Whether an October surprise may have come a month early, it's too soon to say. But Hillary Clinton's weekend health scare already has started to stir speculation about whether Democratic officials should be discussing the possibility of a Plan B, in case they need to hastily arrange for a replacement nominee. Which raises a basic question: How does that work? Democratic Party bylaws say the DNC has the power to fill "vacancies in the nominations for the office of the president and vice president" when the national convention is not in session. Under party rules, the DNC chair – currently Donna Brazile – could call a special meeting, and fill the vacancy by a majority vote of those present. Analysts still see this scenario as exceedingly unlikely. It appears party leaders have no authority to sideline Clinton, meaning the special meeting would kick in only if she were to step aside voluntarily. The nominee and her aides say she's recovering and feeling much better now. But after Clinton left a 9/11 memorial Sunday stumbling and being helped into an SUV by multiple aides -- an incident the campaign tied to a recent pneumonia diagnosis and other factors -- some Democrats are at least thinking about that process. Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler told Politico that the party needs to develop a plan immediately for finding a potential successor candidate. Former Al Jazeera and MSNBC anchor David Shuster tweeted Sunday that the DNC was considering an "emergency meeting" to talk about a Clinton replacement, although his source emphasized her status as nominee was up to her, not the party. NPR's Cokie Roberts said Monday that Democrats already are considering another candidate. "It has them very nervously beginning to whisper about having her step aside and finding another candidate," Roberts said, adding that "it's unlikely to be a real thing" and describing the talk as likely "an overreaction." Perhaps inadvertently feeding that frenzy, former Ohio Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland introduced Clinton running mate Tim Kaine at an event Monday by describing him as "ready to become the president" if necessary, The Columbus Dispatch reported. But in the, albeit unlikely, scenario of a replacement scramble, Kaine isn't necessarily a shoo-in. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others could all be possible candidates. Historian Doug Wead told Fox News' Neil Cavuto that the votes would tend to go toward whomever the top of the ticket endorses, though it's not guaranteed. "Whatever [Clinton] says will likely hold sway, but legally, technically they have their own vote," he said. Replacing a member of a major-party ticket would be exceedingly rare, though not unprecedented. This happened in 1972 when Democratic nominee George McGovern's running mate -- Sen. Thomas Eagleton -- withdrew from the race in July after it was revealed he had undergone electric shock treatment for mental health issues. Eagleton was replaced in August by Sargent Shriver as the new vice presidential nominee. The McGovern/Shriver ticket went on to lose the race in a landslide to incumbent President Richard Nixon. Rick Hasen, who runs the Election Law Blog, told FoxNews.com that the situation could become significantly more complicated if it were to play out later in the calendar. "The more complicated problem would arise if ballots have already been printed, and people would have started voting. There, the Electoral College would come into play, and electors from the party would be expected to vote for the replacement nominee," Hasen said. The first absentee ballots were mailed out in Sept. 9 in North Carolina, and many other states will soon follow. By mid-September the deadlines for both parties to certify candidates for the general election will have passed in every state – meaning lawsuits might have to be filed to try and get a replacement on the ballot. The DNC did not respond to a request for comment from FoxNews.com. This isn't the first time this election cycle there has been talk of a candidate dropping out. In August, during a particularly rough patch of poll numbers for Trump, some GOP officials were reportedly considering contingency plans in case the Republican nominee dropped out. Adam Shaw is a Politics Reporter and occasional Opinion writer for FoxNews.com. He can be reached here or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY.


The Republican Party has had it rough. Not only have they had to admit that their presidential candidate, Donald Trump, is an absolute nut job who can t do anything right, but their attempt to replace Obamacare has been just as much of a failure.The GOP has spent several years whining and moaning about how they would like to replace Obama s Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that a majority of Americans are in favor of keeping it. But once they finally had their chance to prove they could do better with Trump in the White House, they blew it.Recently at his weekly press conference, House Speaker Paul Ryan was asked if the House would vote on Trumpcare before Trump reached his first 100-day marker. Ryan s response was nothing short of absolute defeat and despair as he admitted that the GOP s horrible healthcare bill didn t have enough votes to pass. Ryan said: We want to go when we re ready to go. This has been a very organic bottom up process. It takes time to do that. We re doing big things, and you know me, I talked about 200 days because I thought the kind of agenda we re attempting to put together here overhauling health care, overhauling the tax system, rebuilding our military, securing the border. Those take more than just a few months. They take a long time, at least a year, so that s why we re working on the path to get it right, and not constrain it to some artificial deadline. What Ryan gave was a lot of excuses, along with his admission that he can t pass Trumpcare because there aren t enough votes to support a disastrous bill that would strip millions of Americans of their life-saving health insurance. It s entirely possible that the GOP will never have enough votes to make Trumpcare a thing, and Ryan s words are just as much empty promises as Trump s are.You can watch Ryan admit defeat below:Featured image by Win McNamee via Getty Images


Democrats have a rare chance to win major concessions in a U.S. Congress they do not control by taking advantage of a battle within the Republican Party over keeping the government open. With a Friday deadline looming when most funding for federal agencies runs out, Democrats finally have some clout. But their power is strongest while the Republicans in Congress remain fractured and fighting. The showdown with Republicans could come to a head on Thursday when Democrats are expected to press their demands to President Donald Trump at a White House meeting. For Trump, the complex, and very public, battle over the shutdown will also be a demonstration of his ability to deliver on a central 2016 campaign promise of adding billions of dollars to the U.S. military budget. That issue is at the core of Republicans' behind-the-scenes negotiations with Democrats. Most Republicans want a defense buildup. But many also want to limit government spending. While many Democrats also support bolstering defense, they insist on raising spending on non-defense programs too. Democrats' top two demands include passage of legislation that has eluded them for 16 years: protecting from deportation nearly 700,000 young people known as "Dreamers," whose parents brought them illegally to the United States as children. The Democrats also want to shore up Obamacare by reversing Trump's decision to stop monthly subsidy payments to insurance companies offering healthcare policies to lower-income people. Democrats will enter the White House meeting knowing their support is crucial to Senate Republicans passing any spending bills. Republicans control the chamber by 52-48, but need 60 vote for passage of most spending measures. While a partial government shutdown would keep emergency services and the military mainly operating, thousands of operations would be suspended, such as the operation of national parks. Republicans have clear control of the House of Representatives. But a core of conservative Republicans who consistently vote against funding bills in their drive for smaller government could balk. Democrats have a history of strongly supporting stopgap funding bills, providing the cushion for victory in the Republican House. Conservative Republicans said on Tuesday they would try to pass temporary spending bills without House Democrats' support. If so, it is unclear whether such a bill could clear the Senate, where Democratic votes are necessary to pass most bills. There is another wild card for both parties in Thursday's meeting: Trump. Democrats will test the unpredictable president to see whether he is willing to go the bipartisan route in order to keep federal agencies running smoothly or whether he will be in a confrontational mood. In May, angry he did not win money to build his promised wall along the border with Mexico, Trump said the United States needed a "good shutdown" to force his agenda on Congress. Just last week, he wrote on Twitter about the spending bills: "I don't see a deal." Democrats are counting on the bipartisan Trump showing up, betting that he and fellow Republicans in Congress do not want to leave the immigration legislation, popularly known as the Dreamers Act, to fester until a March deadline, so close to the 2018 congressional election season. Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader, are calculating that voters' wrath would rain down on Republicans if the government lights go out. Republicans would blame Democrats. At a news conference last Thursday, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that if Democrats vote against the temporary spending bill because they have not won their demands, "then they will have chosen to shut the government down." Republicans already are trying to exploit possible differences among Democrats over whether to link support for the stopgap spending bill to the immigration measure. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said she expected Democrats to vote for the government funding bill this week, telling Reuters in an interview that while it "is important to all of us" to take care of the Dreamers, "I don't think we should shut the government down." Senator Dick Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, told the Washington Post last week he would oppose any spending bill if Congress had not first taken care of the Dreamers. On Tuesday, Schumer noted there were "good negotiations" under way on the immigration measure. This week's vote to keep the government operating on temporary funding is likely to be the first of a three-step process that could stretch to Jan. 31. A second step would be another short-term funding bill, followed by one to fund the government through the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.


The Golden State Warriors have been defined by artistic ball movement and underrated defense. But at their core, they may be powered by something more abstract: an ability to motivate themselves just when they are being doubted. With the playoffs set to begin on Saturday and the Warriors coming in as heavy favorites after winning a record 73 games, the question is whether a tightly knit group of players that has come to dominate basketball the last two years can keep that edge through the next two months. In all likelihood, they can. Just consider how the regular season concluded: After a shocking home loss to the Minnesota Timberwolves on April 5 left the Warriors with a record, Golden State needed to win its last four games to break the mark established by the Michael Chicago Bulls in the season. Because two of those last four games would come against a very tough Spurs team, including one in San Antonio, where Golden State had not won since 1997, the consensus seemed to be that the Warriors would fall short — especially with Warriors Coach Steve Kerr talking about the importance of resting key players before the playoffs. But Draymond Green, Golden State's forward and emotional leader, had other ideas. He became intensely vocal about his desire to get the wins record, and pressure from him and Stephen Curry seemed to get to Kerr, who allowed his starters to keep playing as long as the Warriors kept winning. And they did, including a difficult victory in San Antonio that broke the Spurs' seasonlong home winning streak. The rest was history, as the Warriors snatched the wins record and Curry almost assuredly locked up his second consecutive Most Valuable Player Award. Now comes the postseason. Can anyone really challenge this Warriors team and somehow rattle it? The Cleveland Cavaliers, despite the murmurs of internal strife, can never be discounted as long as LeBron James is around. The Spurs had one of the best teams in N. B. A. history, even if it went somewhat unnoticed. Still, if the Warriors, a team perfectly constructed to succeed in this era, play to their potential, it is hard to see any team keeping up with them. Jalen Rose, a N. B. A. veteran who will be providing playoff analysis for ESPN, said one of the biggest reasons for that is Curry's killer instinct. Rose called Curry a " assassin" and said Curry is set apart by his ability to maintain an edge as a defending champion and defending M. V. P. "He is not playing around," Rose said. If Curry is looking for slights to motivate him, he may find one if he is not the first N. B. A. player unanimously named M. V. P. (Shaquille O'Neal and James have come the closest, each falling one vote short.) Chris Webber, a who will be part of TNT's broadcast team, said a few M. V. P. voters may choose someone other than Curry simply to be contrarian. "I don't see how a true, humble basketball fan can vote against Steph," Webber said. Curry is likely to be the dominant story line of the playoffs after leading the N. B. A. in scoring average along with total field goals, and steals despite playing in the fourth quarter in just 60 of his 79 games. The Warriors complement him with incredible depth in Green, Klay Thompson and Andre Iguodala on a roster that is largely unchanged from last season. Asked to imagine a team that could compete with the Warriors, Rose said that the Spurs are contenders but that people should also consider the star power and depth of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Beyond Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, the Thunder also have a defensive ace in Serge Ibaka and an rotation at center in Steven Adams and Enes Kanter that can be remarkably effective. "If they're clicking on all cylinders, I give them a punter's chance obviously to put the kind of firepower out on the floor to go head to head with the Warriors four quarters," Rose said, while acknowledging that Oklahoma City struggled in the fourth quarter this season. The quality of Oklahoma City's front line could be a pivotal issue if it should face Golden State. Rose cited points in the paint as the Warriors' biggest weakness and said teams would be wise to attack them inside. "While they defend really well, one of the best in the league, they're short," Rose said of Golden State's Death Lineup in which Green plays center. "Draymond Green, when they have that lineup out there, he's Harrison Barnes is or so you have to take advantage of that, try to get to the line, get them in foul trouble. " For now, the Warriors will focus on the Houston Rockets, whom they beat in five games in last season's Western Conference finals. It is a matchup that may not extend any longer this time around. But if an uninspiring matchup was not providing the team with the proper motivation, Jordan may have inadvertently put the chip right back on Golden State's shoulder. When the Warriors broke the Bulls' record earlier this week, Jordan issued a statement of congratulations. But he also included a line that seemed to be part jab and part reminder that their legacy is not yet secure. "I look forward to seeing what they do in the playoffs," he said. For Curry and Green, that may be enough of a challenge to carry them all the way.


China s ruling Communist Party on Wednesday opens its 19th Congress, at which President Xi Jinping will map out his ambitions for the country for the next five years and beyond, likely to be high on aspiration and short on concrete details. Here are some key factors to watch out for: - Will Xi resurrect the position of party chairman? Xi is currently the party s general secretary, but not its chairman, a title Mao Zedong and his two successors, Hua Guofeng and Hu Yaobang, both held. Becoming party chairman would put Xi at the same level as Mao and could allow him to effectively end three decades of collective leadership, giving him unparalleled power. - What will happen to chief corruption-buster Wang Qishan? Speculation has swirled that Wang, 69, could be asked to stay on past an unofficial retirement age limit, either in his current role, or possibly in a new position with an economic portfolio. - Who will be on the new Standing Committee, the apex of power in China? Currently made up of seven men, most of whom are expected to retire and be replaced by new faces. Possible names include Li Shulei, Wang s deputy at the anti-corruption watchdog; the Chongqing party chief Chen Miner, who is close to Xi; and the provincial party boss of Guangdong, Hu Chunhua. If Xi becomes party chairman the significance of the Standing Committee would become diminished, as power would be concentrated in Xi s hands rather than in the Standing Committee. - A series of new personnel appointments, like the foreign minister and central bank chief, will be decided, though some may not be formalized and announced until the annual meeting of parliament in March. - Changing the party s constitution. Some sort of reference to Xi and his theories will be included in the revised constitution - a further sign of his tightening grip on power. - Bolstering the anti-corruption and security systems. A new National Supervision Commission, which would combine the roles of several party and government bodies that currently combat graft, will likely be set up. - The National Security Commission, already headed by Xi, could also get new powers, potentially making it more important than the Central Military Commission, which runs the People s Liberation Army. That would give the National Security Commission more power to tackle domestic and foreign threats. The exact role of a more powerful Commission is still unclear, including if it will have overall command of both the military and the domestic security forces. - Whether Xi will anoint a successor. Xi s rise to the top was confirmed at the 2007 Congress, when he first joined the Standing Committee and then became vice president the following year. Any successor would have to join the Standing Committee at this Congress and be young enough to serve at least three five-year terms. If there is no obvious successor, it will increase speculation that Xi could stay on in power after 2022, when the next Congress occurs, and when Xi should, according to precedent and age limits, step down after two terms in office. - Whether Xi reaffirms 2013 reform pledges to let market forces play a decisive role in the economy, a catchphrase rarely mentioned now. Signals on new reform initiatives will be important, especially concerning state-owned enterprises, the fiscal system, property taxes and land rights. Also important is if there are any fresh measures to tackle industrial overcapacity and debt issues. Any fresh measures to tackle overcapacity and debt issues. - Any hints on policy priorities for the next five years, both monetary and fiscal, though analysts don t expect the Congress to unveil any major policy changes. Economic and policy agendas for 2018 will be set at the annual economic work conference later this year. - New expressions on the economy and reforms, following Xi s use of the terms new normal to describe the more moderate pace of economic growth, and supply-side structural reform . - How the punishing war on pollution is affecting China s business and government leaders as they prepare for a tough winter campaign aimed at meeting politically sensitive smog reduction targets. Fighting pollution is now a key criterion on which the performance of officials will be judged.


Cable news is in trouble. The Pew Research Center reports that the median daily audience for Fox, CNN, and MSNBC is down about 11 percent since 2008. The Washington Post's Paul Farhi sees a grim future for the industry. He argues that cable news outlets are pretty much where newspapers were a decade ago: their audience is aging, their medium is being disrupted by new technologies, and the next generation of viewers is developing habits and preferences that they're poorly placed to serve. (This is probably a good moment to note that I'm a contributor to MSNBC.) The networks may still be making money — in 2014, Fox News managed $1.2 billion in profits, while CNN cleared $300 million and MSNBC made a bit more than $200 million — but Farhi suggests "the cable news networks will face bankruptcy the same way Ernest Hemingway once described a character's financial demise: 'Gradually and then suddenly.'" Perhaps that's right. But while Farhi's account of cable news outlets' woes focuses mainly on the cable part of the equation, it's also worth considering the problems all three networks are having with the news itself. The rise of the three major cable news networks were all driven by stories they dominated. CNN was made by the 1991 Gulf War. It wasn't just the first time it passed the networks in ratings; it was the first time CNN showed that it could beat the networks in coverage. You can still feel the surprise in this New York Times article from 1991: The shooting in the Persian Gulf began tonight with the three broadcast networks committed to covering the war on a 24-hour basis, although their image as news leaders was damaged by the Cable News Network's early dominance of the coverage ... he networks' image was certainly not helped when Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said he was following the attacks on Baghdad on CNN. At least one network station, an NBC station in Detroit, decided to quit its network's coverage to run CNN's. And NBC finally was compelled to interview CNN reporters on the air to get information out of Baghdad. Fox News, for its part, saw basically exponential growth around 9/11, and then again around the 2008 campaign and Obama's election. MSNBC's rise was driven by the backlash to the Bush administration, and particularly to the Iraq War: The network held those gains in the first half of the Obama era, as liberals went from terrified to triumphant. But as liberals have gone from triumphant to a bit depressed and checked out, viewership has begun to decline. The recent rise of cable news — particularly Fox and MSNBC — came in a period when the news — particularly political news — was unusually interesting. Between 2000 and 2012, we saw a contested US presidential election, the largest terrorist attack ever on US soil, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, repeated wave elections, a global financial crisis, the first black president, the rise of the Tea Party, the fight over Obamacare, and the first states to legalize gay marriage and marijuana — and much more. It's been a weirdly interesting, consequential period in American politics. And so the cable news networks, which could devote 24 hours a day to covering these stories, benefited. But now it's an unusually dull period in American politics. Congress is gridlocked, and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. The US, thankfully, isn't reeling from a terrorist attack or a financial crisis. We haven't invaded Iran, at least not yet. And it's not just cable news that's losing viewers because of it. Turnout in the 2014 election was the lowest it's been in 70 years. You see this, I think, in the specific fortunes of the cable networks. Farhi reports that MSNBC lost 14 percent of its audience in 2014, and Fox lost 2 percent. But CNN prime time — which swung away from politics toward covering plane crashes and airing documentaries — is up 10 percent in 2015. Which is all to say that Farhi may be right about the long-term decline of cable news — over some extended period of time, both network and cable channels are going to be diminished by whatever it is the internet creates in their place. But year to year, a lot of the ups and downs might just be the appeal of what's actually in the news. If President Scott Walker goes to war with Iran, MSNBC's ratings are going to go up. If President Hillary Clinton takes away everyone's guns, Fox is going to boom. But for now, relative peace and stability are bad news for cable news.


The chairman of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday asked chief executives from companies representing the two sides of the net neutrality debate, including Alphabet, Facebook, AT&T and Verizon, to testify at a Sept. 7 hearing. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is considering tossing out 2015 Obama administration net neutrality rules that reclassified internet service like a public utility. The current rules bar providers from blocking or slowing websites, or allowing websites to pay for "fast lanes" over competitors. Internet providers and major tech companies have been sharply divided over the rules. Many internet providers want Congress to step in and write permanent rules, while websites say the Obama era rules are critical to preserving the open internet. The outcome of the debate could have a major impact on the future of the internet economy and potentially profits of the companies involved. Other chief executives asked to testify include the heads of Comcast Corp, Netflix Inc and Charter Communications Inc. Several companies said they were reviewing the letter but none immediately said if they will testify. Comcast said it welcomed the hearing and "believes the best way to stop the regulatory ping-pong on this important issue is for Congress to enact bipartisan legislation." "A strong consensus is forming across party lines and across industries that it's time for Congress to call a halt on the back-and-forth and set clear net neutrality ground rules for the internet," said Representative Greg Walden, a Republican, who chairs the committee. "The time has come to get everyone to the table and get this figured out." Democrats on the committee want Republicans to invite small businesses and consumers, not just the CEOs from some of the "largest corporations in the world with a combined market capitalization of nearly $2.5 trillion," said a statement from Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Doyle, both Democrats. Democrats have so far refused to work with Republicans on internet legislation. A group representing major technology firms last week urged the FCC to abandon plans to rescind the rules barring internet service providers from hindering consumer access to web content or offering paid "fast lanes." Major internet service have urged the FCC, however, to reverse the rules, even as they vowed not to hinder internet access. In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's plan to withdraw the former Obama administration's order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. The FCC is considering whether it has the authority to limit internet providers' ability to block, throttle or offer "paid prioritization," and, if so, whether it should keep any regulations in place. More than 12 million public comments have been filed on the proposal. The Internet Association, a group representing Facebook, Google, Microsoft Corp and Twitter Inc, said last week it was "open to alternative legal bases for the rules, either via legislative action codifying the existing net neutrality rules or via sound legal theories offered by the commission."


The chances of Northern Ireland s political parties restoring a power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland are not positive and talks in the last few days have stalled, Britain s minister for the region said on Wednesday. If I had given evidence to this committee last week I might have indicated some momentum, more progress. That progress stalled at the end of last week, James Brokenshire told a parliamentary committee. Unless there is a renewed spirit of compromise then the outlook for imminent resolution is not positive. Time is running out. (This story has been refiled to remove extraneous word from headline)


Pinterest  The leaders of the militia who temporarily occupied a national wildlife refuge in Oregon have been acquitted on charges related to the standoff.  The 41-day "occupation" brought heightened attention to a decades-long dispute over control of federal lands in the U.S. West.  A jury in Portland found brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy not guilty of possession of a firearm in a federal facility and conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, some 300 miles southeast of Portland, The New York Post is reporting .  Despite this acquittal, the brothers are still expected to stand trial in Nevada early in 2017, on charges stemming from another controversial standoff with federal authorities. The feds rounded up cattle at their father Cliven's ranch in 2014, alleging unpaid grazing fees, but they faced armed protesters.  The brothers are part of a Nevada ranching family embroiled in a lengthy fight over the use of public range, and their occupation drew an international spotlight to a uniquely American West dispute: federal restrictions on ranching, mining and logging to protect the environment. The U.S. government, which controls much of the land in the West, says it tries to balance industry, recreation and wildlife concerns to benefit all.  "We are just so excited," Angie Bundy, Ryan's wife, told the Guardian after the verdict was announced. "We've been praying hard, and we knew they hadn't done anything wrong."  The Post is reporting that the trial seemed like an open-and-shut case. There was no dispute that the group actually seized the refuge, established armed patrols, and vetted visitors.  "Ladies and gentlemen, this case is not a whodunit," Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight said in his closing argument, arguing that the group decided to take over a federal workplace that didn't belong to them.  But federal prosecutors took two weeks to present their case, finishing with a display of more than 30 guns seized at the standoff, testifying to 16,636 live rounds and 1,700 spent casings were found.  Despite the evidence, the brothers were found not guilty, suggesting that the jury – along with the American people – are growing weary of continued government interference in local land use issues.


Republican front runner Donald Trump has once again confused everyone on one of his policies by completely reversing and flip-flopping several times in the span of just a few days. This time, he chose the controversial topic of abortion because he s a misogynist and degrading women just comes so effortlessly and naturally to him.First, the business mogul p*ssed everyone off by saying that women who got abortions should face some sort of punishment. Then, the disgraced candidate frantically backpedaled and said abortion should be left to the states , and that it wasn t women that should be punished, but the doctors who perform the abortions! After that, Trump said that abortions laws were set and should stay the way they are, before his campaign clarified his statement and said that the laws should remain the same until Trump is president. As this back-and-forth nonsense went on, the media was pummeling Trump for not being able to make up his damn mind, and for being horrendously offensive.Now, Trump is trying to avoid even more backlash by straight-up refusing to answer questions on the topic of abortion, as America tries to understand what exactly Trump s position on it really is. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd discovered this when she recently tried to interview Trump for her Sunday column entitled Trump Does It His Way . Dowd said she posed this clever question to the front runner: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion? Trump s answered by evading the question entirely. He said: Such an interesting question. So what s your next question? Trump also gave a pathetic justification for his original punishment comments on abortion that he d made earlier in the week. He told Dowd: This was not real life this was a hypothetical, so I thought of it in terms of a hypothetical. So that s where that answer came from, hypothetically. Dowd also asked Trump how he possibly expected to win the election when he had completely turned off and disgusted 73 percent of American woman. Trump simply murmured, It was 68 percent, actually.


by Dr. Mercola  The U.S. food system is set up to protect industrialized, centralized food production and distribution, while efforts to decentralize food are kept strictly under wraps.  There are many problems with this system, including the fact that food production is often out of sync with demand, leading to excessive amounts of waste. In 2016, for instance, the industrial dairy industry has dumped 43 million gallons of milk due to a massive milk glut.  The glut is the result of a 2014 spike in milk prices, which encouraged many dairy farmers to add more milk cows to their farms. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data shows that dairy cows have increased by 40,000 in 2016, with a 1.4 percent increase in production per cow.  With too much milk and nowhere to sell it, prices have tanked. Milk prices declined 22 percent in recent months to $16.39 per 100 pounds — a price so low some farmers can no longer afford to even transport it to the market. [1]  The milk glut isn't only affecting the U.S., either. It's been felt globally, which means milk producers can't export their surplus milk. What's a dairy farmer to do with a surplus of milk? Dump it — on fields, into animal feed or added to manure lagoons. USDA Steps in to Bail Out Dairy CAFOs  At its foundation, the milk glut is the result of dairy operations in the U.S. consolidating into concentrated feeding operations (CAFOs) — massive industrial "farms" with the sole goal of producing as much food as possible for the greatest profit. As reported by Yale Environment 360: [2]  While milk carton imagery pictures bucolic, small farms, more than 50 percent of U.S. milk is now produced by just 3 percent of the country's dairies — those with more than 1,000 cows, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).The very largest U.S. dairies now have 15,000 or more cows.  The USDA, meanwhile, is coming to bail out these massive industrial enterprises. They've offered to buy $20 million of cheddar cheese from private sources, while milk producers try to get fast food outlets to add more cheese-heavy products to their menus. [3] The USDA already purchased $20 million of cheddar cheese in August 2016. 1 in 4 US Dairy Cows Contracts Mastitis  Dairy cows raised in confinement and fed unnatural diets of genetically engineered (GE) grain are at high risk of illness, as are all animals raised in CAFOs. It's estimated that one-fifth of livestock are lost due to diseases, which is an unrecognized source of food waste. [4]  In the U.S. alone, 1 in 4 dairy cows contracts mastitis, which is a painful and serious udder disease. The result of producing large quantities of low-quality milk, mastitis is also the leading cause of therapeutic antibiotics treatment in U.S. dairy animals.  In an era where antibiotic-resistant disease is taking millions of lives, any preventable causes of antibiotics usage should be curbed. Mastitis is also preventable with clean, humane living conditions and proper diet, which lead to healthy cows.  Mastitis is also another source of food waste. Milk with antibiotic residues cannot be sold, so milk from cows being treated with antibiotics for mastitis must be poured down the drain — to the tune of 1.2 billion servings a year (not to mention the addition of more antibiotics into the environment). [5]  As noted by one study on antibiotics usage on a dairy CAFO in New York state, "One of the best options to decrease antibiotic usage is to prevent the infection in the first place …" [6] Indeed, which again brings us back to the way cows are raised. CAFOs are literal breeding grounds for infection.  Further, according to the 2016 Global Agricultural Productivity (GAP) Report prepared by the Global Harvest Initiative, once a cow contracts mastitis, she will probably not produce as much milk as before: [7]  In addition, the cow's level of milk production through her entire life cycle will likely fall below her potential as she is more susceptible to contracting mastitis on a recurring basis.  The need for alternatives to protect the health of animals and preserve the long-term effectiveness of shared-class antibiotics has never been greater. As Dairy CAFOs Grow in Size, so Too Does Related Pollution  In Wisconsin, the heart of dairy country in the Midwest, farm consolidation is growing at an alarming rate.  While the number of overall dairy farms in the state dropped by about one-third in the last decade, the number of such farms with more than 500 cows grew by 150 percent — and those with 2,000 or more cows grew at the fastest rate of all. [8]  In addition to concerns like mastitis and milk gluts, such operations produce mind-boggling amounts of waste that represent one of the top sources of pollution in the U.S. Yale Environment 360 reported: [9]  According to the EPA, a 2,000-cow dairy generates more than 240,000 pounds of manure daily or nearly 90 million pounds a year. The USDA estimates that the manure from 200 milking cows produces as much nitrogen as sewage from a community of 5,000 to 10,000 people.  … Milking cows … produce more manure than beef cattle and the Holsteins that dominate the U.S. dairy industry produce almost twice as much manure as Jerseys.  Cows that give more milk per cow also produce more manure and per-cow milk production has almost doubled since the 1970s.  Manure spills and leaching of waste from storage "lagoons" contaminate waterways and drinking water, posing serious environmental risks in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the U.S. Grass-Fed Dairy: Better for the Environment, the Animals and Human Health  Demand for grass-fed dairy products is growing at an impressive rate, which is excellent news for the environment, animal welfare and human health. Grass is a cow's natural food.  When cows eat grains, as they do on CAFOs that produce the milk used for most U.S. dairy products, their body composition changes. Most importantly for you, these changes include an alteration in the balance of essential fats.  Milk (and meat) from cows raised primarily on pasture has been repeatedly shown to be higher in many nutrients, including vitamin E, beta-carotene and the healthy fats omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). According to a study published in the journal PLOS One: [10]  Milk from cows consuming significant amounts of grass and legume-based forages contains higher concentrations of ω-3 FAs [omega-3 fats] and CLA than milk from cows lacking routine access to pasture and fed substantial quantities of grains, especially corn.  In turn, lactating women consuming such milk have an increased CLA concentration in their breast milk …  This study confirms earlier findings that milk from cows consuming significant amounts of grass and legume-based forages contains less LA [omega-6 linoleic acid] and other ω-6 Fas [omega-6 fats] and higher concentrations of ALA, CLA and the long-chain ω-3s EPA and DPA, compared to cows lacking routine access to pasture and fed substantial quantities of grains. Grass-Fed Dairy is a Solution to the Problems Created by Industrial Dairy  Unfortunately, only about 22 percent of U.S. dairy cows have access to pasture and even then access tends to be very limited. [11] Grass-fed dairy producer Maple Hills Creamery further shared reasons why grass-fed dairy is better: [12] When a cow eats corn and grain, the pH of the rumen (the first chamber of the cow's stomach) becomes acidic; this destroys some flora and increases systemic inflammation, shortening the cow's lifespan and increasing her risk of infection Raising grass-fed cows requires fewer resources than growing grain crops to feed CAFO cows, along with fewer chemical fertilizers and pesticides On a 100 percent grass-fed farm, manure is spread over pastures naturally as the cows roam; there is no need for environmentally destructive manure lagoons Grass-fed dairy farming works best with small herds, which in turn helps support local economies and small farmers, who are able to claim a premium price for their premium dairy products  "In short," Maple Hills Creamery writes, "100 [percent] grass-fed organically produced dairy is a viable solution to the industrial dairy system, focusing on holistic care of both the animals and land, rather than an end goal of highest production and maximizing the bottom line at the cost of animal welfare and environmental concerns." Support Raw, Grass-Fed Milk Products  Raw milk dairy products from organically raised pasture-fed cows rank among some of the healthiest foods you can consume. They're far superior in terms of health benefits compared to CAFO-produced, pasteurized milk products, and if statistics are any indication, safer, too.  While many believe that milk must be pasteurized before it can be safely consumed, it's worth remembering that raw milk was consumed for thousands of years before the invention of pasteurization. It's also important to realize that pasteurization is only really required for certain kinds of milk, specifically that from cows raised in crowded and unsanitary conditions, which is what you find in CAFOs.  Your dairy products should ideally be pasture-raised, NOT pasteurized. Organically raised cows that are allowed to roam free on pasture where they can graze for their natural food source produce very different milk.  Their living conditions promote and maintain their health and optimize their milk in terms of the nutrients and beneficial bacteria it contains. Getting your raw grass-fed milk and other food from a local organic farm or co-op is one of the best ways to ensure you're getting high-quality food.  Read the full article at Mercola.com. References


Tesla Made More Money This Quarter Than All U.S. Oil Companies Made Last Year Nov 14, 2016 0 0  Signs of the times. This past quarter, Elon Musk's Tesla company made a profit of $22 million, while the entire U.S. oil industry lost a total of $67 billion last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration . This is in part due to the global oil prices falling, as well as humanity's awakening push for clean, renewable energy.  According to the Renewable Energy Institute , the price efficiency of solar technology will be better than fossil fuel by 2025 and will continue to get cheaper and cheaper until that time.  However, the newly elected President of the U.S. says that he wants to "lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal." Donald Trump also says he will initiate this action within his first 100 days of being in office.  While this action is certain to increase jobs for more Americans, we must also take into account the environmental impact this will have as even more carbon will be released into the atmosphere if these now dormant energy reserves begin to be tapped.  Additionally, the price of oil continues to remain low and even if jobs are created, there is no guarantee these companies in the fossil fuel industry will be able to profit financially.  The way the world is recognizing the necessity to move away from fossil fuels, as well as the increased technological capability, it appears as though Donald Trump will have a very difficult time putting this part of his plan into action.  Instead, he is likely to face a wave of opposition if he tries to implement such measures as people know that we can't keep pumping even more carbon into the atmosphere if we want our world's atmosphere to return to pristine condition.  Earlier this year, leaders from Russia, China, Japan and South Korea met to sign an agreement to begin working on a project called the Asian Super-Grid . The project will include wind and solar technologies and will power various parts of the world, including Europe, Southern Africa, South and Southeast Asia, as well as the four countries involved.  What we are seeing right now in our world is the writing on the wall: We see what destruction and pollution can come from the fossil fuel industry (as well as the political destruction that occurs through war to gain more oil resources from the Middle East) and we see that the solutions to these issues already exist.  We see more and more that the solutions are being put into place, and now on an even wider scale (Asian Super-Grid). We also are seeing the economic reality of either continuing down the old path of fossil fuels as well as the bright new path being forged with clean and sustainable energy.  2017 is going to be quite a year. We have the solutions, but will we implement them on a mass scale?  Lance Schuttler graduated from the University of Iowa with a degree in Health Science and does health coaching through his website Orgonlight Health . You can follow the Orgonlight Health facebook page or visit the website for more information and other inspiring articles.


As cable TV sports giant ESPN continues to contract with a massive loss of subscribers, and a corresponding loss of advertising income even as its budget continues to rise, some are warning that the network's focus on cable TV is a very bad business model going into the future. [ESPN has lost an astounding 12 million subscribers since 2011, according to a lengthy new analysis of the network's status by Bloomberg. Indeed, in the final quarter of 2016 the network lost 621, 000 subscribers in a single month, the most it has ever lost at one time. The sports network's losses drove down the stock of network owner Disney by seven percent last year. Faced with the fall in subscribers and the consequent drop in advertising revenue, ESPN recently announced a major round of layoffs to save what was reported as "tens of millions" of budget dollars. It was later revealed that the layoffs will affect mostly talent. The fall of ESPN coincides with the rise of liberal political content seen on the air, content many say is driving even more subscribers away. The complaints about the liberal politics being ladled over its sports coverage became so pervasive that the network's ombudsman, Jim Brady, felt pressured to write an extensive article about the problem on the network's website. But, as Bloomberg notes, the network faces another, more problem. The way Americans consume entertainment — especially sports — is in flux with many dumping cable TV and relying more on the internet, and streaming video on mobile devices. ESPN, it appears, is so focused on its pay TV business model that it is failing to keep up with the customers' needs. In response to this charge, though, ESPN executives insist that the move to "cut the cord" is exaggerated, Bloomberg says. While other cable TV networks are now offering streaming services, ESPN has found it difficult to emulate the model. HBO, for instance, charges a $15 a month fee for customers to watch its programming over the internet. But, ESPN would drown with such a low fee. According to Bloomberg, to pay its budget, ESPN would need 43 million customers paying $15 a month to survive with internet services. It is an unrealistic number. A major budget problem are the exorbitant fees that the network has to pay to the various leagues for broadcast rights. ESPN's broadcast fees amount to more money than many networks spend on their entire budget. As ESPN's future continues to be questionable, one solution would be for the leagues to understand that the days of the billions in broadcast rights it had been seeing are likely coming to an end. In the future, those fees will simply have to be cut if the leagues want to stay on broadcast TV and internet services. It all portends a future where professional sports will be earning far less money than it has been used to seeing, and that this gravy train is probably coming to an end. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail. com.


The chairman of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee said on Thursday he wants to pass a major piece of bank reform legislation by early next year at the latest. Senator Mike Crapo, a Republican, intends to go beyond rewriting the 2010 Dodd Frank financial reform legislation and craft a bipartisan bill that advances economic growth and capital formation, he told attendees at a Chamber of Commerce event focused on capital markets. "My hope is ... that is either late this year or early next year. I'm not looking further than that," Crapo said. Crapo's agenda is being intensely watched on Wall Street, as his committee is widely seen as playing a critical role in crafting any rewrite of Dodd Frank. That 2010 law was enacted after the financial crisis, and the industry is eager to see if Republicans now in charge of the White House and Congress can significantly relax its requirements. Some of the Dodd Frank provisions that are most contentious prohibit banks from some higher risk investments and require higher capital requirements of the biggest banks. A bill that attacks Dodd Frank directly is set to be introduced in the House of Representatives soon by Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican who chairs the Financial Services Committee. But that bill is seen as a tough Republican approach that may not garner enough support in the Senate to be passed. Crapo said meaningful reforms would require a bipartisan approach, and he is working closely with Sherrod Brown, the top Democrat on the committee, to find areas of common ground. He also said he wants to go beyond simply revisiting Dodd Frank's provisions and look more broadly at all rules and policies that impact economic growth, an approach he said might encourage Democrats to vote with him. He said he expects Congress to address financial regulatory reform after it finishes work on a tax reform bill. Crapo did concede that the current political environment is tough for passing controversial legislation in the Senate, and others in his party said they intend to push some of their favored Dodd Frank revisions through a budget process that would not require much Democratic support.


The Egyptian public prosecutor ordered that a suspected Libyan militant and 14 others be held for 15 days pending an investigation of their role in a deadly attack in Egypt s western desert last month, state news MENA reported on Friday. The Interior Ministry said on Thursday that Abdelrahim Mohamed al-Mesmari, from the Libyan city of Derna, was captured by Egyptian forces following an air raid in response to the attack. Security sources initially said at least 52 policemen were killed when militants attacked a patrol, firing rockets and detonating explosives in a remote part of the desert. The Interior Ministry refuted those figures and said 16 were killed. Charges against Mesmari will include premeditated murder of police officers, possession of firearms and joining a terrorist organization, MENA reported. A new and little-known group called Ansar al-Islam claimed responsibility for the October attack, posing a new threat to Egyptian security forces, which have been battling an Islamic State insurgency in the Sinai peninsula since 2013. The military last month killed 15 militants in an air raid directed at the group it blamed for the desert attack, according to the Interior Ministry, which said that all of those killed had been trained in Derna. Mesmari escaped the air raid but was later arrested along with 29 Egyptians who had been recruited to join the group, according to the Interior Ministry. (This version of the story corrects final paragraph to clarify that 29 suspects were arrested later, after the air strike in which 15 were killed)


Advertisement - It was not too long ago that many people looked to the U.S. for leadership and not so long ago, our nation was still thought to be a democratic nation of laws, due process, and a prudent separation of powers. Now the U.S. is reviled; Bush is seen the world over as having betrayed his own people as he wages aggressive war against a nation that even he concedes had nothing whatsoever to do with 911, a nation about which he lied in order to justify his dirty, evil little war. The war on terrorism is phony. And now, Bush proves everything that is said about him by refusing to close Guantanamo, by refusing to end practices of torture and rendition which he denies --even as he defends them. I recommend Robert Jackson 's Place in History by Henry King Jr. An excerpt: In his final report, after he resigned as U.S. Chief Counsel for War Crimes, Jackson stated that "[i]t is not too much to hope that this example of a full and fair hearing, and tranquil and deliberative judgment, will do something toward strengthening the process of justice in many countries. " I believe that after fifty years it can be maintained with considerable credibility that these visions have largely come to pass. Perhaps --at the time of the writing --"these visions" had come to pass. But thanks to the Bush administration's deliberate effort to undermine the very foundations of International Law, that important progress has been undone. One rightly suspects Bush's motives. Even before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, before the attack on Afghanistan, Tom DeLay sponsored legislation that exempted U.S. soldiers from war crimes prosecution at the International Tribunal at the Hague. Did anyone in Congress stop to ask why? Were we planning to commit crimes for which we sought exemption from prosecution? Wasn't it clear to any thinking person what Bush was up to? Are we not the good guys? [Amendment to H.R. 1646, The Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001 ]  Clearly --the Bush administration was, in fact, planning to commit war crimes but wanted to make them legal if done by the U.S. I cannot possibly hope to document in a short internet essay the various circumlocutions that have been indulged by the Bush administration and its chief apologist: Alberto Gonzales. All, however, are intended to make legal the very acts that are prohibited by Nuremberg --but only if those acts are done by Americans. Bush is at least consistent in this respect: neither would he press for trials for non-Americans. He would simply decree their imprisonment and torture.  Nazis engaged in similar polemical campaigns. The results were tragic. So too with Bush who most certainly boasted of what can only be the summary executions of thousands who were most certainly murdered before they could assert their innocence: ...more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.  This statement must be soberly examined; note that Bush refers to 3,000 suspects . Yet --he smirks that "...they have met a different fate." He boasts that "...they are no longer a problem to the the United States...". - Advertisement - They were only suspects . Since when does the United States summarily execute mere suspects? Do we not know who our enemies are? What were the conditions of their detention? Why are we rounding up mere "suspects" --and not actual combatants? How is the execution of suspects justified under any standard, any morality, any legal system? I am frankly surprised that Bush maintained the pretense when he has since arrogated unto himself the power to define terrorists. "Terrorists" are what Bush says they are. Bush is the judge and jury. Detainees are never charged and, by Bushs' own words, "suspects" are caused to be "...no longer a problem". Others are "terrorists" not because they are "terrorists" but because Bush --the decider --says they are. Some may be combatants. Some may be "evil doers". Others may be innocent. No matter. Bush --the all powerful decider --has thrown them all in the same wire cage. The same suicide factory. Contrast Bush's remarks with those of American Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson uttered when America still had credibility and moral authority:  "That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason. "  -- Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal, Robert Jackson, Chief American Prosecutor, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials - Advertisement - At the end of World War II, when even Winston Churchill espoused the summary executions of Nazi war criminals and Joseph Stalin favored mere show trials, it was the United States, under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt, that insisted upon war crimes trials. Nazis would not be summarily shot merely because they were Nazis by definition or decree. Rather, they would be given a trial. Even Nazis would be allowed the right of counsel, the right to present a defense.  How can Bush hope to defend democracy --as he has claimed --when he subverts every Democratic principle that has been fought and died for over the last four hundred years? How can Bush justify his war of aggression against Iraq when he subverts the very "democracy" that he claims to bring them? How can Bush accuse anyone outside the United States of "...just hat[ing] freedom" when Bush is himself democracy's most insidious enemy?  If Nazis had engaged in the same disingenuous activities with regard to the incarceration and ultimate extermination of the jews, what moral authority could the U.S. have extended if its own policies differed not a whit in principle?


Taming the corporate media beast BRICS Countries to Invest $500 Million in Russian Gold Deposit  A new agreement to restart exploration and extraction at a mine in Siberia marks a milestone in the development of economic ties among the BRICS nations. Originally appeared at RBTH  A consortium made up of the Chinese state-owned mining firm China National Gold Corporation, India's SUN Mining Group and the Russian Far East Development Fund, as well as funds from South Africa and Brazil is prepared to invest up to $500 million in the development of the Klyuchevskoye gold field in the Transbaikal region (over 4,000 miles east of Moscow). The agreement was signed during the most recent BRICS summit, which that took place in the Indian resort of Goa on Oct. 15-16. According to plans for the site, Klyuchevskoye will become operational three years after investment becomes available and will yield some 6.5 tons of gold per year.  This is the first mining deal in the history of BRICS that involves all five member states, which makes it particularly significant, says Wiktor Bielski, global head of commodities research at VTB Capital. Bielski adds that the agreement paves the way for bigger projects in the future that can benefit a wide range of BRICS investors.  Benefits for the partners  The Klyuchevskoye gold deposit was explored a long time ago, however, the bulk of the gold was not extracted because of the costly development process that was halted some 20 years back, according to Alexei Kalachev, an expert analyst with FINAM investment firm in Moscow. The China National Gold Corporation, however, has the relevant technological experience to extract and process the gold, Kalachev said.  The deposit is currently owned by India's SUN Gold, Ltd., part of the SUN Mining Group, which has not begun to develop it. In August 2016, the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service said that the China National Gold Group intended to buy 70 percent in the deposit from SUN Gold. According to Kalachev, the idea of a consortium may have evolved from an attempt to speed up the deal at the highest levels.  The Klyuchevskoye gold deposit is not especially rich; at its stated production volumes and reserves, it will have a life cycle of 11-12 years, while the average life cycle of gold mines worldwide is 15-16 years, says Artem Kalinin, a portfolio manager at Leon Family Office. Additionally, the cost of production at Klyuchevskoye is being forecast at the average global level. "That said, the Chinese are used to operating in this mode: the country's steel and coal industries have very weak production costs, but they have so far been feeling quite alright thanks to cheap financing and state support," Kalinin said.  Russian gold mining companies are currently not taking part in developing Klyuchevskoye, but according to Kalinin, Russia stands to gain regardless of who develops the site. "The Russians will get an opportunity to borrow new technologies and to get an infrastructure that the Chinese will build," he said.  Alexei Kalachev notes that other obvious upsides for Russia include a rise in tax revenues, new jobs and an inflow of foreign investment.  What's in it for China?  Despite the fact that China is the world's leader in gold mining and one of the world's largest consumers of the precious metal, its resource base is rather weak, says Kalinin. The CIS countries host the majority of the world's gold reserves — 28 percent. Another 20 percent of the reserves are located in North America while Asian reserves make up just 11 percent.  Oleg Remyga, head of China studies at the Moscow School of Management Skolkovo, notes that China's gold production is falling — it was down 0.4 percent in 2015 — while consumption is rising — up + 3.7 percent in 2015. "Hence, the clear ambition of Chinese companies to enter international markets," Remyga explained.  According to Remyga, the China National Gold Group's investment in the Klyuchevskoye deposit is part of this bigger drive for resources. Chinese companies have already purchased shares in Canada's Pinnacle Mines, Ltd. as well as 50 percent of shares in a deposit in Papua New Guinea owned by Barrick Gold Corp. "I am convinced that it is just the beginning of acquisitions of Russian gold-mining assets by Chinese companies, such as Zijin Mining, China Gold, Zhaojin Mining Industry, and Shandong Gold," Remyga said, adding that negotiations with them have been going on already for five years.


The C. I. A. told senior lawmakers in classified briefings last summer that it had information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president, a finding that did not emerge publicly until after Mr. Trump's victory months later, former government officials say. The briefings indicate that intelligence officials had evidence of Russia's intentions to help Mr. Trump much earlier in the presidential campaign than previously thought. The briefings also reveal a critical split last summer between the C. I. A. and counterparts at the F. B. I. where a number of senior officials continued to believe through last fall that Russia's cyberattacks were aimed primarily at disrupting America's political system, and not at getting Mr. Trump elected, according to interviews. The former officials said that in late August — 10 weeks before the election — John O. Brennan, then the C. I. A. director, was so concerned about increasing evidence of Russia's election meddling that he began a series of urgent, individual briefings for eight top members of Congress, some of them on secure phone lines while they were on their summer break. It is unclear what new intelligence might have prompted the classified briefings. But with concerns growing both internally and publicly at the time about a significant Russian breach of the Democratic National Committee, the C. I. A. began seeing signs of possible connections to the Trump campaign, the officials said. By the campaign's final weeks, Congress and the intelligence agencies were racing to understand the scope of the Russia threat. In an Aug. 25 briefing for Harry Reid, then the top Democrat in the Senate, Mr. Brennan indicated that Russia's hackings appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election, according to two former officials with knowledge of the briefing. The officials said Mr. Brennan also indicated that unnamed advisers to Mr. Trump might be working with the Russians to interfere in the election. The F. B. I. and two congressional committees are now investigating that claim, focusing on possible communications and financial dealings between Russian affiliates and a handful of former advisers to Mr. Trump. So far, no proof of collusion has emerged publicly. Mr. Trump has rejected any suggestion of a Russian connection as "ridiculous" and "fake news. " The White House has also sought to redirect the focus from the investigation and toward what Mr. Trump has said, with no evidence, was President Barack Obama's wiretapping of phones in Trump Tower during the presidential campaign. The C. I. A. and the F. B. I. declined to comment for this article, as did Mr. Brennan and senior lawmakers who were part of the summer briefings. In the August briefing for Mr. Reid, the two former officials said, Mr. Brennan indicated that the C. I. A. focused on foreign intelligence, was limited in its legal ability to investigate possible connections to Mr. Trump. The officials said Mr. Brennan told Mr. Reid that the F. B. I. in charge of domestic intelligence, would have to lead the way. Days later, Mr. Reid wrote to James B. Comey, director of the F. B. I. Without mentioning the C. I. A. briefing, Mr. Reid told Mr. Comey that he had "recently become concerned" that Russia's interference was "more extensive than widely known. " In his letter, the senator cited what he called mounting evidence "of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" and said it was crucial for the F. B. I. to "use every resource available" to investigate. Unknown to Mr. Reid, the F. B. I. had already opened a counterintelligence inquiry a month before, in late July, to examine possible links between Russia and people tied to the Trump campaign. But its existence was kept secret even from members of Congress. Well into the fall, law enforcement officials said that the F. B. I. — including the bureau's intelligence analysts — had not found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government, as The New York Times reported on Oct. 31. But as the election approached and new batches of hacked Democratic emails poured out, some F. B. I. officials began to change their view about Russia's intentions and eventually came to believe, as the C. I. A. had months earlier, that Moscow was trying to help get Mr. Trump elected, officials said. It was not until early December, a month after the election, that it became publicly known in news reports that the C. I. A. had concluded that Moscow's motivation was to get Mr. Trump elected. In January, intelligence officials publicly released a declassified version of their findings, concluding that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had "aspired to help" Mr. Trump to win the election and harm Hillary Clinton, a longtime adversary. By then, both the F. B. I. and the C. I. A. said they had "high confidence" that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump by hacking into the internal emails of the Democratic National Committee and of some Clinton aides. (The National Security Agency expressed only "moderate confidence" that the Russians were trying to help him.) Last month, Mr. Comey publicly acknowledged the continuing investigation for the first time at a House hearing on Russia's influence on the election and said the F. B. I. was examining possible links between Trump associates and Russia for evidence of collusion. One factor in the C. I. A. analysis last summer was that American intelligence agencies learned that Russia's cyberattacks had breached Republican targets as well as Democrats. But virtually none of the hacked Republican material came out publicly, while the Russians, working through WikiLeaks and other public outlets, dumped substantial amounts of Democratic material damaging to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Some intelligence officials were wary of pushing too aggressively before the election with questions about possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign because of concerns it might be seen as an improper political attempt to help Mrs. Clinton. But after her loss, a number of Mrs. Clinton's supporters have said that Mr. Comey and other government officials should have revealed more to the public during the campaign season about what they knew of Russia's motivations and possible connections to the Trump campaign. The classified briefings that the C. I. A. held in August and September for the Gang of Eight — the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate and of the intelligence committees in each chamber — show deep concerns about the impact of the election meddling. In the briefings, the C. I. A. said there was intelligence indicating not only that the Russians were trying to get Mr. Trump elected but that they had gained computer access to multiple state and local election boards in the United States since 2014, officials said. Although the breached systems were not involved in actual operations, Obama administration officials proposed that the eight senior lawmakers write a letter to state election officials warning them of the possible threat posed by Russian hacking, officials said. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, resisted, questioning the underpinnings of the intelligence, according to officials with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. McConnell ultimately agreed to a softer version of the letter, which did not mention the Russians but warned of unnamed "malefactors" who might seek to disrupt the elections through online intrusion. The letter, dated Sept. 28, was signed by Mr. McConnell, Mr. Reid, Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democrat. On Sept. 22, two other members of the Gang of Eight — Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Adam B. Schiff, both of California and the ranking Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees — released their own statement about the Russian interference that did not mention Mr. Trump or his campaign by name. But they did say that "based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U. S. election. " "At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election," they added. The F. B. I. the N. S. A. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also held a classified briefing on Sept. 6 for congressional staff members about the wave of Russian hacks and "the current and ongoing threat facing U. S. political organizations during this national political season," according to a government official. These new details show Congress and the intelligence agencies racing in the campaign's final weeks to understand the scope of the Russian threat. But Democrats and Republicans who were privy to the classified briefings often saw the intelligence through a political prism, sparring over whether it could be construed as showing that the Russians were helping Mr. Trump. The briefings left Mr. Reid frustrated with the F. B. I. 's handling of Russia's election intrusion, especially after the agency said in late October — 11 days before the election — that it was Mrs. Clinton's emails. Mr. Reid fired off another letter on Oct. 30, accusing Mr. Comey of a "double standard" in reviving the Clinton investigation while sitting on "explosive information" about possible ties between Russia and Mr. Trump. "The public," Mr. Reid wrote, "has a right to know this information. "


Some Hollywood moguls handle the transition from general to civilian with grace. But they can also be one of moviedom's saddest sights. Some are very obviously at loose ends, no matter what kind of face they put on. Others seem terrified about a table downgrade at Mr. Chow. And some are just utterly out of touch, as when one former media titan, struggling to adjust to life without an private jet, arrived at an airport and was baffled by the procedure. What, pray tell, were these newfangled kiosk devices? (I am so not joking.) Hollywood has lately become populated with an unusually large number of moguls guys (and they are still almost always guys) who find themselves reigning supreme as media kingpins one day and facing down an existential crisis as mere millionaires the next. They include Jeffrey Katzenberg, the former DreamWorks Animation chief Jim Gianopulos, replaced as the big boss at 20th Century Fox in June Philippe Dauman, dismissed as Viacom's leader in August and Rob Friedman, eased aside as of Lionsgate in September. There are several more examples, including Rob Moore, who recently lost his job as vice chairman of Paramount Pictures. "It's upsetting, no question, when you are suddenly dislodged from your life," Mr. Moore told me. "You're raw, and you're vulnerable. Even though you know this eventually happens to most everyone at a certain level in Hollywood — that's just how it works in a business — it's still a surprise. "In these jobs, your become the thing to your children and parents, and not communicating with them in the same way all of a sudden leaves a big gap. You feel a sense of loss. " Don't feel too bad for Mr. Moore. Under his old contract, Paramount has to pay him for three years, so he has no immediate pressure to find a new gig, even though most people in Hollywood expect him to be courted by a Chinese movie company. Mr. Moore, 54, also has a new fiancée, Betty Zhou, 35, who is the host of a show on Chinese television called "Talking to Hollywood With Betty Zhou. " (No, contrary to Hollywood gossip, he did not propose to her on live TV. But they did pose for photos afterward while offering a Vulcan salute.) Mr. Moore, who sounded relaxed during our interview, said that he had recently returned from Europe ("the first real vacation I've had in 15 years") and was now starting to think about his next career move. "Where's the growth?" he asked rhetorically. "Where would be a fun place to work next? At some point, you get through the shock of what happened and start getting excited about new opportunities. " So far, put Mr. Moore squarely in the graceful category. How are his jettisoned compatriots doing, emotionally and otherwise? It is hard to know. Whether trying to fly under the radar while putting together a new act, licking wounds, or still miffed about coverage (mine specifically) of their departure, they declined interview requests. But this much is clear: None are ready to leave the stage. Mr. Gianopulos, 64, whose departure from Fox, where he spent 24 years, revealed considerable good will toward him as people rallied to his side, has been courted by financiers for potential partnerships. Mr. Friedman, 65, one of the architects behind Summit Entertainment, which hit pay dirt with the "Twilight" film series and then sold itself to Lionsgate, has been hired as a consultant for Paramount's "Transformers: The Last Knight," set for June release. According to Mr. Friedman's friends, he may decide to start a new studio. None have been more visible than Mr. Katzenberg, 65, whose studio career stretched from Paramount to Walt Disney Studios to DreamWorks Animation, which he sold to Comcast in April for $3. 8 billion. But Comcast did not want one asset — him — and so Mr. Katzenberg left the company, a moment that was marked by a ceremony outside the Chinese Theater, where his footprints were immortalized in cement. Variety gave him a tribute that played like a retirement party, replete with praise and from stars. (Elton John: "How did he do such amazing stunts with those little feet? ") That was in September. But by then, the Mr. Katzenberg was already starting a holding company that aims to emulate Barry Diller's Corporation, which owns internet businesses like Match. com and Vimeo. Several of Mr. Katzenberg's friends told me that he is working to raise $500 million to $700 million in funding to invest in "mobile content" that his new company will help incubate and operate. For now, Mr. Katzenberg is also still a consultant to AwesomenessTV, a digital media studio that is owned by Comcast and Verizon. All of these bigwigs will be just fine, of course. None certainly have to worry about feeding their families, like a lot of Americans who lose their jobs. Mr. Dauman, 62, who ruled over MTV, Comedy Central and Paramount for a decade as the top Viacom executive, received $72 million in exit compensation. Mr. Katzenberg personally collected more than $400 million from the sale of his "Shrek" studio, money he has said will largely go toward his philanthropic work. ("That money doesn't change anything for me," he told Variety. "I was already blessed. I was already rich. ") But perception is another matter. Leaving any global job requires an altitude adjustment. But leaving one in Hollywood — or having the job leave you, as is more often the case — can be traumatizing on a whole different scale. Sure, cue the tiny violins if you want. But one week, these people are fielding calls from and making decisions about what millions of people around the world will watch. The next week, they are faced with starring in their own version of "The Incredible Shrinking Man. " Calls get returned, but slower. The media spotlight shifts to the next regime, and you start being called an "elder statesman. " Show business is a small, incestuous and, in some cases, cruel club. Unlike other industries, almost everyone in Hollywood lives in a bubble (Beverly Hills and Brentwood during the week, Malibu over the weekend) making it nearly impossible to escape the peer pressure. "What are you doing next?" becomes a question that burns like acid. Because status here is openly telegraphed (the platform banquette at the Palm, the invitation to Vanity Fair's Oscar party) everyone notices when you lose it. So what is the best way to navigate this transition? Curious for the perspective of those who have left megawatt Hollywood jobs in the past, I called three people who have done it with aplomb. None were fired, instead leaving on their own terms — a big difference. But each had to face the same question as everyone else: Now what? "These jobs are so that, when you are in the middle of them, it's hard to clear your mind enough to think about what you want to do after it's done," said Barry Meyer, 72, who retired as chairman of Warner Bros. in 2013 after a celebrated run. "So you have to be willing to give yourself some time. " Quick moves, he added, are usually the wrong ones. "I don't think there was a west of the Mississippi that didn't reach out to me, and that was flattering," he said. "But I quickly realized that a lot of people just want your Rolodex and your name to put on announcements. When you spend years building your credibility and your reputation, you have to be careful about how you use that. " In the end, among other things, Mr. Meyer decided to join the board of a entertainment company (Activision) and take on something he never thought he would: He sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. "As it turns out, there is life outside Hollywood," he said with a laugh. For another former Hollywood warrior, Anne Sweeney, 59, who stepped down as president of the Television Group last year, her plans were quickly upended when her mother fell ill. Instead of throwing herself into a directing career, as she intended, Ms. Sweeney cared for her mother through her death in January. Not long after, Ms. Sweeney, already a Netflix board member, became a Mayo Clinic trustee. "I learned that a job is just a piece of you, it isn't all of you," she said. "So many times, especially in Hollywood, that distinction can get lost. " Her advice when that happens? "You have to reclaim yourself, and you have to do it without worrying what other people think," she said. "We are more than other people's definitions of us. " Nina Tassler, 59, who last year walked away from her job as president of CBS Entertainment, is moving as fast as ever, publishing a book ("What I Told My Daughter") and producing television shows, among other activities. Her advice: "It's not about starting a new business. It's about starting yourself. " In other words, savor the joy of being "fully present" with your family, she said, and "do what you want to do, and not what you think you have to do" to cling to status. "I was so grateful for my time at CBS, but, let's be honest, these jobs are insane," she said. "I remember being at my daughter's volleyball tournament and not seeing her play because I was in the bathroom at the convention center — the only quiet spot — trying to negotiate a new contract with an actress. Insane!" How long did it take, though, for Ms. Tassler not to wake up and immediately check the overnight Nielsen ratings? "I still look," she said, a bit sheepishly. "Old habits die hard. "


Candles that had not been properly extinguished after an Easter service probably caused the fire that swept through the historic Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Sava in Manhattan on Sunday, officials from the New York Fire Department said on Tuesday. "There's no reason at this point to label it suspicious," said Francis X. Gribbon, a Fire Department spokesman, "and what the fire marshals are looking at is the use of candles in the rear of the church that may not have been completely extinguished. " Mr. Gribbon said it was likely that a caretaker thought he had extinguished several hundred candles after a luncheon that followed a celebration attended by some 700 congregants. The caretaker told fire marshals that he stowed the candles in a cardboard box under a piece of wooden furniture in a rear corner of the church, on 25th Street between Broadway and Avenue of the Americas in the Flatiron district. The future of the building, a New York City landmark, is uncertain depending on how much the fire damaged the stone structure. For decades, the church has been the spiritual pillar of the Serbian community in the region. As part of the ceremony on Sunday, several hundred candles were lit and placed in a long metal tray containing sand to safely hold them. After the luncheon ended around 3 p. m. the caretaker thought he had put out the burning candles in the sand. Fire Department officials now believe one or more candles may not have been fully extinguished, and may have started a fire that gutted the church's old wooden interior after the church had closed, Mr. Gribbon said. Even the crowds at the flea market in the parking lot next to the church did not report any signs of fire, he said. When the fire became evident, around 7 p. m. firefighters entered the church to find it fully engulfed in flames, Mr. Gribbon said. The caretaker also entered through another door, and the incoming oxygen fed the already mounting blaze. Mr. Gribbon said portions of the interior — most notably the choir loft — had collapsed, another indication that the fire had been burning for a while. "You don't get a fire like that in 10 minutes," he said. The caretaker was ushered out. Finding no one else inside, officials ordered the firefighters out, fearing other areas would collapse, Mr. Gribbon said. Buildings Department officials said that the church was in no immediate danger of collapsing, but that inspectors were still monitoring the structure. Church officials did not return calls on Tuesday. But many churchgoers had questions as to whether the damage was severe enough to prohibit rebuilding the church with its original structure, Bob Stopanjac, founder of the Serbian Association of New York, said. Mr. Stopanjac said he doubted the fire was caused by the candles. He said candles had been part of the church's celebrations for decades with no fires. He said some Serbs in the community were concerned about news media reports that said St. Sava was among a group of four Christian Orthodox churches that caught fire on Sunday. "I have no answers," Mr. Stopanjac said.


The United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura has received assurances that the Syrian government delegation will attend peace talks in Geneva this week, a U.N. spokeswoman said on Tuesday. Earlier the pro-Damascus Syrian newspaper al-Watan reported that the Syrian government delegation to U.N.-backed peace talks in Geneva this week has not yet left Damascus and may announce on Tuesday whether it will participate. The Government delegation has not yet arrived, the Special Envoy received a message that they are planning to arrive tomorrow, which is the 29th of November, U.N. spokeswoman Alessandra Vellucci told a news briefing in Geneva, declining to give details. At least we know that they are coming.


U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's plan to rapidly deport 2 to 3 million illegal immigrants with criminal records would further tax a system already stretched to its limits, current and former U.S. immigration officials say. Immigration courts, which issue deportation orders, set bond and grant or deny asylum, currently have a backlog of more than 500,000 cases. Boosting staff could help address the problem but that could prove difficult. Officials at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security say they have had trouble quickly finding and vetting enough qualified candidates to fill all the positions for judges and immigration agents that Congress has authorized. The Executive Office of Immigration Review, which adjudicates immigration cases, has so far been able to fill only 294 judge positions out of the 374 Congress has authorized because the process is slow by necessity. Candidates for the job "face a rigorous screening process comparable to that of the appointment of a U.S. attorney," said spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly. Trump said last week after his election victory that once he takes office he will move to deport or incarcerate up to 3 million illegal immigrants who have criminal records. At U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a force of 6,200 agents responsible for arresting and deporting criminal migrants is already spread thin. While some agents could be redeployed to other areas, more agents would likely need to be hired if deportations were sharply escalated, said an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who asked not to named. The agency would probably need to add detention space as well, the official added. More apprehensions of migrants could also strain the Border Patrol, which has struggled to fill open positions. Congress has mandated a force of more than 21,000 border agents, but it currently stands at just over 19,000. Former U.S. Border Patrol chief Mike Fisher said the agency ran into problems a decade ago after Congress asked it to double the number of Border Patrol agents from 6,000 to 12,000 between 2004 and 2006. The push to hire quickly helped fuel corruption, a March 2016 report by the Department of Homeland Security's independent advisory council found. The report concluded that the rapid hiring was exploited by Mexican drug gangs, which sent in cartel-friendly applicants for the patrol jobs. Once hired, they then facilitated drug smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border. The agency began using polygraph tests in 2010 to weed out applicants with criminal histories or ties to cartels. Fisher said the testing made it harder to find qualified candidates, estimating that by the time he left in 2015, the border patrol made one hire out of every 100 applicants. "I can't imagine if they said 'double it' now," Fisher said. Trump could try to change laws and procedures to expedite deportation processes, which could reduce the need for additional personnel. On Friday, Trump tapped Republican Senator Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. Sessions has supported Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico and undo Obama's executive actions on immigration. During President Barack Obama's time in office, the United States has deported about 2.5 million illegal immigrants, more than under any other president.


the national laws passed during the height of fear of terrorism, opened the door for many of our rights being taken from us. Fear is their greatest tool, when we are afraid we are irrational creatures.


Critics say the shock of congressional rejection of the nuclear deal is a path to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. Secretary of State John Kerry calls that view 'a fantasy.' Secretary of State John Kerry listens while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the impacts of the nuclear deal with Iran on Capitol Hill Wednesday. The television ads are airing across the country, from Washington to Honolulu: The Iran nuclear deal is a "bad deal," the ad says, before concluding, "We want a better deal." As Congress debates the complex international agreement limiting Iran's nuclear program in anticipation of a September vote, the option of rejecting this deal in favor of a "better deal" appears to be catching on. On Wednesday, Rep. Grace Meng (D) of New York announced she would oppose the deal on the table, believing "the world could and should have a better deal." But what is the likelihood that an agreement negotiated over several years between six world powers and Iran could indeed be renegotiated and toughened up if Congress rejects the current deal and overcomes a promised presidential veto? The deep divisions over that question come down, more than anything, to people's perception of Iran: whether or not it is a country the United States should be entangled with in such a complex deal, whether or not it should be allowed to possess any uranium enrichment program at all. Critics of the Iran deal say there is plenty of historical precedent for renegotiating and amending international agreements. They argue that Iran is so intent on getting a deal with the US that Tehran could be brought back to the negotiating table after the shock of a congressional rejection. "There is an alternative to the current [deal], it is an amended deal," says Mark Dubowitz, an international sanctions expert and executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington. Citing nearly 80 multilateral agreements Congress has either rejected or for which it has required amendments, he says, "Congress should require the administration to renegotiate certain terms of the proposed [deal] and resubmit the amended agreement to Congress." But senior administration officials involved in the Iran negotiations say there is no chance the deal could be renegotiated – and they warn that instead of tighter controls on Iran's nuclear program, rejection of the deal would very likely result in a ramped-up uranium enrichment program. That, in turn, would mean a shrinking "breakout" time for Iran to rush to produce a nuclear weapon, if it chose to, they add. Calling the prospect of a "better deal" a "fantasy," Secretary of State John Kerry told senators last week that those demanding a renegotiated deal, including in the TV ads he'd seen, were proffering "some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation" – something he said is not going to happen. Some nonproliferation experts echo that position, saying the Iranian nuclear program was already too advanced years ago to reduce it any more than what the deal reached July 14 does. "Sure I'd like a better deal – I'd like a pony, too, but it's not realistic," says Jeffrey Lewis, director of nonproliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Calif. "The most important thing now is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon in the next 10 to 15 years, and this deal does that." Others are much less certain the deal blocks Iran's paths to a nuclear weapon, but they believe a renegotiated deal could. FDD's Mr. Dubowitz says he sees three different directions the Iran nuclear issue could take if Congress rejects the current deal and holds out for an agreement "renegotiated on better terms." Iran could go ahead and implement its commitments under the deal, he says. It could also "abandon its commitments" and escalate it nuclear program. Or it could try to do both, complying with certain commitments while abandoning others – and thus attempt to divide world powers while advancing its nuclear program. But under any of those scenarios, Dubowitz says, the US could work to "persuade the Europeans to join the US" in demanding a renegotiation of key parts of the deal. Yet many regional experts say that prospects for wooing the Europeans to join the US in pressing for a tougher deal, if Congress rejects the one now before it, are dim. "European and Asian partners would feel frustrated and misled" in the wake of a US rejection of the deal, Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the House Armed Services Committee this week. European allies would likely join countries like China and India in investing in Iran's energy sector, he added. "Broadly, the action would create distance between the US and the world and diminish distance between Iran and the world," Dr. Alterman added, "after more than a decade when the reverse was the case." Looming large over the calls for a return to negotiations are strong suspicions on the part of deal supporters that the "better deal" advocates really have no interest in a stronger deal at all, but instead want to thwart any US agreement with the Iranian government. "We had a 'better deal' in Iraq after 1991 [following the Gulf War], there were no restrictions, inspectors could go where they wanted when they wanted, and that deal wasn't good enough," says Dr. Lewis, adding that "we still went to war. So really I don't believe them when they say they just want a 'better deal' this time." Other doubters of the sincerity of the seekers of a "better deal" say it's telling to note that the sponsor of the TV ad campaign demanding a better deal is a group called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which is backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel organization lobbying Congress hard for the deal's defeat. "There really is no 'better deal' for [such critics] in the sense of an agreement that leaves any nuclear program in the hands of the current Iranian government," Lewis says. "Any deal is bad because it means living with the Islamic Republic."


Pleading ignorance is a perfect ploy for Nancy Pelosi Who wouldn t believe she s clueless on pretty much everything. Pelosi claims she s been busy with lots of things . That s laughable! This case is a big deal! Here s what The Daily Caller had to say about this stain on the Democrats:U.S. Capitol Police and other agencies are probing the cyber activities of three brothers who had jobs as congressional staffers at the office of information technology for lawmakers on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The Daily Caller News Foundation first reported. Brothers Imran, Abid and Jamal Awan also provided their services for other Democratic members in the lower chamber.When they came under suspicion by law enforcement for accessing the House network without permission last February, they were all banned from accessing it. While some Democratic lawmakers dismissed Imran from their employ when the story, others, like Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept him on.Are the Democrats helping these two men hide the evidence?