further notice as the list of businesses forced to close across the U.S. extended to restaurants , bars , gyms and casinos . Officials in six San Francisco Bay Area counties issued a “ shelter in place ” order affecting nearly 7 million people , requiring most residents to stay inside and venture out only for food , medicine or exercise for three weeks — the most drastic measure taken yet in the U.S. to curb the spread of the virus . “ I know today ’ s order is a radical step . It has to be . We need to act now , all of us , ” said Dr. Grant Colfax , director of the San Francisco Health Department . Health officials , politicians and business leaders are talking about “ social distancing ” and “ flattening the curve , ” or encouraging people to avoid others to slow the spread of the virus and keep U.S. hospitals from being overwhelmed with a sudden deluge of patients . Most people who come down with the disease have relatively mild symptoms , but it can be deadly for some , especially the elderly and those with underlying health problems . Most people infected with the virus recover in a matter of weeks . The shutdowns touched every corner of the country : blackjack dealers in Las Vegas , theme park workers in Orlando , Florida , restaurant and bar employees nationwide , and winery workers in California . At least eight states called on all bars and restaurants to close at least part of the day . The economy appears to be decelerating at a much faster pace than during the 2008 financial meltdown . “ This is like an avalanche . It ’ s all happening at once , ” said Heidi Shierholz , senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute . “ And no one knows how long it ’ s going to last . ” On the other side of the ledger , Amazon announced it wants to add 100,000 workers to deliver packages amid a surge in online orders from people unable or unwilling to set foot in stores . And gun sales soared in many places as fear took hold . “ I ’ ve never seen it like this , ” said Ed Turner , who owns Ed ’ s Public Safety in Stockbridge , Georgia . “ This is self-preservation . This is panic . This is ‘ I won ’ t be able to protect my family from the hordes and the walking dead . ’ ” With schools closed for tens of millions of children across the country , parents began using lesson plans that included flash cards , online learning , dog walks and creativity sessions . Many did this while juggling work conference calls , emails and memos . Others scrambled to find child care . Nationwide , many restaurants were restricted to takeout or delivery only .

Tony Berastegui, left, and his sister Giselle, age 12 and nine respectively, do their school work at home on the dining room table as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic forced schools to close Monday, March 16, 2020, in Laveen, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin) Tony Berastegui, left, and his sister Giselle, age 12 and nine respectively, do their school work at home on the dining room table as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic forced schools to close Monday, March 16, 2020, in Laveen, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin) The United States implemented dramatic new restrictions on Americans going out in public and 7 million people in the San Francisco area were put on a near-total lockdown to control the coronavirus emergency that has walloped the global economy. Not everyone was adhering to the clampdowns, however. On the same day that the Trump administration called on Americans to not gather in groups of more than 10 people and urged older people to stay home, Arizona, Florida and Illinois went ahead with plans to hold presidential primaries Tuesday. Ohio called off its primary just hours before polls were to open. Beaches on Florida’s Gulf coast near Tampa stayed open, including one that was was flooded with spring breakers. Gov. Ron Desantis said he would leave it up to communities whether to restrict access to beaches. “It’s not probably advisable to have spring break gatherings” but that people in small groups at the beach is probably OK, he said. “I think the communities can work that out.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, praised the federal government’s response as he took only limited action amid the outbreak. Unlike other governors of heavily populated states, Abbott has not made explicit calls for limiting mass gatherings. “This is not a time to panic,” he said. “It’s not as if we have never been through this before. We’ve been through this many, many times.” The comments came on the same day that the number of infections in the U.S. climbed to nearly 4,500, with at least 81 deaths, two-thirds of them in hard-hit Washington state. Worldwide, more than 7,100 have died. With the U.S. economy shuddering to a near-halt, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted nearly 3,000 points, or 13%, its biggest one-day percentage loss since the Black Monday crash of 1987. The rapid work stoppage had Americans fretting about their jobs and their savings, threatened to overwhelm unemployment benefit programs, and heightened fears the country could plunge into a recession. The decision to move ahead with primaries ran counter to stern new guidelines put in place by the Trump administration. Over the next half month, Americans should not gather in groups of more than 10 people, schooling should be at home and discretionary travel and social visits should be avoided. The president for the first time acknowledged that the pandemic may send the economy into a recession and suggested that the nation may be dealing with the virus until “July or August.” Elections officials in Arizona, Florida and Illinois said they were taking precautions to make sure voters could safely cast their ballots, despite widening calls for people to avoid going in public. A handful of other states already postponed their elections. Growing public unease over the coronavirus spread was causing disruptions to polling places in some states before they even opened. In Pasco County, Florida, the number of poll workers dropping out surged from 20 last week to more than 150 by Monday after a case of coronavirus was confirmed in the county. “It’s a skeleton crew at a lot of locations,” said Okaloosa County Supervisor of Elections Paul Lux. “We are at the honest end of the rope in terms of who I can grab and who I can get trained and get deployed.” In Illinois, counties were moving polling places out of nursing homes, offering ballot drop-off options for jittery voters and scrambling to find replacements for poll workers canceling at the last minute. Chicago elections officials worked late Monday to find replacements for 168 polling sites. And the city elections commission was begging healthy people to volunteer to work at the polls amid a “tsumani” of cancellations. “Please, please heed our call and volunteer,” said Marisel Hernandez, the commission’s chair. “Help us.” Meanwhile, millions of Americans were holed up at home, with many thrown out of work until further notice as the list of businesses forced to close across the U.S. extended to restaurants, bars, gyms and casinos. Officials in six San Francisco Bay Area counties issued a “shelter in place” order affecting nearly 7 million people, requiring most residents to stay inside and venture out only for food, medicine or exercise for three weeks — the most drastic measure taken yet in the U.S. to curb the spread of the virus. “I know today’s order is a radical step. It has to be. We need to act now, all of us,” said Dr. Grant Colfax, director of the San Francisco Health Department. Health officials, politicians and business leaders are talking about “social distancing” and “flattening the curve,” or encouraging people to avoid others to slow the spread of the virus and keep U.S. hospitals from being overwhelmed with a sudden deluge of patients. Most people who come down with the disease have relatively mild symptoms, but it can be deadly for some, especially the elderly and those with underlying health problems. Most people infected with the virus recover in a matter of weeks. The shutdowns touched every corner of the country: blackjack dealers in Las Vegas, theme park workers in Orlando, Florida, restaurant and bar employees nationwide, and winery workers in California. At least eight states called on all bars and restaurants to close at least part of the day. The economy appears to be decelerating at a much faster pace than during the 2008 financial meltdown. “This is like an avalanche. It’s all happening at once,” said Heidi Shierholz, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “And no one knows how long it’s going to last.” Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak On the other side of the ledger, Amazon announced it wants to add 100,000 workers to deliver packages amid a surge in online orders from people unable or unwilling to set foot in stores. And gun sales soared in many places as fear took hold. “I’ve never seen it like this,” said Ed Turner, who owns Ed’s Public Safety in Stockbridge, Georgia. “This is self-preservation. This is panic. This is ‘I won’t be able to protect my family from the hordes and the walking dead.’” With schools closed for tens of millions of children across the country, parents began using lesson plans that included flash cards, online learning, dog walks and creativity sessions. Many did this while juggling work conference calls, emails and memos. Others scrambled to find child care. Nationwide, many restaurants were restricted to takeout or delivery only. ___ Associated Press writers Kelli Kennedy and Terry Spencer in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Mike Schneider in Orlando, Florida; Sophia Tareen and Tammy Webber in Chicago; John O’Connor in Springfield, Illinois; Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix; Christina A. Cassidy in Atlanta; Julie Watson in San Diego; Olga R. Rodriguez in San Francisco; Philip Marcelo in Boston and Ted Warren in Seattle contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

dFnKXFuiwnr023uN

test

EC2EX4nmRQeLm7T0

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-trump-knew-wrong-make/story?id=59815550&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_hero_hed

Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen says Trump knew it was wrong to make hush-money payments during campaign

Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to arrange hush-money payments with two women because then-candidate Trump “ was very concerned about how this would affect the election ” if their allegations of affairs became public , the president ’ s former personal attorney said in an exclusive interview with ███ . Interested in Donald Trump ? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Cohen ’ s comments are his first since being sentenced earlier this week to three years in federal prison for financial crimes , lying to Congress and two campaign finance violations in connection with the deals with the women , Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels , who claim past affairs with Trump . “ I knew what I was doing was wrong , ” Cohen told ███ ’ Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos . “ I stood up before the world [ Wednesday ] and I accepted the responsibility for my actions . ” When asked if the president also knew it was wrong to make the payments , Cohen replied , “ Of course , ” adding that the purpose was to “ help [ Trump ] and his campaign . ” Cohen said he is “ angry at himself ” for his role in the deals , but that he did it out of “ blind loyalty ” to Trump . “ I gave loyalty to someone who , truthfully , does not deserve loyalty , ” he said . Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have implicated , but not charged , the president in the deals reached in the closing weeks of the 2016 election . They allege that Cohen acted “ in coordination with and at the direction of ” Trump , according to court filings . Prosecutors also reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI , the publishers of the National Inquirer , in which the tabloid admitted to making a $ 150,000 payment to McDougal “ in concert ” with the Trump campaign . The president has denied allegations of the affairs -- but has had shifting explanations about when he learned about the payments to the women . He has also contended that the deals were private and unrelated to the campaign and that if anything illegal occurred , it was Cohen ’ s responsibility . Trump has lashed out at Cohen since his sentencing , contending in a Thursday tweet that his former close confidant only agreed to plead guilty “ in order to embarrass the president and get a much reduced prison sentence , which he did . ” “ It is absolutely not true , ” Cohen said . “ Under no circumstances do I want to embarrass the president . He knows the truth . I know the truth . ” Cohen was particularly distressed by another Trump tweet on Thursday , in which the president implied that prosecutors investigating Cohen had let his wife and father-in-law off the hook . “ Instead of him taking responsibility for his actions , what does he do ? ” Cohen said . “ He attacks my family . ” And Cohen refuted the president ’ s contention that he never directed Cohen to do anything wrong . “ I do n't think there is anybody that believes that , ” Cohen told Stephanopoulos . “ First of all , nothing at the Trump organization was ever done unless it was run through Mr. Trump . He directed me to make the payments , he directed me to become involved in these matters . “ He knows the truth . I know the truth . Others know the truth , ” Cohen continued . “ And here is the truth : People of the United States of America , people of the world , do n't believe what he is saying . The man does n't tell the truth . And it is sad that I should take responsibility for his dirty deeds . ” When confronted about his convictions for lying to Congress and for tax evasion and banking crimes , Cohen said he was “ done with the lying . I am done being loyal to President Trump and my first loyalty belongs to my wife , my daughter , my son and this country . ” “ Because the special counsel stated emphatically that the information that I gave to them is credible and helpful , ” Cohen replied . “ There ’ s a substantial amount of information that they possessed that corroborates the fact that I am telling the truth . ” Cohen -- who is due to report to prison on March 6 -- has professed his willingness to continue to answer questions for special counsel Robert Mueller and other federal and state investigators . He declined in the interview to answer specific questions about the Mueller investigation “ out of respect for process . ” “ I don ’ t want to jeopardize any of their investigations , ” he said . But when asked if he thinks the president is telling the truth about the Russia probe , Cohen replied simply , “ No . ” Cohen once said he would “ take a bullet ” for the president , but now he finds himself opposing the president and facing the prospect of becoming a witness against him . “ It ’ s never good to be on the wrong side of the president of the United States of America , but somehow or another this task has now fallen onto my shoulders and as I also stated ... I will spend the rest of my life in order to fix the mistake that I made . ” Cohen said as he observes Trump ’ s actions in the White House , he barely recognizes the man he served for more than a decade at the Trump organization . “ He ’ s a very different individual , ” Cohen said . “ I think the pressure of the job is much more than what he thought it was going to be . It ’ s not like the Trump organization where he would bark out orders and people would blindly follow what he wanted done . There ’ s a system here ; he doesn ’ t understand the system and it ’ s sad because the country has never been more divisive and one of the hopes that I have out of the punishment that I ’ ve received as well as the cooperation that I have given I will be remembered in history as helping to bring this country back together . “ I will not be the villain of his story , ” he said .

Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to arrange hush-money payments with two women because then-candidate Trump “was very concerned about how this would affect the election” if their allegations of affairs became public, the president’s former personal attorney said in an exclusive interview with ABC News. Interested in Donald Trump? Add Donald Trump as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Donald Trump news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Cohen’s comments are his first since being sentenced earlier this week to three years in federal prison for financial crimes, lying to Congress and two campaign finance violations in connection with the deals with the women, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, who claim past affairs with Trump. “I knew what I was doing was wrong,” Cohen told ABC News’ Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos. “I stood up before the world [Wednesday] and I accepted the responsibility for my actions.” ABC News When asked if the president also knew it was wrong to make the payments, Cohen replied, “Of course,” adding that the purpose was to “help [Trump] and his campaign.” Cohen said he is “angry at himself” for his role in the deals, but that he did it out of “blind loyalty” to Trump. “I gave loyalty to someone who, truthfully, does not deserve loyalty,” he said. Play Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have implicated, but not charged, the president in the deals reached in the closing weeks of the 2016 election. They allege that Cohen acted “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump, according to court filings. Prosecutors also reached a non-prosecution agreement with AMI, the publishers of the National Inquirer, in which the tabloid admitted to making a $150,000 payment to McDougal “in concert” with the Trump campaign. The president has denied allegations of the affairs -- but has had shifting explanations about when he learned about the payments to the women. He has also contended that the deals were private and unrelated to the campaign and that if anything illegal occurred, it was Cohen’s responsibility. ABC News Trump has lashed out at Cohen since his sentencing, contending in a Thursday tweet that his former close confidant only agreed to plead guilty “in order to embarrass the president and get a much reduced prison sentence, which he did.” “It is absolutely not true,” Cohen said. “Under no circumstances do I want to embarrass the president. He knows the truth. I know the truth.” Cohen was particularly distressed by another Trump tweet on Thursday, in which the president implied that prosecutors investigating Cohen had let his wife and father-in-law off the hook. “Instead of him taking responsibility for his actions, what does he do?” Cohen said. “He attacks my family.” And Cohen refuted the president’s contention that he never directed Cohen to do anything wrong. Andrew Harnik/AP, FILE “I don't think there is anybody that believes that,” Cohen told Stephanopoulos. “First of all, nothing at the Trump organization was ever done unless it was run through Mr. Trump. He directed me to make the payments, he directed me to become involved in these matters. “He knows the truth. I know the truth. Others know the truth,” Cohen continued. “And here is the truth: People of the United States of America, people of the world, don't believe what he is saying. The man doesn't tell the truth. And it is sad that I should take responsibility for his dirty deeds.” When confronted about his convictions for lying to Congress and for tax evasion and banking crimes, Cohen said he was “done with the lying. I am done being loyal to President Trump and my first loyalty belongs to my wife, my daughter, my son and this country.” “Why should we believe you now?” Stephanopoulos asked. “Because the special counsel stated emphatically that the information that I gave to them is credible and helpful,” Cohen replied. “There’s a substantial amount of information that they possessed that corroborates the fact that I am telling the truth.” Win McNamee/Getty Images Cohen -- who is due to report to prison on March 6 -- has professed his willingness to continue to answer questions for special counsel Robert Mueller and other federal and state investigators. He declined in the interview to answer specific questions about the Mueller investigation “out of respect for process.” “I don’t want to jeopardize any of their investigations,” he said. But when asked if he thinks the president is telling the truth about the Russia probe, Cohen replied simply, “No.” Cohen once said he would “take a bullet” for the president, but now he finds himself opposing the president and facing the prospect of becoming a witness against him. “It’s never good to be on the wrong side of the president of the United States of America, but somehow or another this task has now fallen onto my shoulders and as I also stated ... I will spend the rest of my life in order to fix the mistake that I made.” Craig Ruttle/AP Cohen said as he observes Trump’s actions in the White House, he barely recognizes the man he served for more than a decade at the Trump organization. “He’s a very different individual,” Cohen said. “I think the pressure of the job is much more than what he thought it was going to be. It’s not like the Trump organization where he would bark out orders and people would blindly follow what he wanted done. There’s a system here; he doesn’t understand the system and it’s sad because the country has never been more divisive and one of the hopes that I have out of the punishment that I’ve received as well as the cooperation that I have given I will be remembered in history as helping to bring this country back together. “I will not be the villain of his story,” he said.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

EC2EX4nmRQeLm7T0

test

D1iTg1MVRU9aCIWB

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/19/does-the-latest-manafort-bombshell-vindicate-trumps-wiretapping-claims/

Does The Latest Manafort Bombshell Vindicate Trump’s Wiretapping Claims?

2017-09-19

The bombshell report that U.S. investigators conducted surveillance against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort before and after the presidential election has touched off a debate over whether President Trump was correct when he claimed that his predecessor , President Obama , ordered his “ wires tapped . ” Trump infamously made that accusation in early March in a highly controversial tweet . “ Terrible ! Just found out that Obama had my ‘ wires tapped ’ in Trump Tower just before the victory . Nothing found . This is McCarthyism ! ” Trump wrote . Trump was widely criticized for the comment , which was accompanied by no additional context or information . His defenders attempted to dilute the comment , suggesting that Trump was speaking generally about the Obama administration conducting surveillance on his presidential campaign for political purposes . ( RELATED : BOMBSHELL : Feds Wiretapped Paul Manafort Before And After The Election ) Trump has since stopped discussing wiretapping , but CNN ’ s report could renew the Republican ’ s interest in the topic . The network reported on Monday that U.S. officials probing possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) warrant on Manafort at some point last year . The surveillance lasted through early this year , when Manafort was said to still be in touch with Trump . According to CNN , investigators picked up communications from Manafort which suggested that he might have encouraged Russian operatives to meddle in the campaign . Two of the network ’ s sources cautioned that the intelligence was inconclusive . Though the report could bode poorly for Manafort and Trump — if Manafort ’ s communications show collusion — some conservatives cited the CNN report as a vindication for Trump . Roger Stone , a former business partner of Manafort ’ s and informal adviser of Trump ’ s , said that the new report overwhelmingly supports Trump ’ s controversial claim . “ The overwheming evidence is that Trump was also under surveillance , as he claimed overlapping with the time Manafort was being monitored , ” Stone told ███ . “ The fruits of the surveillance , ” Stone said , “ were used for political purposes ” against Trump . But there has been plenty of pushback against the idea that Trump ’ s wiretapping claim was accurate . “ Nothing in this report vindicates Trump ’ s claims that he or Trump Tower were wiretapped , ” a group of prominent national security bloggers wrote at Lawfare . The bloggers noted that nothing in the new report indicates that Trump was directly wiretapped or that Obama ordered it . Besides questions about the accuracy of Trump ’ s tweet , the CNN report raises new questions about why and when the FBI began targeting Manafort , who joined the Trump campaign in May and was fired in August . The CNN report suggests that U.S. investigators obtained the FISA warrant after the now-infamous June 9 , 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Manafort , Donald Trump Jr. , Jared Kushner and a group of Russian lobbyists . As for why investigators sought the warrant , Ed Henry , a reporter at Fox News , cited sources who claimed that the uncorroborated dossier of research compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele may have been a catalyst for the FISA application . Henry reported that the warrant was obtained “ after the FBI embraced some of the details of that Russian dossier of then-President-Election Trump that has since been discredited. ” His unnamed sources also said that the federal judges who approved the warrant “ are privately miffed ” that the Manafort warrant was tied to the dossier , which was funded by a political ally of Hillary Clinton ’ s . If Henry ’ s report is accurate , Manafort would be the second Trump campaign figure for whom the dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant . It has been reported that investigators cited the 35-page dossier in an application for a FISA warrant against Carter Page , an energy consultant who served as a volunteer on Trump ’ s campaign foreign policy team . In the dossier , Steele cites a source who claimed that Manafort and Page were part of “ a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation ” between the Trump campaign and Russian leadership to help Trump win the presidency . Manafort “ managed ” the effort , using Page and others as intermediaries , Steele wrote in a memo dated sometime in late July . The FBI reportedly opened its investigation of the Trump team at around that time . Steele had reportedly provided copies of reports in the dossier to FBI agents he knew from previous spy projects .

The bombshell report that U.S. investigators conducted surveillance against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort before and after the presidential election has touched off a debate over whether President Trump was correct when he claimed that his predecessor, President Obama, ordered his “wires tapped.” Trump infamously made that accusation in early March in a highly controversial tweet. “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Trump wrote. Trump was widely criticized for the comment, which was accompanied by no additional context or information. His defenders attempted to dilute the comment, suggesting that Trump was speaking generally about the Obama administration conducting surveillance on his presidential campaign for political purposes. (RELATED: BOMBSHELL: Feds Wiretapped Paul Manafort Before And After The Election) Trump has since stopped discussing wiretapping, but CNN’s report could renew the Republican’s interest in the topic. The network reported on Monday that U.S. officials probing possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Manafort at some point last year. The surveillance lasted through early this year, when Manafort was said to still be in touch with Trump. According to CNN, investigators picked up communications from Manafort which suggested that he might have encouraged Russian operatives to meddle in the campaign. Two of the network’s sources cautioned that the intelligence was inconclusive. Though the report could bode poorly for Manafort and Trump — if Manafort’s communications show collusion — some conservatives cited the CNN report as a vindication for Trump. Roger Stone, a former business partner of Manafort’s and informal adviser of Trump’s, said that the new report overwhelmingly supports Trump’s controversial claim. “The overwheming evidence is that Trump was also under surveillance, as he claimed overlapping with the time Manafort was being monitored,” Stone told The Daily Caller. “The fruits of the surveillance,” Stone said, “were used for political purposes” against Trump. But there has been plenty of pushback against the idea that Trump’s wiretapping claim was accurate. “Nothing in this report vindicates Trump’s claims that he or Trump Tower were wiretapped,” a group of prominent national security bloggers wrote at Lawfare. The bloggers noted that nothing in the new report indicates that Trump was directly wiretapped or that Obama ordered it. Besides questions about the accuracy of Trump’s tweet, the CNN report raises new questions about why and when the FBI began targeting Manafort, who joined the Trump campaign in May and was fired in August. The CNN report suggests that U.S. investigators obtained the FISA warrant after the now-infamous June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and a group of Russian lobbyists. As for why investigators sought the warrant, Ed Henry, a reporter at Fox News, cited sources who claimed that the uncorroborated dossier of research compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele may have been a catalyst for the FISA application. Henry reported that the warrant was obtained “after the FBI embraced some of the details of that Russian dossier of then-President-Election Trump that has since been discredited.” His unnamed sources also said that the federal judges who approved the warrant “are privately miffed” that the Manafort warrant was tied to the dossier, which was funded by a political ally of Hillary Clinton’s. If Henry’s report is accurate, Manafort would be the second Trump campaign figure for whom the dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant. It has been reported that investigators cited the 35-page dossier in an application for a FISA warrant against Carter Page, an energy consultant who served as a volunteer on Trump’s campaign foreign policy team. In the dossier, Steele cites a source who claimed that Manafort and Page were part of “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between the Trump campaign and Russian leadership to help Trump win the presidency. Manafort “managed” the effort, using Page and others as intermediaries, Steele wrote in a memo dated sometime in late July. The FBI reportedly opened its investigation of the Trump team at around that time. Steele had reportedly provided copies of reports in the dossier to FBI agents he knew from previous spy projects.

www.dailycaller.com

right

D1iTg1MVRU9aCIWB

test

2Mq6eJVFxntqXvrg

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/february/school-district-vows-to-disrupt-the-gender-binary-allowing-kids-to-go-trans-without-telling-parents

School District Vows to 'Disrupt the Gender Binary', Allowing Kids to Go Trans Without Telling Parents

2020-02-20

A group of 14 Wisconsin parents has filed a lawsuit against a local school district for its policy allowing teachers to address their children by their preferred `` gender identity '' without notifying them first . Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty ( WILL ) , a conservative law firm , filed the 19-page lawsuit on Tuesday on behalf of the parent 's group against the Madison Metropolitan School District ( MMSD ) . The 14 parents were not named in the document . The lawsuit alleges that MMSD 's transgender policy is unconstitutional because it prohibits teachers and staff from informing parents that their children want to switch sexes . `` This action seeks to vindicate parents ' fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children , '' the lawsuit argues . `` The Madison Metropolitan School District has violated this important right by adopting a policy designed to circumvent parental involvement in a pivotal decision affecting their children 's health and future . The policy enables children , of any age , to socially transition to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent . '' While parental consent is needed before a child 's name can be changed legally in the district 's official records , the school district policy announced in 2018 says students can be called by their preferred name and gender pronouns without parental permission . The policy states that the district is committed to affirming each student 's self-designated gender identity and the district will strive to `` disrupt the gender binary '' with books and lessons stating that everyone has the right to choose their gender . The school policy allows students to pick new names and pronouns they can use at school regardless of whether they have a parent 's permission . All teachers and district staff must refer to students by their chosen names and pronouns even though the names are n't official in district systems . The parents argue the policy violates the state constitution 's due process clause , which protects parents ' right to raise their children according to the parents ' beliefs . `` Madison schools have adopted policies that violate constitutionally recognized parental rights . A public school district should not , and can not , make decisions reserved for parents , '' WILL President and General Counsel Rick Esenberg said in a statement . District spokesman Tim LeMonds said Tuesday that the district had not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment until it had a chance to review it . But LeMonds said the district stands by its guidance on transgender and nonbinary students . The lawsuit also argues that keeping parents in the dark about their children 's sexuality interferes with parents ' right to guide their children through life-altering decisions and provide professional help their children may urgently need . `` There is no compelling government interest in keeping secret from parents that their child is dealing with gender dysphoria , '' the lawsuit reads . The parents also argue that the policy violates the state constitution 's religious freedom guarantee . All of the parents say they believe God intended humans to be male and female , and the district 's choice to hide students ' gender struggles interferes with their right to guide their children in accordance with their religious beliefs

A group of 14 Wisconsin parents has filed a lawsuit against a local school district for its policy allowing teachers to address their children by their preferred "gender identity" without notifying them first. Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), a conservative law firm, filed the 19-page lawsuit on Tuesday on behalf of the parent's group against the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD). The 14 parents were not named in the document. The lawsuit alleges that MMSD's transgender policy is unconstitutional because it prohibits teachers and staff from informing parents that their children want to switch sexes. "This action seeks to vindicate parents' fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children," the lawsuit argues. "The Madison Metropolitan School District has violated this important right by adopting a policy designed to circumvent parental involvement in a pivotal decision affecting their children's health and future. The policy enables children, of any age, to socially transition to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent." While parental consent is needed before a child's name can be changed legally in the district's official records, the school district policy announced in 2018 says students can be called by their preferred name and gender pronouns without parental permission. The policy states that the district is committed to affirming each student's self-designated gender identity and the district will strive to "disrupt the gender binary" with books and lessons stating that everyone has the right to choose their gender. The school policy allows students to pick new names and pronouns they can use at school regardless of whether they have a parent's permission. All teachers and district staff must refer to students by their chosen names and pronouns even though the names aren't official in district systems. The parents argue the policy violates the state constitution's due process clause, which protects parents' right to raise their children according to the parents' beliefs. "Madison schools have adopted policies that violate constitutionally recognized parental rights. A public school district should not, and cannot, make decisions reserved for parents," WILL President and General Counsel Rick Esenberg said in a statement. District spokesman Tim LeMonds said Tuesday that the district had not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment until it had a chance to review it. But LeMonds said the district stands by its guidance on transgender and nonbinary students. The lawsuit also argues that keeping parents in the dark about their children's sexuality interferes with parents' right to guide their children through life-altering decisions and provide professional help their children may urgently need. "There is no compelling government interest in keeping secret from parents that their child is dealing with gender dysphoria," the lawsuit reads. The parents also argue that the policy violates the state constitution's religious freedom guarantee. All of the parents say they believe God intended humans to be male and female, and the district's choice to hide students' gender struggles interferes with their right to guide their children in accordance with their religious beliefs

www1.cbn.com

right

2Mq6eJVFxntqXvrg

test