Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

9QpZzOUj7h7URr2u

politics

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/october/millennials-love-socialism-but-have-no-clue-what-it-really-means

70 Percent of Millennials Love Socialists, but Here's What Socialism Has Inflicted on the World

2019-10-28

A new poll shows that younger generations are embracing the idea of socialism more than ever . The YouGov/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey of some 2,100 young people ages 16 and over found that 70 percent of Millennials said they were somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist . Millennials ' birth years span from 1981 to 1996 . Of Gen Z , those born beginning in 1997 with the oldest now being 22 years old , 64 percent said they were somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist . The trend toward a willingness to vote for a socialist candidate coincided with an apparent dwindling of support for capitalism , with 50 percent of Millennials and 51 percent of Generation Z having a somewhat or very unfavorable view of capitalism . According to Pew Research , Millennials are better educated than earlier generations when it comes to college and postgraduate degrees . But when it comes to an economic education , and understanding what socialism is , younger Americans appear to be in the dark . Socialism , according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics , is a `` centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production . '' Think the Soviet Union and Red China . More recently , think Venezuela . That 's history ; those are facts – despite how Millennial congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez describes her softer , gentler brand of socialism , saying it `` does not mean the government owns everything . '' At a Cato Institute discussion of economics , Matt Kibbe of the libertarian organization Free the People , described the appeal of Bernie Sanders ' and Ocasio-Cortez 's vision of socialism to young people , reported by Real Clear Politics . Kibbe said they think more in terms of values and personal experience rather than empirical facts . `` Socialism , in the narrative of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , is a belief in community , a belief in people at the local level working together to solve problems and respecting each other . And somehow , that bottom-up process is a way that we can solve all of the problems . … She uses that word 'dignity ' a lot . Community , dignity , bottom-up , peaceful cooperation . '' However , according to Kibbe , these values are not historically part of socialist reality . The `` facts '' can be found in Venezuela , Cuba , North Korea , and other failed attempts at socialism . Yet while supposedly loving the idea of socialism , Millennials embrace the ideas of entrepreneurship and small business , hallmarks of capitalism . But they do n't connect those activities with capitalism and a free market . The growing love affair with socialism coincides with a foggy understanding of economic philosophies and fairly recent history . Here are some shocking discoveries about younger Americans as they cozy up to socialism : In the most recent YouGov poll , almost 20 percent of Millennials thought the Communist Manifesto `` better guarantees freedom and equality for all '' than the Declaration of Independence . That 's compared to just two percent of Baby Boomers and five percent of Gen X . A YouGov survey last year found that 87 percent of high school students flunked a five-question test of basic knowledge about American history , the worst of any age group . High school students were also least likely to know who is on Mount Rushmore . Only 35 percent of them got it right , compared with 71 percent of Boomers . Only 11 percent could name the rights enumerated in the First Amendment . A 2018 poll further revealed Millennial ignorance of history about the seminal event of the twentieth century , World War II , when Germany 's National Socialists , better known as the Nazis , under Adolf Hitler slaughtered some six million Jews in the Holocaust . The study found that two-thirds of American Millennials could not identify the Nazi extermination camp of Auschwitz , and 22 percent said they had n't heard of the Holocaust or were not sure whether they 'd heard of it . The oldest of the Millennials were small children when the Berlin Wall was knocked down with picks and shovels by those who 'd been held captive by the socialist dream of East Germany . They never felt the threat of the Cuban Missile Crisis , experienced diving under their desks in nuclear war drills , or heard the rantings of Comrade Khruschev when he told the West that his communist utopia that had slaughtered millions of its own , would also `` bury you . '' Ocasio-Cortez has actually said her generation has never known true prosperity . For a generation who views history only through its own experience , the idea of a college debt bailout may seem like the socialist dream come true . But according to Kibbe , the misery AOC blames on capitalism is not reality . `` Those of us that crunch numbers … by any conceivable measure , we are living in the most prosperous , most opportunistic , most beautiful times in the history of the universe , but … there 's a lot of reasons , from [ Ocasio-Cortez 's ] perspective , that things could suck , even though things are the best they 've ever been . ''

ANALYSIS A new poll shows that younger generations are embracing the idea of socialism more than ever. The YouGov/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey of some 2,100 young people ages 16 and over found that 70 percent of Millennials said they were somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist. Millennials' birth years span from 1981 to 1996. Of Gen Z, those born beginning in 1997 with the oldest now being 22 years old, 64 percent said they were somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist. The trend toward a willingness to vote for a socialist candidate coincided with an apparent dwindling of support for capitalism, with 50 percent of Millennials and 51 percent of Generation Z having a somewhat or very unfavorable view of capitalism. According to Pew Research, Millennials are better educated than earlier generations when it comes to college and postgraduate degrees. But when it comes to an economic education, and understanding what socialism is, younger Americans appear to be in the dark. Socialism, according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, is a "centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production." Think the Soviet Union and Red China. More recently, think Venezuela. That's history; those are facts – despite how Millennial congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez describes her softer, gentler brand of socialism, saying it "does not mean the government owns everything." At a Cato Institute discussion of economics, Matt Kibbe of the libertarian organization Free the People, described the appeal of Bernie Sanders' and Ocasio-Cortez's vision of socialism to young people, reported by Real Clear Politics. Kibbe said they think more in terms of values and personal experience rather than empirical facts. "Socialism, in the narrative of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is a belief in community, a belief in people at the local level working together to solve problems and respecting each other. And somehow, that bottom-up process is a way that we can solve all of the problems. … She uses that word 'dignity' a lot. Community, dignity, bottom-up, peaceful cooperation." However, according to Kibbe, these values are not historically part of socialist reality. The "facts" can be found in Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and other failed attempts at socialism. Yet while supposedly loving the idea of socialism, Millennials embrace the ideas of entrepreneurship and small business, hallmarks of capitalism. But they don't connect those activities with capitalism and a free market. The growing love affair with socialism coincides with a foggy understanding of economic philosophies and fairly recent history. Here are some shocking discoveries about younger Americans as they cozy up to socialism: In the most recent YouGov poll, almost 20 percent of Millennials thought the Communist Manifesto "better guarantees freedom and equality for all" than the Declaration of Independence. That's compared to just two percent of Baby Boomers and five percent of Gen X. A YouGov survey last year found that 87 percent of high school students flunked a five-question test of basic knowledge about American history, the worst of any age group. High school students were also least likely to know who is on Mount Rushmore. Only 35 percent of them got it right, compared with 71 percent of Boomers. Only 11 percent could name the rights enumerated in the First Amendment. A 2018 poll further revealed Millennial ignorance of history about the seminal event of the twentieth century, World War II, when Germany's National Socialists, better known as the Nazis, under Adolf Hitler slaughtered some six million Jews in the Holocaust. The study found that two-thirds of American Millennials could not identify the Nazi extermination camp of Auschwitz, and 22 percent said they hadn't heard of the Holocaust or were not sure whether they'd heard of it. The oldest of the Millennials were small children when the Berlin Wall was knocked down with picks and shovels by those who'd been held captive by the socialist dream of East Germany. They never felt the threat of the Cuban Missile Crisis, experienced diving under their desks in nuclear war drills, or heard the rantings of Comrade Khruschev when he told the West that his communist utopia that had slaughtered millions of its own, would also "bury you." Ocasio-Cortez has actually said her generation has never known true prosperity. For a generation who views history only through its own experience, the idea of a college debt bailout may seem like the socialist dream come true. But according to Kibbe, the misery AOC blames on capitalism is not reality. "Those of us that crunch numbers … by any conceivable measure, we are living in the most prosperous, most opportunistic, most beautiful times in the history of the universe, but … there's a lot of reasons, from [Ocasio-Cortez's] perspective, that things could suck, even though things are the best they've ever been."

www1.cbn.com

right

9QpZzOUj7h7URr2u

test

RNo1SteEb0VRF4hM

media_bias

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/19233731504e19355613706cd4e4d380

Caution, cancellations mark Ash Wednesday in time of virus

2020-02-26

Nicole Winfield, Jim Gomez

Pope Francis kisses a child in St. Peter 's Square at the Vatican before leaving after his weekly general audience , Wednesday , Feb. 26 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino ) Pope Francis kisses a child in St. Peter 's Square at the Vatican before leaving after his weekly general audience , Wednesday , Feb. 26 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino ) VATICAN CITY ( AP ) — Pope Francis celebrated the Ash Wednesday ritual that marks the opening of the Catholic Church ’ s Lenten season in traditional fashion while greeting the public in Rome as other Masses were canceled in northern Italy over fears of the coronavirus outbreak . Francis and a long line of priests , bishops and cardinals walked in a procession through Rome ’ s Aventine hill into the 5th-century Santa Sabina basilica for a late-afternoon Mass . Neither the priests nor the faithful wore face masks , but Rome has largely been spared the virus as Italy ’ s national case count grew to more than 440 . Other Catholic countries took Ash Wednesday precautions . In the Philippines — Asia ’ s only majority Roman Catholic country — priests sprinkled ashes on the heads of the faithful rather than making the mark of the cross on their foreheads to avoid physical contact . “ Wherever the ash is placed , on the forehead or on the head , the feeling is the same , it ’ s uplifting , ” Editha Lorenzo , a 49-year-old mother of two wearing a face mask , told The ███ in Manila . At the Vatican , Francis held his general audience as usual in St. Peter ’ s Square and offered prayers to people sickened by the virus and the medical personnel treating them . In the crowd of thousands , a handful had masks on their faces . “ I want to again express my closeness to those suffering from the coronavirus and the health care workers who are treating them , as well as the civil authorities and all those who are working to help patients and stop the contagion , ” Francis said . Francis kissed at least one child as he looped through the square in his popemobile and made a point of shaking hands with the faithful sitting in the front row . Usually , he only waves . He also greeted prelates with a handshake at the beginning and end of the gathering , but it appeared most clergy were refraining from kissing Francis ’ ring or embracing him , as they normally would do . In his remarks , he urged the faithful to put down their cellphones during Lent and pick up the Bible instead . “ It is the time to give up useless words , chatter , rumors , gossip , and talk and to speak directly to the Lord , ” he said . While Francis went ahead with his usual Ash Wednesday plans , the patriarchate of Venice canceled the Mass scheduled for St. Mark ’ s Basilica , after a handful of elderly people in the lagoon city tested positive for the virus . The surrounding Veneto region is one of two northern Italian regions where clusters of cases emerged in Italy . The other is Lombardy . In the Philippines , the Rev . Victorino Cueto , rector of the popular National Shrine of our Mother of Perpetual Help in the Manila metropolis , said the practice of sprinkling ash on heads of devotees was a precaution to prevent the spread of infections but actually is an old tradition based on the Old Testament . On Good Friday , which marks Christ ’ s death on the cross , bishops in the Philippines strongly suggested that churchgoers refrain from kissing or touching the cross , a common practice among Catholics . “ Instead , the faithful are requested to genuflect or make a profound bow as they venerate the cross , ” said Archbishop Romulo Valles , who heads the bishops ’ conference . Last month , the bishops recommended that Catholics receive the Eucharistic host by the hand instead of the mouth and avoid holding hands in prayer during Masses as precautions amid the viral scare . In the United States , Catholics filled St. Joseph Cathedral for an Ash Wednesday service in San Diego , where two patients with the virus were recently treated at a local hospital after being evacuated from China . Priests maintained the tradition of placing ashes on parishioners ’ foreheads . Some worshipers said they saw little reason for concern , while noting a reluctance among fellow parishioners to shake hands during Mass recently . “ Some people nod and wave but personally that hasn ’ t stopped me , ” said Clarissa Falcon , 47 , whose parents live in the Philippines . “ I ’ m used to the physical fellowship . It sort of goes along with the spirit of this — having faith . ”

Pope Francis kisses a child in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican before leaving after his weekly general audience, Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2020. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino) Pope Francis kisses a child in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican before leaving after his weekly general audience, Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2020. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino) VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis celebrated the Ash Wednesday ritual that marks the opening of the Catholic Church’s Lenten season in traditional fashion while greeting the public in Rome as other Masses were canceled in northern Italy over fears of the coronavirus outbreak. Francis and a long line of priests, bishops and cardinals walked in a procession through Rome’s Aventine hill into the 5th-century Santa Sabina basilica for a late-afternoon Mass. Neither the priests nor the faithful wore face masks, but Rome has largely been spared the virus as Italy’s national case count grew to more than 440. Other Catholic countries took Ash Wednesday precautions. In the Philippines — Asia’s only majority Roman Catholic country — priests sprinkled ashes on the heads of the faithful rather than making the mark of the cross on their foreheads to avoid physical contact. “Wherever the ash is placed, on the forehead or on the head, the feeling is the same, it’s uplifting,” Editha Lorenzo, a 49-year-old mother of two wearing a face mask, told The Associated Press in Manila. At the Vatican, Francis held his general audience as usual in St. Peter’s Square and offered prayers to people sickened by the virus and the medical personnel treating them. In the crowd of thousands, a handful had masks on their faces. “I want to again express my closeness to those suffering from the coronavirus and the health care workers who are treating them, as well as the civil authorities and all those who are working to help patients and stop the contagion,” Francis said. Francis kissed at least one child as he looped through the square in his popemobile and made a point of shaking hands with the faithful sitting in the front row. Usually, he only waves. He also greeted prelates with a handshake at the beginning and end of the gathering, but it appeared most clergy were refraining from kissing Francis’ ring or embracing him, as they normally would do. In his remarks, he urged the faithful to put down their cellphones during Lent and pick up the Bible instead. “It is the time to give up useless words, chatter, rumors, gossip, and talk and to speak directly to the Lord,” he said. While Francis went ahead with his usual Ash Wednesday plans, the patriarchate of Venice canceled the Mass scheduled for St. Mark’s Basilica, after a handful of elderly people in the lagoon city tested positive for the virus. The surrounding Veneto region is one of two northern Italian regions where clusters of cases emerged in Italy. The other is Lombardy. In the Philippines, the Rev. Victorino Cueto, rector of the popular National Shrine of our Mother of Perpetual Help in the Manila metropolis, said the practice of sprinkling ash on heads of devotees was a precaution to prevent the spread of infections but actually is an old tradition based on the Old Testament. “It’s better to be cautious,” said churchgoer Evet Accion. (AP Video/Aaron Favila) On Good Friday, which marks Christ’s death on the cross, bishops in the Philippines strongly suggested that churchgoers refrain from kissing or touching the cross, a common practice among Catholics. “Instead, the faithful are requested to genuflect or make a profound bow as they venerate the cross,” said Archbishop Romulo Valles, who heads the bishops’ conference. Last month, the bishops recommended that Catholics receive the Eucharistic host by the hand instead of the mouth and avoid holding hands in prayer during Masses as precautions amid the viral scare. In the United States, Catholics filled St. Joseph Cathedral for an Ash Wednesday service in San Diego, where two patients with the virus were recently treated at a local hospital after being evacuated from China. Priests maintained the tradition of placing ashes on parishioners’ foreheads. Some worshipers said they saw little reason for concern, while noting a reluctance among fellow parishioners to shake hands during Mass recently. “Some people nod and wave but personally that hasn’t stopped me,” said Clarissa Falcon, 47, whose parents live in the Philippines. “I’m used to the physical fellowship. It sort of goes along with the spirit of this — having faith.” ___ Gomez reported from Manila, Philippines. Associated Press writer Julie Watson in San Diego contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

RNo1SteEb0VRF4hM

test

UVS3lh2SnrzFxmbN

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/15/paul-manafort-scandal-nothing-next-leon-panettas-russia-ties/

Media Ignore Clinton’s Russia Ties, Focus on Paul Manafort

2016-08-15

Joel B. Pollak

The press is abuzz with the latest element in the left-wing conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is secretly a Russian agent . The New York Times reports that Trump ’ s campaign chair , Paul Manafort , is listed in a “ secret ledger ” showing payments from the former , Russia-friendly , Ukrainian government . The fact that Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign chair , left-wing George Soros agent John Podesta , helped a Russian government-linked company bag $ 35 million — an actual , bigger scandal — is ignored . First of all , it is not clear what the Times story shows , because the Times spends so much time undermining its own case . Paul Manafort consulted for the Ukrainian ruling party , and helped it win elections . Manafort was listed in a handwritten ledger as having received money from that same party . The Times can not say if he received the money ; notes that Ukrainian investigators “ have yet to determine if he actually received the cash ” ; adds that “ the purpose of the payments is not clear ” ; reports that Manafort “ is not a target ” in a separate investigation into offshore dealings by the former regime ; and admits that it is “ unclear ” whether Manafort would have had to register with the U.S. government as a foreign agent . All the Times has is what is already known about Manafort : namely , he advised an unsavory regime , and was paid handsomely for his services . It is an unfortunate fact of political life that senior operatives on both sides have side gigs working as lobbyists , sometimes for foreign governments — and sometimes nasty ones . In 2008 , Sen. John McCain ( R-AZ ) tried to cut lobbyists from his campaign staff to set an example ; then-Sen. Barack Obama ( D-IL ) ran on a “ no lobbyist ” pledge that he violated even before he took the oath of office . Even the left-leaning PolitiFact named the no-lobbyist pledge a “ broken promise ” by Obama . In 2015 , ███ broke the story that a former employee of a pro-Iran lobby group was advising the White House as the Iran deal was being negotiated , meaning that the ayatollahs had people on both sides of the table . The media largely shrugged . It is certainly possible that Manafort was involved in corrupt dealings with the old Ukrainian regime . But the Times does not actually prove that . Instead , it throws enough innuendo into the article to associate Manafort with the old regime ’ s excesses — and to stoke the conspiracy theory of Russian control of Trump . Keep in mind that Trump ’ s opponent not only pushed the “ reset ” button with the Putin regime in an effort to establish closer ties , but also presided over a nuclear disarmament treaty that slashed America ’ s nuclear arsenal while leaving Russia ’ s weapons largely intact ; abandoned American missile defense programs in Europe to appease Russia , undercutting our Eastern European allies in the process ; allowed a Putin-controlled company to acquire 20 % of U.S. supplies of uranium , after a timely donation to the Clinton Foundation ; and encouraged American tech companies to invest in a Russian project that was likely used to improve Russian defense and espionage . The fact that the media are obsessing about what is still , at this stage , a flimsy conspiracy theory about Russian ties to the Trump campaign , while largely ignoring the overt record of appeasement and explicit commercial ties between the Clinton campaign and the Putin regime , says more about media bias than it does about the business dealings of Paul Manafort . Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at ███ . His new book , See No Evil : 19 Hard Truths the Left Can ’ t Handle , is available from Regnery through Amazon . Follow him on Twitter at @ joelpollak .

The press is abuzz with the latest element in the left-wing conspiracy theory that Donald Trump is secretly a Russian agent. The New York Times reports that Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort, is listed in a “secret ledger” showing payments from the former, Russia-friendly, Ukrainian government. The fact that Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, left-wing George Soros agent John Podesta, helped a Russian government-linked company bag $35 million — an actual, bigger scandal — is ignored. First of all, it is not clear what the Times story shows, because the Times spends so much time undermining its own case. Paul Manafort consulted for the Ukrainian ruling party, and helped it win elections. Manafort was listed in a handwritten ledger as having received money from that same party. The Times cannot say if he received the money; notes that Ukrainian investigators “have yet to determine if he actually received the cash”; adds that “the purpose of the payments is not clear”; reports that Manafort “is not a target” in a separate investigation into offshore dealings by the former regime; and admits that it is “unclear” whether Manafort would have had to register with the U.S. government as a foreign agent. All the Times has is what is already known about Manafort: namely, he advised an unsavory regime, and was paid handsomely for his services. It is an unfortunate fact of political life that senior operatives on both sides have side gigs working as lobbyists, sometimes for foreign governments — and sometimes nasty ones. In 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to cut lobbyists from his campaign staff to set an example; then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran on a “no lobbyist” pledge that he violated even before he took the oath of office. Even the left-leaning PolitiFact named the no-lobbyist pledge a “broken promise” by Obama. In 2015, Breitbart News broke the story that a former employee of a pro-Iran lobby group was advising the White House as the Iran deal was being negotiated, meaning that the ayatollahs had people on both sides of the table. The media largely shrugged. It is certainly possible that Manafort was involved in corrupt dealings with the old Ukrainian regime. But the Times does not actually prove that. Instead, it throws enough innuendo into the article to associate Manafort with the old regime’s excesses — and to stoke the conspiracy theory of Russian control of Trump. Keep in mind that Trump’s opponent not only pushed the “reset” button with the Putin regime in an effort to establish closer ties, but also presided over a nuclear disarmament treaty that slashed America’s nuclear arsenal while leaving Russia’s weapons largely intact; abandoned American missile defense programs in Europe to appease Russia, undercutting our Eastern European allies in the process; allowed a Putin-controlled company to acquire 20% of U.S. supplies of uranium, after a timely donation to the Clinton Foundation; and encouraged American tech companies to invest in a Russian project that was likely used to improve Russian defense and espionage. The fact that the media are obsessing about what is still, at this stage, a flimsy conspiracy theory about Russian ties to the Trump campaign, while largely ignoring the overt record of appeasement and explicit commercial ties between the Clinton campaign and the Putin regime, says more about media bias than it does about the business dealings of Paul Manafort. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

www.breitbart.com

right

UVS3lh2SnrzFxmbN

test

tItDHdbMeu7LGfb8

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/april/trump-rsquo-s-faith-advisory-council-pushes-back-against-lsquo-evangelical-identity-rsquo-meeting

Several Christian Leaders Walk Out After Evangelical Meeting Turns to Trump-Bashing

2018-04-17

WASHINGTON – ███ News has confirmed that at least a few people walked out of an intense invite-only evangelical meeting this week at Wheaton College after the affair turned into `` crazy Trump bashing . '' The two-day gathering involved a group of faith leaders and was billed as a discussion of the evangelical movement in light of Trump 's presidency . But it became more than that . Two sources with intimate knowledge of the meeting say the first day turned into a lot of `` one-sided venting '' against President Trump and the majority of evangelicals who voted for him . Both sources confirm that the issue of sin came up in discussing how evangelicals could vote for Trump . `` The conversations were difficult , '' according to one source who attended both days of the meeting . `` There was a lament . '' After that first day , a few people felt so uncomfortable with the rhetoric against Trump they left , forgoing the last day of the conference . It 's important to note that no members of President Trump 's faith advisory group were present or ever officially invited . Rather , this group of evangelicals consisted of many who hold more moderate or progressive views on certain public policy issues . Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas is part of the president 's evangelical advisory group and says this gathering is of no consequence . `` It ’ s a meeting that will have very little impact on evangelicalism as a whole , '' Jeffress told ███ News . `` Many of them are sincere but they are having a hard time understanding that they have little impact on evangelicalism . '' READ : Faith Inside the Oval Office : Evangelical Advisor Shares What It 's Like to Counsel Trump Richard Land of Southern Evangelical Seminary also questioned the weight of the meeting given the absence of some well-known names . `` Any definition of 'thought leaders ' and any definition of evangelicalism that excludes the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Franklin Graham is a pale imitation – anemic and incomplete , '' said Land . Other members of Trump ’ s faith advisory council spoke to ███ News off the record , one voicing his concern over what he sees as this group of evangelicals trying to steal the microphone from those who support Trump . He pointed to the fact that many invited to participate are part of the anti-Trump movement and hold more progressive views on public policy than traditional evangelical Christian voters who supported Trump in 2016 . Johnnie Moore , an unofficial spokesman for the faith advisory council , was among the many pro-Trump evangelicals not invited . `` We don ’ t take it personally ; we just pray for them , '' Moore said in a statement to ███ News . `` I ’ ve said it many , many times , but I ’ ll say it again : we have been honored to fight to protect religious liberty that even extends to protecting the rights of those who disagree with us on religious grounds , even when they are unkind . '' In total , the meeting included about 50 faith leaders and scholars and was spearheaded by Doug Birdsall , Rev . Dr. Gabriel A. Salguero and Jenny Yang . MORE : 'Winning Power Was Judas 's Goal ' : These Christian Leaders Pitched Pre-Trump Unity , Now , Not So Much Salguero was appointed as a member of President Obama 's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and has spoken at the Democrat National Committee Convention in the past . Other attendees included Timothy Keller , Mark Labberton and A.R . Bernard who was once a Trump evangelical advisor .

WASHINGTON – CBN News has confirmed that at least a few people walked out of an intense invite-only evangelical meeting this week at Wheaton College after the affair turned into "crazy Trump bashing." The two-day gathering involved a group of faith leaders and was billed as a discussion of the evangelical movement in light of Trump's presidency. But it became more than that. Two sources with intimate knowledge of the meeting say the first day turned into a lot of "one-sided venting" against President Trump and the majority of evangelicals who voted for him. Both sources confirm that the issue of sin came up in discussing how evangelicals could vote for Trump. "The conversations were difficult," according to one source who attended both days of the meeting. "There was a lament." After that first day, a few people felt so uncomfortable with the rhetoric against Trump they left, forgoing the last day of the conference. It's important to note that no members of President Trump's faith advisory group were present or ever officially invited. Rather, this group of evangelicals consisted of many who hold more moderate or progressive views on certain public policy issues. Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas is part of the president's evangelical advisory group and says this gathering is of no consequence. "It’s a meeting that will have very little impact on evangelicalism as a whole," Jeffress told CBN News. "Many of them are sincere but they are having a hard time understanding that they have little impact on evangelicalism." READ: Faith Inside the Oval Office: Evangelical Advisor Shares What It's Like to Counsel Trump Richard Land of Southern Evangelical Seminary also questioned the weight of the meeting given the absence of some well-known names. "Any definition of 'thought leaders' and any definition of evangelicalism that excludes the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Franklin Graham is a pale imitation – anemic and incomplete," said Land. Other members of Trump’s faith advisory council spoke to CBN News off the record, one voicing his concern over what he sees as this group of evangelicals trying to steal the microphone from those who support Trump. He pointed to the fact that many invited to participate are part of the anti-Trump movement and hold more progressive views on public policy than traditional evangelical Christian voters who supported Trump in 2016. Johnnie Moore, an unofficial spokesman for the faith advisory council, was among the many pro-Trump evangelicals not invited. "We don’t take it personally; we just pray for them," Moore said in a statement to CBN News. "I’ve said it many, many times, but I’ll say it again: we have been honored to fight to protect religious liberty that even extends to protecting the rights of those who disagree with us on religious grounds, even when they are unkind." In total, the meeting included about 50 faith leaders and scholars and was spearheaded by Doug Birdsall, Rev. Dr. Gabriel A. Salguero and Jenny Yang. MORE: 'Winning Power Was Judas's Goal': These Christian Leaders Pitched Pre-Trump Unity, Now, Not So Much Salguero was appointed as a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and has spoken at the Democrat National Committee Convention in the past. Other attendees included Timothy Keller, Mark Labberton and A.R. Bernard who was once a Trump evangelical advisor.

www1.cbn.com

right

tItDHdbMeu7LGfb8

test

o5cmcrx2dTGCU5Nb

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/november/hitting-the-ground-running-trump-lays-out-first-100-days

Hitting the Ground Running: Trump Lays Out First 100 Days

2016-11-22

For the first time , President-Elect Donald Trump is laying out his agenda for his first 100 days in office . In a two and half minute YouTube video , he said he wants to put America first and create wealth and jobs for American workers . To do this , he 's asking his team to develop a list of executive actions he can take on day one . `` On trade , I 'm going to issue a notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a potential disaster for our country , '' Trump says in the video . `` Instead , '' he proposed , `` we will negotiate fair , bi-laterial trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores . '' The president-elect also laid out energy proposals he claims will create new jobs . `` On energy , I will cancel job killing restrictions on the production of American energy , including shale energy and clean coal , creating many millions of high paying jobs , '' Trump said . `` That 's what we want , '' he declared . `` That 's what we 've been waiting for . '' On regulation , he vowed to `` formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation , two old regulations must be eliminated -- so important . '' Trump also spoke about protecting America from cyber-attacks and other attacks , cracking down on lobbying in Washington , and tackling one of the signature issues in his campaign – immigration . `` On immigration , I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of Visa programs that undercut the American worker , '' he said . Trump also met with many of the top figures in TV news on Monday , reportedly blasting top executives and well- known anchors and reporters from NBC , ABC and CBS , and cable news networks for their news coverage . `` We 're in a room of liars , the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong , '' The New York Post reports Trump as saying . Addressing everyone in the room , he called the media dishonest , deceitful liars . He specifically called out CNN 's Jeff Zucker and said everyone at CNN was a liar , and CNN was a network of liars . Meanwhile , Trump is still meeting with possible members of his cabinet , including former Texas Gov . Rick Perry , former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown , Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tusli Gabbard , and Oklahoma Gov . Mary Fallin -- who could be secretary of the interior . Fallin was a recent guest on The 700 Club where she talked about Trump 's plan for energy independence . `` I would much rather ... be able to take care of ourselves , '' she said . The president-elect still has nearly two months to go before he takes office , but he 's making it clear that he intends to hit the ground running - right from the beginning .

For the first time, President-Elect Donald Trump is laying out his agenda for his first 100 days in office. In a two and half minute YouTube video, he said he wants to put America first and create wealth and jobs for American workers. To do this, he's asking his team to develop a list of executive actions he can take on day one. "On trade, I'm going to issue a notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a potential disaster for our country," Trump says in the video. "Instead," he proposed, "we will negotiate fair, bi-laterial trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores." The president-elect also laid out energy proposals he claims will create new jobs. "On energy, I will cancel job killing restrictions on the production of American energy, including shale energy and clean coal, creating many millions of high paying jobs," Trump said. "That's what we want," he declared. "That's what we've been waiting for." On regulation, he vowed to "formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated -- so important." Trump also spoke about protecting America from cyber-attacks and other attacks, cracking down on lobbying in Washington, and tackling one of the signature issues in his campaign – immigration. "On immigration, I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of Visa programs that undercut the American worker," he said. Trump also met with many of the top figures in TV news on Monday, reportedly blasting top executives and well- known anchors and reporters from NBC, ABC and CBS, and cable news networks for their news coverage. "We're in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong," The New York Post reports Trump as saying. Addressing everyone in the room, he called the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He specifically called out CNN's Jeff Zucker and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was a network of liars. Meanwhile, Trump is still meeting with possible members of his cabinet, including former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tusli Gabbard, and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin -- who could be secretary of the interior. Fallin was a recent guest on The 700 Club where she talked about Trump's plan for energy independence. "I would much rather...be able to take care of ourselves," she said. The president-elect still has nearly two months to go before he takes office, but he's making it clear that he intends to hit the ground running - right from the beginning.

www1.cbn.com

right

o5cmcrx2dTGCU5Nb

test

isDXjCPlV8Lu1oll

environment

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/21/obama-to-make-statement-on-oklahoma-tornado/

Obama: Americans stand with Oklahoma for 'as long as it takes'

2013-05-21

Washington ( CNN ) - Describing the tornado that swept across the Oklahoma plains as `` one of the most destructive storms in history , '' President Barack Obama said Tuesday the state `` needs to get everything it needs right away '' to recover from the devastating twister . The president , speaking from the State Dining Room at the White House , said he does n't yet know the `` full extent '' of the damage or the `` human and economic losses that may have occurred . '' Dozens of people - including several children - were killed when the massive tornado struck an area outside Oklahoma City on Monday afternoon , officials said . At least seven of the children killed were at Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore , Oklahoma , according to a police official . While the total magnitude of the storm 's damage is unknown , the president pledged the country 's resources as the community seeks to rebuild . `` The people of Moore , [ Oklahoma ] should know that their country will remain on the ground , there for them , beside them , as long as it takes , '' he said . `` There are empty spaces where there used to be living rooms and bedrooms and classrooms and in time we 're going to need to refill those spaces with love and laughter and community . '' Obama signed a disaster declaration for Oklahoma late Monday night , ordering federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts . The declaration makes federal funding available to the counties of Cleveland , Lincoln , McClain , Oklahoma , and Pottawatomie . Funds can go towards grants for temporary housing and home repairs , low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses , and other programs , the White House said . State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations can also use some of the money in those counties . `` For all those who 've been affected , we recognize that you face a long road ahead . In some cases , there will be enormous grief that has to be absorbed . But you will not travel that path alone . Your country will travel it with you fueled by our faith in the almighty and our faith in one another . So our prayers are with the people of Oklahoma today , '' he said . `` And we will back up those prayers with deeds for as long as it takes . '' Obama is receiving ongoing briefings about the recovery efforts from Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco , Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano , Chief of Staff Denis McDonough , Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco and other senior members , according to the White House . Obama told Oklahoma Gov . Mary Fallin Monday the resources of the federal government stand ready to assist her state as it recovers from the powerful set of storms that pounded an area near Oklahoma City Monday . House Speaker John Boehner faced questions in a press conference Tuesday over how Congress will respond in support of federal aid efforts , given some in the GOP 's resistance to robustly backing previous relief legislation without cutting spending elsewhere . `` We 'll work with the administration on making sure they have the resources they need to help the people of Oklahoma , '' said an emotional House Speaker John Boehner . The Federal Emergency Management Agency has deployed an incident team to the state , Obama told Fallin , and more federal resources are on standby as the extent of the damage becomes clearer .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - Describing the tornado that swept across the Oklahoma plains as "one of the most destructive storms in history," President Barack Obama said Tuesday the state "needs to get everything it needs right away" to recover from the devastating twister. The president, speaking from the State Dining Room at the White House, said he doesn't yet know the "full extent" of the damage or the "human and economic losses that may have occurred." Dozens of people - including several children - were killed when the massive tornado struck an area outside Oklahoma City on Monday afternoon, officials said. At least seven of the children killed were at Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore, Oklahoma, according to a police official. While the total magnitude of the storm's damage is unknown, the president pledged the country's resources as the community seeks to rebuild. "The people of Moore, [Oklahoma] should know that their country will remain on the ground, there for them, beside them, as long as it takes," he said. "There are empty spaces where there used to be living rooms and bedrooms and classrooms and in time we're going to need to refill those spaces with love and laughter and community." Obama signed a disaster declaration for Oklahoma late Monday night, ordering federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts. The declaration makes federal funding available to the counties of Cleveland, Lincoln, McClain, Oklahoma, and Pottawatomie. Funds can go towards grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs, the White House said. State and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations can also use some of the money in those counties. "For all those who've been affected, we recognize that you face a long road ahead. In some cases, there will be enormous grief that has to be absorbed. But you will not travel that path alone. Your country will travel it with you fueled by our faith in the almighty and our faith in one another. So our prayers are with the people of Oklahoma today," he said. "And we will back up those prayers with deeds for as long as it takes." Obama is receiving ongoing briefings about the recovery efforts from Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco and other senior members, according to the White House. Obama told Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin Monday the resources of the federal government stand ready to assist her state as it recovers from the powerful set of storms that pounded an area near Oklahoma City Monday. House Speaker John Boehner faced questions in a press conference Tuesday over how Congress will respond in support of federal aid efforts, given some in the GOP's resistance to robustly backing previous relief legislation without cutting spending elsewhere. "We'll work with the administration on making sure they have the resources they need to help the people of Oklahoma," said an emotional House Speaker John Boehner. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has deployed an incident team to the state, Obama told Fallin, and more federal resources are on standby as the extent of the damage becomes clearer.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

isDXjCPlV8Lu1oll

test

eiLfeNS8dMQpaiEr

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/52ed0842bd17102560e5d896be79d38c

Poll: Black Americans most likely to know a COVID-19 victim

2020-06-15

Kat Stafford, Hannah Fingerhut

FILE - In this May 18 , 2020 , file photo , Belvin Jefferson White poses with a portrait of her father Saymon Jefferson at Saymon 's home in Baton Rouge , La . Belvin recently lost both her father and her uncle , Willie Lee Jefferson , to COVID-19 . African Americans are disproportionately likely to say a family member or close friend has died of COVID-19 or respiratory illness since March , according to a series of surveys conducted since April that lays bare how black Americans have borne the brunt of the pandemic . ( AP Photo/Gerald Herbert , File ) FILE - In this May 18 , 2020 , file photo , Belvin Jefferson White poses with a portrait of her father Saymon Jefferson at Saymon 's home in Baton Rouge , La . Belvin recently lost both her father and her uncle , Willie Lee Jefferson , to COVID-19 . African Americans are disproportionately likely to say a family member or close friend has died of COVID-19 or respiratory illness since March , according to a series of surveys conducted since April that lays bare how black Americans have borne the brunt of the pandemic . ( AP Photo/Gerald Herbert , File ) DETROIT ( AP ) — African Americans are disproportionately likely to say a family member or close friend has died of COVID-19 or respiratory illness since March , according to a series of surveys conducted since April that lays bare how black Americans have borne the brunt of the pandemic . Eleven percent of African Americans say they were close with someone who has died from the coronavirus , compared with 5 % of Americans overall and 4 % of white Americans . The findings are based on data from three COVID Impact surveys conducted between April and June by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation about the pandemic ’ s effect on the physical , mental and social health of Americans . While recent surveys conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research have found that black Americans are especially likely to know someone who had the virus , the new data from the COVID Impact research further details the toll the pandemic has taken on black Americans . Pre-existing conditions and limited access to health care have been identified as reasons black Americans have been particularly susceptible to the virus . Experts and medical professionals say the longstanding effects of structural racism and generational trauma exacted upon black Americans in the centuries following slavery also can not be ignored . “ The health inequities that we ’ re seeing here are nothing new , because we ’ re starting in a place where during slavery , we had black women who were enslaved and were being experimented on by white male physicians , ” said New York-based Dr. Uché Blackstock , a former associate professor at the NYU School of Medicine and the founder of Advancing Health Equity . “ So our healthcare system is founded on racism , and our communities have been essentially made sick by racism . We carry the highest disease burden in almost every parameter . We were already in a crisis . ” The COVID Impact surveys show the racial gap is equally striking in some cities and states hit especially hard by the virus . In Louisiana , 16 % of black adults , compared with 6 % of white adults , are close with someone who has died , according to the surveys . Black people represent about 33 % of the state ’ s population but account for 53 % of the state ’ s nearly 3,000 COVID-19 deaths , according to data from the state ’ s health department . The differences are equally stark in several metropolitan areas : Among black adults in Atlanta , 14 % have a family member or close friend who has died , compared with 4 % of white adults . The comparison is 12 % vs. 4 % in Baltimore , 15 % vs. 2 % in Birmingham , Alabama , and 12 % vs. 4 % in Chicago . Twenty-six percent of nonwhite New Yorkers say a family member or close friend has died from COVID-19 , compared with just 10 % of white adults in New York City . Meanwhile , an ███ analysis of data from state and local health departments nationwide found that more than a quarter of all COVID-related deaths nationwide have been black victims — nearly double the share of the black population in the areas sampled . The data , from early June , included nearly 87,000 deaths in which the dead person ’ s race was known in 38 states and Washington , D.C . In a number of states , the disparity was even more outsized — for instance , in Michigan , black deaths per 100,000 black residents were four times the rate of white deaths per 100,000 white residents . “ I think we will have a national conversation , not only about those inequities , but about how we get to solutions , because it ’ s not just about what ’ s going on right now , it ’ s really what has gone on for decades regarding structural racism , implicit bias , discriminatory housing policies and the like , ” said Dr. Patrice Harris , the immediate past president of the American Medical Association and the first African-American woman elected president of the organization . Harris said the AMA launched a Center for Health Equity a year and a half ago to address implicit bias at the physician and institutional level . During the pandemic , she said , many stories have emerged of black patients detailing how their needs were ignored or unmet by doctors , which some experts say is indicative of a historical mistrust of the medical system . “ We heard with COVID-19 , the stories , or some of the data that says that black men in particular were more likely to take advice from another black physician or that there have been studies where our younger colleagues believe the myth that blacks did not feel pain in the same way as whites , ” Harris said . “ AMA is going to lead these conversations and make sure everyone has information so we can address issues around implicit bias and discriminatory practices . ” The nation must also begin to grapple with the psychological trauma of the pandemic , coupled with the economic fallout , the civil unrest in the wake of several high profile killings of African Americans and witnessing black grief on a mass scale , said University of Michigan health behavior and health education professor Enrique Neblett . Neblett , who studies the intersection of racism and health , said many African Americans could be dealing with depression , anxiety and other mental struggles . “ It ’ s the confluence of all these factors where it ’ s not just one or two things and that is really weighing hard and heavily on the psyche of black people , ” Neblett said . “ We do know that when you experience loss at unexpected times , there is scientific evidence showing that that ’ s related to worse health outcomes later on in life . I think these impacts may be generational . ” The three COVID Impact surveys were conducted between April and June . The national survey uses a sample drawn from NORC ’ s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel , which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population . State and metropolitan area surveys were conducted using address-based sampling .

FILE - In this May 18, 2020, file photo, Belvin Jefferson White poses with a portrait of her father Saymon Jefferson at Saymon's home in Baton Rouge, La. Belvin recently lost both her father and her uncle, Willie Lee Jefferson, to COVID-19. African Americans are disproportionately likely to say a family member or close friend has died of COVID-19 or respiratory illness since March, according to a series of surveys conducted since April that lays bare how black Americans have borne the brunt of the pandemic. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File) FILE - In this May 18, 2020, file photo, Belvin Jefferson White poses with a portrait of her father Saymon Jefferson at Saymon's home in Baton Rouge, La. Belvin recently lost both her father and her uncle, Willie Lee Jefferson, to COVID-19. African Americans are disproportionately likely to say a family member or close friend has died of COVID-19 or respiratory illness since March, according to a series of surveys conducted since April that lays bare how black Americans have borne the brunt of the pandemic. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File) DETROIT (AP) — African Americans are disproportionately likely to say a family member or close friend has died of COVID-19 or respiratory illness since March, according to a series of surveys conducted since April that lays bare how black Americans have borne the brunt of the pandemic. Eleven percent of African Americans say they were close with someone who has died from the coronavirus , compared with 5% of Americans overall and 4% of white Americans. The findings are based on data from three COVID Impact surveys conducted between April and June by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation about the pandemic’s effect on the physical, mental and social health of Americans. ADVERTISEMENT While recent surveys conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research have found that black Americans are especially likely to know someone who had the virus, the new data from the COVID Impact research further details the toll the pandemic has taken on black Americans. Pre-existing conditions and limited access to health care have been identified as reasons black Americans have been particularly susceptible to the virus. Experts and medical professionals say the longstanding effects of structural racism and generational trauma exacted upon black Americans in the centuries following slavery also cannot be ignored. “The health inequities that we’re seeing here are nothing new, because we’re starting in a place where during slavery, we had black women who were enslaved and were being experimented on by white male physicians,” said New York-based Dr. Uché Blackstock, a former associate professor at the NYU School of Medicine and the founder of Advancing Health Equity. “So our healthcare system is founded on racism, and our communities have been essentially made sick by racism. We carry the highest disease burden in almost every parameter. We were already in a crisis.” The COVID Impact surveys show the racial gap is equally striking in some cities and states hit especially hard by the virus. In Louisiana, 16% of black adults, compared with 6% of white adults, are close with someone who has died, according to the surveys. Black people represent about 33% of the state’s population but account for 53% of the state’s nearly 3,000 COVID-19 deaths, according to data from the state’s health department. ADVERTISEMENT The differences are equally stark in several metropolitan areas: Among black adults in Atlanta, 14% have a family member or close friend who has died, compared with 4% of white adults. The comparison is 12% vs. 4% in Baltimore, 15% vs. 2% in Birmingham, Alabama, and 12% vs. 4% in Chicago. Twenty-six percent of nonwhite New Yorkers say a family member or close friend has died from COVID-19, compared with just 10% of white adults in New York City. Meanwhile, an Associated Press analysis of data from state and local health departments nationwide found that more than a quarter of all COVID-related deaths nationwide have been black victims — nearly double the share of the black population in the areas sampled. The data, from early June, included nearly 87,000 deaths in which the dead person’s race was known in 38 states and Washington, D.C. In a number of states, the disparity was even more outsized — for instance, in Michigan, black deaths per 100,000 black residents were four times the rate of white deaths per 100,000 white residents. “I think we will have a national conversation, not only about those inequities, but about how we get to solutions, because it’s not just about what’s going on right now, it’s really what has gone on for decades regarding structural racism, implicit bias, discriminatory housing policies and the like,” said Dr. Patrice Harris, the immediate past president of the American Medical Association and the first African-American woman elected president of the organization. Harris said the AMA launched a Center for Health Equity a year and a half ago to address implicit bias at the physician and institutional level. During the pandemic, she said, many stories have emerged of black patients detailing how their needs were ignored or unmet by doctors, which some experts say is indicative of a historical mistrust of the medical system. “We heard with COVID-19, the stories, or some of the data that says that black men in particular were more likely to take advice from another black physician or that there have been studies where our younger colleagues believe the myth that blacks did not feel pain in the same way as whites,” Harris said. “AMA is going to lead these conversations and make sure everyone has information so we can address issues around implicit bias and discriminatory practices.” The nation must also begin to grapple with the psychological trauma of the pandemic, coupled with the economic fallout, the civil unrest in the wake of several high profile killings of African Americans and witnessing black grief on a mass scale, said University of Michigan health behavior and health education professor Enrique Neblett. Neblett, who studies the intersection of racism and health, said many African Americans could be dealing with depression, anxiety and other mental struggles. “It’s the confluence of all these factors where it’s not just one or two things and that is really weighing hard and heavily on the psyche of black people,” Neblett said. “We do know that when you experience loss at unexpected times, there is scientific evidence showing that that’s related to worse health outcomes later on in life. I think these impacts may be generational.” ___ Fingerhut reported from Washington. AP data journalist Meghan Hoyer contributed to this report. ___ The three COVID Impact surveys were conducted between April and June. The national survey uses a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. State and metropolitan area surveys were conducted using address-based sampling. ___ Online: COVID Impact Survey: https://www.covid-impact.org .

www.apnews.com

center

eiLfeNS8dMQpaiEr

test

tdD3ftDngheCvqo6

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/05/boehner-blasts-reported-obama-budget-as-wrong-direction/

Boehner blasts reported Obama budget as 'wrong direction'

2013-04-05

( CNN ) - House Speaker John Boehner said Friday the budget President Barack Obama will soon unveil takes no steps towards finding common ground with Republicans , despite the president 's offer to cut federal entitlement spending . `` If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs , there 's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes . That 's no way to lead and move the country forward , '' Boehner said in a press release . The president 's proposal as described to CNN and other news outlets by senior Obama administration officials includes changes to Social Security and Medicare , similar to an offer Obama made to Boehner during the fiscal cliff negotiations in December . That would include a cut of $ 400 billion to Medicare over a decade . `` The president and I were not able to reach an agreement late last year because his offers never lived up to his rhetoric , '' Boehner responded . `` Despite talk about so-called balance , the president 's last offer was significantly skewed in favor of higher taxes and included only modest entitlement savings . He said he could go no further toward the middle , and that 's why his last offer was rejected . '' The reported entitlement program changes have also received fire from left-leaning groups who argue the changes would hurt vulnerable individuals . Obama 's budget also includes tax increases , which Republicans say is a non-starter since taxes were increased on wealthy individuals as part of the final fiscal cliff deal . `` In the end , the president got his tax hikes on the wealthy with no corresponding spending cuts , '' Boehner wrote . `` At some point we need to solve our spending problem , and what the president has offered would leave us with a budget that never balances . In reality , he 's moved in the wrong direction , routinely taking off the table entitlement reforms he 's previously told me he could support . '' He suggested further that Obama 's so-called charm offensive was to little avail on budget matters . `` When the president visited the Capitol last month , House Republicans stated a desire to find common ground and urged him not to make savings we agree upon conditional on another round of tax increases . If reports are accurate , the president has not heeded that call , '' Boehner said . Republicans have roundly criticized Obama for missing the February deadline for submitting his budget proposal . The proposal could be released next week , White House officials have said . The Republican-led House has previously passed a proposal drafted by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan , R-Wisconsin . It was a budget not warmly received by the Democratic Senate or the White House .

7 years ago (CNN) - House Speaker John Boehner said Friday the budget President Barack Obama will soon unveil takes no steps towards finding common ground with Republicans, despite the president's offer to cut federal entitlement spending. "If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That's no way to lead and move the country forward," Boehner said in a press release. Follow @politicalticker The president's proposal as described to CNN and other news outlets by senior Obama administration officials includes changes to Social Security and Medicare, similar to an offer Obama made to Boehner during the fiscal cliff negotiations in December. That would include a cut of $400 billion to Medicare over a decade. "The president and I were not able to reach an agreement late last year because his offers never lived up to his rhetoric," Boehner responded. "Despite talk about so-called balance, the president's last offer was significantly skewed in favor of higher taxes and included only modest entitlement savings. He said he could go no further toward the middle, and that's why his last offer was rejected." The reported entitlement program changes have also received fire from left-leaning groups who argue the changes would hurt vulnerable individuals. Obama's budget also includes tax increases, which Republicans say is a non-starter since taxes were increased on wealthy individuals as part of the final fiscal cliff deal. "In the end, the president got his tax hikes on the wealthy with no corresponding spending cuts," Boehner wrote. "At some point we need to solve our spending problem, and what the president has offered would leave us with a budget that never balances. In reality, he's moved in the wrong direction, routinely taking off the table entitlement reforms he's previously told me he could support." He suggested further that Obama's so-called charm offensive was to little avail on budget matters. "When the president visited the Capitol last month, House Republicans stated a desire to find common ground and urged him not to make savings we agree upon conditional on another round of tax increases. If reports are accurate, the president has not heeded that call," Boehner said. Republicans have roundly criticized Obama for missing the February deadline for submitting his budget proposal. The proposal could be released next week, White House officials have said. The Republican-led House has previously passed a proposal drafted by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin. It was a budget not warmly received by the Democratic Senate or the White House.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

tdD3ftDngheCvqo6

test

pyqYfrTyZPR7kZtO

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/23/rudys_whitewash_what_his_self_serving_op_ed_reveals_about_how_conservatives_see_the_world/

Rudy’s whitewash: What his self-serving op-ed reveals about how conservatives see the world

2015-02-23

Luke Brinker

Five days after he sparked a political firestorm with his remarks that President Obama does n't love America and `` was n't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up , '' Rudy Giuliani is out with a new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal , in which he avows that he `` didn ’ t intend to question President Obama ’ s motives or the content of his heart . '' Instead , the former New York City mayor asserts , he was simply trying to make a point about `` the effect his words and his actions have on the morale of the country , and how that effect may damage his performance . '' It was only late last week that a defiant Giuliani dredged up Jeremiah Wright and told Megyn Kelly that he continued to have `` doubts about his emotions , his feelings , his attitudes and the way in which [ Obama ] developed , '' but the former mayor now wants us to hear him out about how he meant nothing personal toward the president . `` Irrespective of what a president may think or feel , his inability or disinclination to emphasize what is right with America can hamstring our success as a nation , '' Giuliani writes . `` This is particularly true when a president is seen , as President Obama is , as criticizing his country more than other presidents have done , regardless of their political affiliation . '' Giuliani proceeds to assail Obama for a `` lack of moral clarity '' in his words about Islamic fundamentalism , American exceptionalism , and the country 's history . Why ca n't Obama simply pay tribute to America every once in awhile , Giuliani wonders , ignoring all the times Obama has done precisely that . Maintaining that harbors `` no ill will '' toward Obama , Giuliani writes that the president 's `` personal journey is inspiring and a testament to much of what makes this country great . '' As it so happens , Obama himself has made much the same point , going even further than Giuliani into chest-pumping , American-exceptionalism territory : “ I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story , that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me , and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible , '' he declared in his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention , the speech that propelled him to political stardom . Four years later , in his famed speech on race , then-Sen. Obama reiterated those remarks . But Giuliani castigates the president for not `` acting and speaking in a way that draws sharp , clear distinctions between us and those who threaten our way of life , '' citing Obama 's criticism of U.S. torture techniques in the wake of 9/11 . Obama 's left-wing critics would note that for all the president 's vociferous denunciations of torture , he has opposed legal accountability for those who designed and executed the country 's notorious detention and interrogation program . But Giuliani 's fragile , Manichean mind ca n't tolerate even the mildest suggestion that ours is not an infallible country , and that there may be uncomfortable truths with which we should come to terms . Fox News host Andrea Tantaros offered a particularly telling -- if crude -- case study when she responded to the release of last year 's torture report by declaring that `` America is awesome '' and charging that `` this administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we 're not awesome . '' For a cast of characters constantly proclaiming their own toughness and self-assurance , these are some remarkably thin-skinned people . In one sense , Giuliani is onto something when he seeks to de-personalize his remarks about Obama . At a more fundamental level , his criticism is revelatory of the right wing 's cast of mind , with lessons that go far beyond understanding conservatives ' contempt for the president .

Five days after he sparked a political firestorm with his remarks that President Obama doesn't love America and "wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up," Rudy Giuliani is out with a new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he avows that he "didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart." Instead, the former New York City mayor asserts, he was simply trying to make a point about "the effect his words and his actions have on the morale of the country, and how that effect may damage his performance." It was only late last week that a defiant Giuliani dredged up Jeremiah Wright and told Megyn Kelly that he continued to have "doubts about his emotions, his feelings, his attitudes and the way in which [Obama] developed," but the former mayor now wants us to hear him out about how he meant nothing personal toward the president. "Irrespective of what a president may think or feel, his inability or disinclination to emphasize what is right with America can hamstring our success as a nation," Giuliani writes. "This is particularly true when a president is seen, as President Obama is, as criticizing his country more than other presidents have done, regardless of their political affiliation." Giuliani proceeds to assail Obama for a "lack of moral clarity" in his words about Islamic fundamentalism, American exceptionalism, and the country's history. Why can't Obama simply pay tribute to America every once in awhile, Giuliani wonders, ignoring all the times Obama has done precisely that. Advertisement: Maintaining that harbors "no ill will" toward Obama, Giuliani writes that the president's "personal journey is inspiring and a testament to much of what makes this country great." As it so happens, Obama himself has made much the same point, going even further than Giuliani into chest-pumping, American-exceptionalism territory: “I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible," he declared in his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the speech that propelled him to political stardom. Four years later, in his famed speech on race, then-Sen. Obama reiterated those remarks. But Giuliani castigates the president for not "acting and speaking in a way that draws sharp, clear distinctions between us and those who threaten our way of life," citing Obama's criticism of U.S. torture techniques in the wake of 9/11. Obama's left-wing critics would note that for all the president's vociferous denunciations of torture, he has opposed legal accountability for those who designed and executed the country's notorious detention and interrogation program. But Giuliani's fragile, Manichean mind can't tolerate even the mildest suggestion that ours is not an infallible country, and that there may be uncomfortable truths with which we should come to terms. Fox News host Andrea Tantaros offered a particularly telling -- if crude -- case study when she responded to the release of last year's torture report by declaring that "America is awesome" and charging that "this administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we're not awesome." For a cast of characters constantly proclaiming their own toughness and self-assurance, these are some remarkably thin-skinned people. In one sense, Giuliani is onto something when he seeks to de-personalize his remarks about Obama. At a more fundamental level, his criticism is revelatory of the right wing's cast of mind, with lessons that go far beyond understanding conservatives' contempt for the president.

www.salon.com

left

pyqYfrTyZPR7kZtO

test

6sKxj3Jcsh0iutTY

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/04/republicans-democrats-michigan-wisconsin-voting-midterms

'This is not democracy': Republicans try to shrink power of incoming Democrats

2018-12-04

Ed Pilkington

Weeks after the midterms , several states face continued wrangling as GOP accused of undermining voters ’ will A month after the midterm elections on 6 November , several states continue to be convulsed by bitter partisan fighting in which Republicans are being accused of flagrantly undemocratic attempts to steal victory from the clutches of their Democratic rivals . The most intense battle is playing out in Wisconsin , where Republican lawmakers are attempting a power grab that would strip key functions from the state ’ s incoming Democratic governor and attorney general . Opponents are denouncing the move , which sparked protests on Monday , as a blatantly undemocratic negation of the November election results . Similarly contentious efforts are afoot in Michigan , where Democrats regained three important statewide positions in November – that of governor , attorney general and secretary of state . Instead of accepting the will of voters , Republican lawmakers are now seeking to reduce the control of those post-holders over campaign finance and legal proceedings involving the state before the Democratic victors take office . Elsewhere , Georgia continues to be racked with disputes over claims of Republican voter suppression before Tuesday ’ s runoff election for the key post of secretary of state , while North Carolina is grappling with allegations of voter fraud in a close congressional race that remains unresolved . Georgia does n't need another voter suppressor running its elections | Carol Anderson Read more Wisconsin ’ s power play is attracting the most nationwide attention given the unashamed attempt by state Republicans in effect to reverse the outcome of the November ballot , in which all six statewide positions were won by Democrats , including the governorship . The Republican-controlled legislature is hoping to vote on Tuesday on 40 proposed amendments contained in five bills that would starkly weaken the remit of the incoming Democratic officeholders even before they take office . The proposed changes would prevent the governor-elect , Tony Evers , and attorney general-elect , Josh Kaul , from honoring one of their central promises to voters in the midterm campaign : the pledge to pull Wisconsin out of a multi-state legal challenge to Barack Obama ’ s Affordable Care Act . The new legislation would also gut the state ’ s department of justice of several core functions , transferring them from Kaul ’ s office to the Republican-controlled legislature . The incoming post-holders have decried their rivals ’ tactics as fundamentally undemocratic . “ It goes to the heart of what democracy is all about , ” Evers told reporters , saying the flurry of conservative moves was “ an embarrassment for the state ” . Kaul told the Wisconsin State Journal : “ This is fundamentally inconsistent with how a democracy is supposed to work . If this passes it ’ s going to significantly impair the ability of the state government to function effectively next year , because if it passes , it ’ s almost certain to end up in court . ” Should the bills pass and end up for approval on the desk of the outgoing Republican governor , Scott Walker , they would bookend his eight years in office in an inferno of controversy . Walker started his governorship in 2011 by introducing the notorious Act 10 , which removed most collective bargaining rights from public sector unions , sparking mass protests at the capitol building in Madison . Those protests were echoed on Monday with a fresh round of unrest in Madison , with opponents of the power grab heckling Republican lawmakers with chants of “ Respect my vote ” . The audacious effort to defy the will of voters is a direct repeat of the playbook first adopted by Republicans in North Carolina two years ago . In the wake of the 2016 elections , in which the Democrat Roy Cooper unseated the Republican governor Pat McCrory , GOP leaders staged a special session in which they pared down the governor ’ s executive powers three weeks before Cooper took office . This November , Republicans in North Carolina tried further to water down the governor ’ s powers with two constitutional amendments that would have limited his control over appointments to the state judiciary and board of elections . The amendments failed at the ballot box , but had they passed one commentator for the Raleigh News & Observer noted they would have reduced the role to that of “ a potted plant ” . North Carolina is back in the news this week with a continuing investigation by the state ’ s elections board into an extremely tight House race for the ninth congressional district . The Republican candidate Mark Harris is narrowly ahead in the contest with about 900 more votes out of 283,000 cast than his Democratic opponent , Dan McCready . The result has yet to be certified by the board , which is looking into irregularities over absentee ballots . Democratic voters in Bladen and Robeson counties , in the east of the state , have submitted affidavits stating that their absentee ballots were collected in unsealed envelopes by unidentified individuals . One voter said she had handed over her unfinished ballot to a woman who said she would “ finish it herself ” . The fallout of acrimonious elections on 6 November also continues to be felt in Georgia where a fierce battle is still being waged in a Tuesday runoff for the post of secretary of state , the office that controls the state ’ s electoral system . The Donald Trump-endorsed Republican candidate , Brad Raffensperger , was slightly ahead of his Democratic rival , John Barrow , in the first round . The Georgia contest is being fought over the vacated seat of Brian Kemp , who won the governor ’ s race in November amid a storm of protest that as the then secretary of state , he presided over a slew of voter suppression measures . A political group supporting the losing Democratic candidate , Stacey Abrams , has launched a federal lawsuit challenging the conduct of the state ’ s midterm elections at every level . The three states in the throes of partisan tussles are at the forefront of Republican voter suppression efforts . Part of Wisconsin ’ s proposed new legislation in the lame-duck session is a reduction in early voting days that has the potential to bring Republican lawmakers into direct confrontation with federal courts . Wisconsin Republicans seek to hobble Democrats in lame-duck session Read more Democrats were given a big boost in the November election by record turnout in Wisconsin in early voting , with some 565,000 taking advantage of polling stations being open before election day . Now the Republicans want to whittle down the time allotted for such voting . A similar effort to restrict early voting was ruled unconstitutional in 2016 by a federal judge , James Peterson , who found that the Republican scheme “ intentionally discriminates on the basis of race ” . Peterson concluded that the conservative leadership had been specifically motivated by a desire to place hurdles to voting in the way of the dominant black population in the state ’ s largest city , Milwaukee . He wrote that the legislature ’ s goal was brazenly partisan : “ to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of Milwaukee ’ s African Americans ” . The revival of restrictions exposes the Wisconsin legislature to possible claims of contempt of court . The liberal issue advocacy group One Wisconsin Now told reporters on Monday that it was preparing for legal action against the lawmakers depending on the outcome of the lame-duck session . “ Republicans believe they lost the November election because too many people voted here , and are trying to undo the results of the vote by taking power from the elected governor and attorney general , ” said Scott Ross , One Wisconsin Now ’ s executive director . He added : “ We are a democracy only as long as elected officials don ’ t place themselves above the law . ”

Weeks after the midterms, several states face continued wrangling as GOP accused of undermining voters’ will A month after the midterm elections on 6 November, several states continue to be convulsed by bitter partisan fighting in which Republicans are being accused of flagrantly undemocratic attempts to steal victory from the clutches of their Democratic rivals. The most intense battle is playing out in Wisconsin, where Republican lawmakers are attempting a power grab that would strip key functions from the state’s incoming Democratic governor and attorney general. Opponents are denouncing the move, which sparked protests on Monday, as a blatantly undemocratic negation of the November election results. Similarly contentious efforts are afoot in Michigan, where Democrats regained three important statewide positions in November – that of governor, attorney general and secretary of state. Instead of accepting the will of voters, Republican lawmakers are now seeking to reduce the control of those post-holders over campaign finance and legal proceedings involving the state before the Democratic victors take office. Elsewhere, Georgia continues to be racked with disputes over claims of Republican voter suppression before Tuesday’s runoff election for the key post of secretary of state, while North Carolina is grappling with allegations of voter fraud in a close congressional race that remains unresolved. Georgia doesn't need another voter suppressor running its elections | Carol Anderson Read more Wisconsin’s power play is attracting the most nationwide attention given the unashamed attempt by state Republicans in effect to reverse the outcome of the November ballot, in which all six statewide positions were won by Democrats, including the governorship. The Republican-controlled legislature is hoping to vote on Tuesday on 40 proposed amendments contained in five bills that would starkly weaken the remit of the incoming Democratic officeholders even before they take office. The proposed changes would prevent the governor-elect, Tony Evers, and attorney general-elect, Josh Kaul, from honoring one of their central promises to voters in the midterm campaign: the pledge to pull Wisconsin out of a multi-state legal challenge to Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The new legislation would also gut the state’s department of justice of several core functions, transferring them from Kaul’s office to the Republican-controlled legislature. The incoming post-holders have decried their rivals’ tactics as fundamentally undemocratic. “It goes to the heart of what democracy is all about,” Evers told reporters, saying the flurry of conservative moves was “an embarrassment for the state”. Kaul told the Wisconsin State Journal: “This is fundamentally inconsistent with how a democracy is supposed to work. If this passes it’s going to significantly impair the ability of the state government to function effectively next year, because if it passes, it’s almost certain to end up in court.” Should the bills pass and end up for approval on the desk of the outgoing Republican governor, Scott Walker, they would bookend his eight years in office in an inferno of controversy. Walker started his governorship in 2011 by introducing the notorious Act 10, which removed most collective bargaining rights from public sector unions, sparking mass protests at the capitol building in Madison. Those protests were echoed on Monday with a fresh round of unrest in Madison, with opponents of the power grab heckling Republican lawmakers with chants of “Respect my vote”. The audacious effort to defy the will of voters is a direct repeat of the playbook first adopted by Republicans in North Carolina two years ago. In the wake of the 2016 elections, in which the Democrat Roy Cooper unseated the Republican governor Pat McCrory, GOP leaders staged a special session in which they pared down the governor’s executive powers three weeks before Cooper took office. This November, Republicans in North Carolina tried further to water down the governor’s powers with two constitutional amendments that would have limited his control over appointments to the state judiciary and board of elections. The amendments failed at the ballot box, but had they passed one commentator for the Raleigh News & Observer noted they would have reduced the role to that of “a potted plant”. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tony Evers, a Democrat, won the election for Wisconsin governor. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images North Carolina is back in the news this week with a continuing investigation by the state’s elections board into an extremely tight House race for the ninth congressional district. The Republican candidate Mark Harris is narrowly ahead in the contest with about 900 more votes out of 283,000 cast than his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready. The result has yet to be certified by the board, which is looking into irregularities over absentee ballots. Democratic voters in Bladen and Robeson counties, in the east of the state, have submitted affidavits stating that their absentee ballots were collected in unsealed envelopes by unidentified individuals. One voter said she had handed over her unfinished ballot to a woman who said she would “finish it herself”. The fallout of acrimonious elections on 6 November also continues to be felt in Georgia where a fierce battle is still being waged in a Tuesday runoff for the post of secretary of state, the office that controls the state’s electoral system. The Donald Trump-endorsed Republican candidate, Brad Raffensperger, was slightly ahead of his Democratic rival, John Barrow, in the first round. The Georgia contest is being fought over the vacated seat of Brian Kemp, who won the governor’s race in November amid a storm of protest that as the then secretary of state, he presided over a slew of voter suppression measures. A political group supporting the losing Democratic candidate, Stacey Abrams, has launched a federal lawsuit challenging the conduct of the state’s midterm elections at every level. The three states in the throes of partisan tussles are at the forefront of Republican voter suppression efforts. Part of Wisconsin’s proposed new legislation in the lame-duck session is a reduction in early voting days that has the potential to bring Republican lawmakers into direct confrontation with federal courts. Wisconsin Republicans seek to hobble Democrats in lame-duck session Read more Democrats were given a big boost in the November election by record turnout in Wisconsin in early voting, with some 565,000 taking advantage of polling stations being open before election day. Now the Republicans want to whittle down the time allotted for such voting. A similar effort to restrict early voting was ruled unconstitutional in 2016 by a federal judge, James Peterson, who found that the Republican scheme “intentionally discriminates on the basis of race”. Peterson concluded that the conservative leadership had been specifically motivated by a desire to place hurdles to voting in the way of the dominant black population in the state’s largest city, Milwaukee. He wrote that the legislature’s goal was brazenly partisan: “to suppress the reliably Democratic vote of Milwaukee’s African Americans”. The revival of restrictions exposes the Wisconsin legislature to possible claims of contempt of court. The liberal issue advocacy group One Wisconsin Now told reporters on Monday that it was preparing for legal action against the lawmakers depending on the outcome of the lame-duck session. “Republicans believe they lost the November election because too many people voted here, and are trying to undo the results of the vote by taking power from the elected governor and attorney general,” said Scott Ross, One Wisconsin Now’s executive director. He added: “We are a democracy only as long as elected officials don’t place themselves above the law.”

www.theguardian.com

left

6sKxj3Jcsh0iutTY

test

yACb3X2iiBtYDjK7

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/december/biological-male-whos-transgender-files-lawsuit-to-complete-in-all-female-beauty-pageant

Biological Male Who Identifies as Transgender Files Lawsuit to Compete in All-Female Beauty Pageant

2019-12-19

Transgender athletes have disrupted women 's sports across the country . Now , a transgender beauty pageant contestant , who 's biologically male , is suing pageant organizers after being denied the opportunity to compete in the Miss Oregon pageant because of his sex . Williamette Week reports Anita Green has filed a lawsuit Dec. 16 in federal court against the United States of America Pageants claiming discrimination and seeking to force the pageant to change its rules along with `` unspecified monetary damages '' to be determined at trial . `` This is about giving minorities a voice , '' Green told the paper . `` I believe I 'm beautiful , and I want to set an example for all women – cisgender and transgender – that beauty does n't have to fit into specific molds . '' The pageant 's website , however , clearly defines its rules – only `` natural born female '' contestants are permitted . The pageant 's eligibility requirements also bar any contestant from competing who has posed nude in film or print . In addition , would-be contestants who have given birth are also ineligible . The pageant organizers list all of the eligibility requirements on their website for the four pageants they sponsor . According to Williamette Week , when Green informed the organizers via Facebook messages that he was transgender , Miss Oregon director Tanice Smith responded , `` Our rules and regulations allow same-sex marriage , however , this is a natural pageant . '' Smith then offered to help Green find another pageant . That 's when Green threatened legal action , because `` this is clearly discrimination . '' The pageant returned Green 's $ 195 entry fee after the exchange . If Green were to win the suit , it could change the landscape of beauty pageants across the country , argues Willamette Week : `` If she wins , it could establish a legal precedent for Oregon and 20 other states with similar nondiscrimination laws , requiring pageant organizers to allow transgender people to compete . '' Amanda Prestigiacomo writing for The Daily Wire noted : `` In other words , you can kiss all-female pageants goodbye . ''

Transgender athletes have disrupted women's sports across the country. Now, a transgender beauty pageant contestant, who's biologically male, is suing pageant organizers after being denied the opportunity to compete in the Miss Oregon pageant because of his sex. Williamette Week reports Anita Green has filed a lawsuit Dec. 16 in federal court against the United States of America Pageants claiming discrimination and seeking to force the pageant to change its rules along with "unspecified monetary damages" to be determined at trial. "This is about giving minorities a voice," Green told the paper. "I believe I'm beautiful, and I want to set an example for all women – cisgender and transgender – that beauty doesn't have to fit into specific molds." The pageant's website, however, clearly defines its rules – only "natural born female" contestants are permitted. The pageant's eligibility requirements also bar any contestant from competing who has posed nude in film or print. In addition, would-be contestants who have given birth are also ineligible. The pageant organizers list all of the eligibility requirements on their website for the four pageants they sponsor. According to Williamette Week, when Green informed the organizers via Facebook messages that he was transgender, Miss Oregon director Tanice Smith responded, "Our rules and regulations allow same-sex marriage, however, this is a natural pageant." Smith then offered to help Green find another pageant. That's when Green threatened legal action, because "this is clearly discrimination." The pageant returned Green's $195 entry fee after the exchange. If Green were to win the suit, it could change the landscape of beauty pageants across the country, argues Willamette Week: "If she wins, it could establish a legal precedent for Oregon and 20 other states with similar nondiscrimination laws, requiring pageant organizers to allow transgender people to compete." Amanda Prestigiacomo writing for The Daily Wire noted: "In other words, you can kiss all-female pageants goodbye."

www1.cbn.com

right

yACb3X2iiBtYDjK7

test

fVz2H0NIfil3TJCn

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/27/clintons-biggest-regret-at-state-benghazi/

Clinton's biggest regret at State: Benghazi

2014-01-27

( CNN ) - Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi , Libya was her biggest regret during the four years she served as America 's top diplomat . In a speech to the National Automobile Dealers Association meeting in New Orleans , Louisiana , Clinton addressed a number of auto-related topics , including some of the more colorful cars former President Bill Clinton has owned and the fact that she has n't driven a car since 1996 . `` My biggest regret is what happened in Benghazi , '' Clinton said in response to a question from David Westcott , the outgoing chairman of NADA . `` It was a terrible tragedy losing four Americans , two diplomats and now it is public so I can say two CIA operatives . '' Clinton said that while at the State Department , some of the decisions she made were `` based on imperfect information , '' and that despite the right intentions came with `` unforeseen consequences , unpredictable twists and turns . '' Benghazi , she said , `` illustrated one of the biggest problems that I faced as Secretary of State : We have a lot of dangerous locations where we send not our military , but our civilians . And they go in , they have language skills often , they try to assess what is going on in the area , but they are vulnerable . '' This is not the first time she has said that she regretted the Benghazi attack , but she rarely addresses the incident , especially in this detail . In a global town hall in January 2013 , Clinton made similar comments , stating that `` We have to understand from the very beginning you ca n't control everything . '' The remarks also come just days after the one year anniversary of Clinton 's testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Benghazi attack . The U.S. consulate in Libya was attacked on September 11 , 2012 . Four Americans , including the U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens , were killed . Initially , the attack was thought to be perpetrated by an angry mob responding to a video made in the U.S. which mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed , but was later determined to be a terrorist attack . Questions about Benghazi have dogged Clinton since the attack and some some have questioned whether the former first lady is to blame for Steven 's death – the first U.S. ambassador killed on duty in over thirty years . In a Senate report put out earlier this month , the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound was deemed `` likely preventable '' based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating . Benghazi is likely to continue to dog Clinton as she considers whether to run for president in 2016 . Since the attack , Republicans have held Clinton culpable and some have said the attack should disqualify her from holding future elected office . The speech , like many other paid remarks she 's made , was due to be closed to the press . On Friday however , event organizers notified CNN that Clinton 's comments would be open to cameras at the request of her aides . Like she has at past public appearances , Clinton was coy about whether she 's thinking about a 2016 run , despite the fact that the audience applauded at the prospect . `` I am not thinking about it , '' Clinton said . `` I am trying to get other people not to think about it . I 'll think about it , you know , in the future sometime . '' She added , `` We can worry about the next election later . I think we spend too much time looking over the horizon instead of looking straight ahead and saying , 'hey , we can do better . ' '' Despite Clinton 's denials , a cadre of former aides and supporters have begun to build the groundwork for a possible run in 2016 . In addition to groups like Ready for Hillary and Emily 's List - two pro-Clinton fundraising machines - Priorities USA - which was the top super PAC supporting President Barack Obama 's 2012 re-election - moved last week to get behind Clinton and announced they will begin raising big money to help elect Clinton to the White House . Since leaving the State Department in 2013 , the former Secretary of State has kept up an active schedule , collecting paychecks on the corporate speaking circuit and picking up hardware at award ceremonies across the country . The auto sales group would not comment on how much they were paying Clinton to appear at the winter meeting . Because the speech was to a group of people who own and operate auto dealerships across the country , much of Clinton 's remarks were centered around how the auto industry has helped build the American middle class and helped the country recover from the economic downturn . Clinton also made an auto admission of her own , telling the audience that because of the security around her , she has not driven a car since 1996 . `` One of the regrets I have about my public life is that I ca n't drive anymore , '' she said . `` My husband thinks that 's a blessing , but he is the one who should talk . Last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996 and I remember it very well and unfortunately so does the Secret Service which is why I have n't driven since then . '' Other auto admissions made : Bill Clinton has owned both a 1970 burnt orange Opel station wagon – `` With all due respect , one of the ugliest cars ever built '' – and a Chevy El Camino Pickup truck with the bed in the back covered in astro turf . Though National Automobile Dealers Association convention organizers said they were excited about welcoming Clinton as their keynote speaker , some members of the organization reportedly planned to boycott the event because Clinton was speaking . `` I do n't have a problem with them meeting with her , '' Jon Lind , general manager of a Ford-Lincoln dealership in tiny Burlington , Colorado , told Auto News . `` But when I see the announcement that the 'Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton ' will be giving the keynote address , the hair on my back just sticks up . Why her ? '' The group has long invited high profile politicians and policy makers to address the group . In 2007 , President George W. Bush spoke at the conference and the 2009 convention saw former Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W . Bush address the audience .

6 years ago Updated 1:33 p.m. ET, 1/27/2014 (CNN) - Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya was her biggest regret during the four years she served as America's top diplomat. In a speech to the National Automobile Dealers Association meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, Clinton addressed a number of auto-related topics, including some of the more colorful cars former President Bill Clinton has owned and the fact that she hasn't driven a car since 1996. Follow @politicalticker Follow @danmericacnn "My biggest regret is what happened in Benghazi," Clinton said in response to a question from David Westcott, the outgoing chairman of NADA. "It was a terrible tragedy losing four Americans, two diplomats and now it is public so I can say two CIA operatives." Clinton said that while at the State Department, some of the decisions she made were "based on imperfect information," and that despite the right intentions came with "unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns." Benghazi, she said, "illustrated one of the biggest problems that I faced as Secretary of State: We have a lot of dangerous locations where we send not our military, but our civilians. And they go in, they have language skills often, they try to assess what is going on in the area, but they are vulnerable." This is not the first time she has said that she regretted the Benghazi attack, but she rarely addresses the incident, especially in this detail. In a global town hall in January 2013, Clinton made similar comments, stating that "We have to understand from the very beginning you can't control everything." The remarks also come just days after the one year anniversary of Clinton's testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Benghazi attack. The U.S. consulate in Libya was attacked on September 11, 2012. Four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were killed. Initially, the attack was thought to be perpetrated by an angry mob responding to a video made in the U.S. which mocked Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, but was later determined to be a terrorist attack. Questions about Benghazi have dogged Clinton since the attack and some some have questioned whether the former first lady is to blame for Steven's death – the first U.S. ambassador killed on duty in over thirty years. In a Senate report put out earlier this month, the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound was deemed "likely preventable" based on known security shortfalls and prior warnings that the security situation there was deteriorating. Benghazi is likely to continue to dog Clinton as she considers whether to run for president in 2016. Since the attack, Republicans have held Clinton culpable and some have said the attack should disqualify her from holding future elected office. The speech, like many other paid remarks she's made, was due to be closed to the press. On Friday however, event organizers notified CNN that Clinton's comments would be open to cameras at the request of her aides. Like she has at past public appearances, Clinton was coy about whether she's thinking about a 2016 run, despite the fact that the audience applauded at the prospect. "I am not thinking about it," Clinton said. "I am trying to get other people not to think about it. I'll think about it, you know, in the future sometime." She added, "We can worry about the next election later. I think we spend too much time looking over the horizon instead of looking straight ahead and saying, 'hey, we can do better.'" Despite Clinton's denials, a cadre of former aides and supporters have begun to build the groundwork for a possible run in 2016. In addition to groups like Ready for Hillary and Emily's List - two pro-Clinton fundraising machines - Priorities USA - which was the top super PAC supporting President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election - moved last week to get behind Clinton and announced they will begin raising big money to help elect Clinton to the White House. Since leaving the State Department in 2013, the former Secretary of State has kept up an active schedule, collecting paychecks on the corporate speaking circuit and picking up hardware at award ceremonies across the country. The auto sales group would not comment on how much they were paying Clinton to appear at the winter meeting. Because the speech was to a group of people who own and operate auto dealerships across the country, much of Clinton's remarks were centered around how the auto industry has helped build the American middle class and helped the country recover from the economic downturn. Clinton also made an auto admission of her own, telling the audience that because of the security around her, she has not driven a car since 1996. "One of the regrets I have about my public life is that I can't drive anymore," she said. "My husband thinks that's a blessing, but he is the one who should talk. Last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996 and I remember it very well and unfortunately so does the Secret Service which is why I haven't driven since then." Other auto admissions made: Bill Clinton has owned both a 1970 burnt orange Opel station wagon – "With all due respect, one of the ugliest cars ever built" – and a Chevy El Camino Pickup truck with the bed in the back covered in astro turf. Though National Automobile Dealers Association convention organizers said they were excited about welcoming Clinton as their keynote speaker, some members of the organization reportedly planned to boycott the event because Clinton was speaking. "I don't have a problem with them meeting with her," Jon Lind, general manager of a Ford-Lincoln dealership in tiny Burlington, Colorado, told Auto News. "But when I see the announcement that the 'Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton' will be giving the keynote address, the hair on my back just sticks up. Why her?" The group has long invited high profile politicians and policy makers to address the group. In 2007, President George W. Bush spoke at the conference and the 2009 convention saw former Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush address the audience. CNN's Athena Jones contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

fVz2H0NIfil3TJCn

test

g9kBQZQth2rTt4CU

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/november/lobbyists-get-the-boot-as-trump-team-reshuffles

Lobbyists Get the Boot as Trump Team Reshuffles

2016-11-16

President-elect Donald Trump is huddling with his transition team , working to fill key positions in his cabinet . `` Very organized process taking place as I decide on cabinet and many other positions , '' Trump posted on Twitter . One of the first moves by the leader of the transition team , Vice President-elect Mike Pence , was to purge any lobbyists from official roles , making good on a campaign promise . Meanwhile , the Trump team is reshuffling . Gone is adviser and former Congressman Mike Rogers , R-Mich. , although he simply said his work was done . He 's been replaced by former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney . Also , former presidential candidate Ben Carson turned down a cabinet job , saying he preferred to work from outside the government . But he will probably still be an unofficial adviser to the new president . And there are reports Trump is considering Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , for attorney general . The two met Tuesday . One appointment being picked apart by the media and Democrats is campaign strategist Steve Bannon , former head of the conservative news outlet Breitbart.com . He 's been accused by the Left of catering to white nationalists . `` People did n't vote for Trump so that he could bring a white supremacist into the White House , '' Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass. , complained . Brietbart.com not only disagrees with that label , The Hill website reports it plans to sue an unnamed media organization over it . `` Breitbart News can not allow such vicious racial lies to go unchallenged , especially by cynical , politically-motivated competitors seeking to diminish its 42 million monthly readers and its number one in the world political Facebook page , '' the news outlet said in a statement . `` Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms . Always has , always will . '' Meanwhile on Capitol Hill , many Republican lawmakers who spent the past year avoiding Trump are now rushing to jump on the `` Trump Train . '' The news comes as House Republicans re-elected their entire leadership team , including Speaker Paul Ryan , who announced , `` Welcome to the dawn of a new , unified Republican government . '' The Democrats , whose political power in Washington is now greatly reduced , are surveying the wreckage from the recent election and trying to chart a new course . They postponed their leadership election and could oust California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as minority leader . But congressional Republicans , with a lot of wind in their sails and an ambitious agenda , are getting ready to hit the ground running when Trump assumes office , taking on Obamacare and promising , among many other things , the most ambitious overhaul of the tax code in three decades .

President-elect Donald Trump is huddling with his transition team, working to fill key positions in his cabinet. "Very organized process taking place as I decide on cabinet and many other positions," Trump posted on Twitter. One of the first moves by the leader of the transition team, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, was to purge any lobbyists from official roles, making good on a campaign promise. Meanwhile, the Trump team is reshuffling. Gone is adviser and former Congressman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., although he simply said his work was done. He's been replaced by former Reagan administration official Frank Gaffney. Also, former presidential candidate Ben Carson turned down a cabinet job, saying he preferred to work from outside the government. But he will probably still be an unofficial adviser to the new president. And there are reports Trump is considering Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for attorney general. The two met Tuesday. One appointment being picked apart by the media and Democrats is campaign strategist Steve Bannon, former head of the conservative news outlet Breitbart.com. He's been accused by the Left of catering to white nationalists. "People didn't vote for Trump so that he could bring a white supremacist into the White House," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., complained. Brietbart.com not only disagrees with that label, The Hill website reports it plans to sue an unnamed media organization over it. "Breitbart News cannot allow such vicious racial lies to go unchallenged, especially by cynical, politically-motivated competitors seeking to diminish its 42 million monthly readers and its number one in the world political Facebook page," the news outlet said in a statement. "Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms. Always has, always will." Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, many Republican lawmakers who spent the past year avoiding Trump are now rushing to jump on the "Trump Train." The news comes as House Republicans re-elected their entire leadership team, including Speaker Paul Ryan, who announced, "Welcome to the dawn of a new, unified Republican government." The Democrats, whose political power in Washington is now greatly reduced, are surveying the wreckage from the recent election and trying to chart a new course. They postponed their leadership election and could oust California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as minority leader. But congressional Republicans, with a lot of wind in their sails and an ambitious agenda, are getting ready to hit the ground running when Trump assumes office, taking on Obamacare and promising, among many other things, the most ambitious overhaul of the tax code in three decades.

www1.cbn.com

right

g9kBQZQth2rTt4CU

test

of4k9lyEdGXmqrVI

fbi

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/06/19/after-the-ig-report-lets-kill-the-fbi-wh

After the IG Report, Let’s Kill the FBI While We Can

2018-06-19

J.D. Tuccille, Jim Lindgren, Brian Doherty, Ronald Bailey, Eric Boehm, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis

If you hoped for a scathing and yet inconclusive report that would satisfy absolutely none of the partisan players claiming the FBI played favorites in the 2016 presidential election , Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz dropped exactly that last week . Basically , the IG found no evidence that the FBI intentionally acted to affect the outcome of the election , but that its staff and leadership behaved like rogue , politicized clowns . And if that 's all we can agree upon , perhaps it 's enough to pull the plug on this excessively powerful internal security force that 's been playing at politics since its founding . For Republicans , among the more important tidbits in the report are exchanges of politically charged text messages between FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and his romantic partner , FBI Special Counsel to the Deputy Director Lisa Page . As the report details , `` In a text message on August 8 , 2016 , Page stated , ' [ Trump 's ] not ever going to become president , right ? Right ? ! ' Strzok responded , 'No . No he 's not . We 'll stop it . ' '' `` The report shows how the FBI became infected with politics and continuously disregarded rules and procedures to the detriment of Donald Trump and benefit of Hillary Clinton. , '' Rep. Darrell Issa ( R-Calif. ) quickly snapped off in response to the report 's publication . Democrats are equally angry over then FBI Director James Comey 's decision to announce just days before the election the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton 's email practices . `` Much like with his July 5 announcement , we found that in making this decision , Comey engaged in ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice , '' noted the IG report . `` The stark conclusion we draw after reviewing this report is that the FBI 's actions helped Donald Trump become President , '' responded Representatives Jerrold Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) and Elijah Cummings ( D-Md . ) right on schedule . Despite the inevitable reactions from the right and the left , the IG `` did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations , including political bias , directly affected the specific investigative actions '' of the investigating agents . And , after calling out the then FBI director for breaking from established procedures and flying by the seat of his pants for the greater glory of the bureau and his own cushy role therein , the IG `` did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey 's part . '' That leaves plenty of room for continued argument over unquestionably unprofessional behavior . Worthy of attention is the degree to which some agents seemed to believe the email investigation was pointless , with a predetermined outcome . An agent identified as Agent 1 texted a colleague multiple times to complain about `` work and bullshit for a political exercise '' and `` a case that doesnt matter and is predestined… '' Such concerns were obviously shared by the IG when it was discovered that Comey 's July 5 statement about the outcome of the investigation into Clinton 's email practices had first been drafted in May . `` We asked Comey about the date of this initial draft and whether it indicated that he had predecided the outcome of the investigation even before the interview of former Secretary Clinton , '' notes the report . Comey responded , `` [ I ] f you were in my position after nine months you 're incompetent if you do n't know where this is going . '' Maybe so , but if word got out that the final take was being drawn up months before the main target was interviewed , you could see why some agents might feel like they were just going through the motions . And word was bound to get out . Comey 's draft statement was shared with several top staffers , and the IG report details how much bureau decision-making was driven by the knowledge that the FBI leaked like a sieve . `` [ I ] f we do n't put out a letter , somebody is going to leak it , '' then FBI General Counsel James A. Baker told the IG . Baker resigned in May after being named as a likely leaker himself . Reactions to the report reveal little chance that Teams Red and Teams Blue will agree anytime soon on who was most screwed-over by James Comey and his G-Men . But there is a remarkably harmonious chorus of disdain about the conduct of the FBI . `` Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz 's 500-page report covers plenty , '' writes Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal . `` [ B ] ut it can be distilled to two words he uses to describe the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the 2016 election : insubordination and bias . Two terms that are chilling in connection with such a powerful agency . '' `` Mr. Comey receives a thrashing in the report , '' sniffs the New York Times editorial board . `` Mr. Horowitz found that the former F.B.I . director repeatedly crossed the line from arrogance to insubordination . '' As I 've pointed out before , the FBI has a long and unpleasant history of entangling itself in politics . The FBI `` has placed more emphasis on domestic dissent than on organized crime and , according to some , let its efforts against foreign spies suffer because of the amount of time spent checking up on American protest groups , '' the U.S. Senate 's Church Committee reported in 1976 . The FBI maintained and expanded its power through the decades by playing to whoever held office . In former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover 's 1972 obituary , the New York Times reported , `` Roosevelt liked him ; he slapped the F.B.I . director 's back and laughed when Mr. Hoover confessed that an agent had been caught in the act of illegal wiretapping , and he was amused at the bureau 's temerity in putting a spy on Harry Hopkins , Roosevelt 's counselor , in London . Roosevelt 's assignment of counter-espionage duties to the F.B.I . as war loomed in 1936 expanded the bureau 's size and heightened Mr. Hoover 's prestige . But , when the Republicans won the White House again in 1952 , Mr. Hoover 's loyalty swung immediately to the new team . '' But now the FBI has managed to anger both major political parties and much of the country . It 's demonstrated its capacity for political meddling and misuse of power—even if people disagree on who was on the receiving end . That offers a rare opportunity to pull the plug on a dangerously powerful agency at a moment when its potential for bias , arrogance , insubordination , and plain incompetence are on public display . Let 's kill the FBI while we can .

If you hoped for a scathing and yet inconclusive report that would satisfy absolutely none of the partisan players claiming the FBI played favorites in the 2016 presidential election, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz dropped exactly that last week. Basically, the IG found no evidence that the FBI intentionally acted to affect the outcome of the election, but that its staff and leadership behaved like rogue, politicized clowns. And if that's all we can agree upon, perhaps it's enough to pull the plug on this excessively powerful internal security force that's been playing at politics since its founding. For Republicans, among the more important tidbits in the report are exchanges of politically charged text messages between FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and his romantic partner, FBI Special Counsel to the Deputy Director Lisa Page. As the report details, "In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated, '[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!' Strzok responded, 'No. No he's not. We'll stop it.'" "The report shows how the FBI became infected with politics and continuously disregarded rules and procedures to the detriment of Donald Trump and benefit of Hillary Clinton.," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quickly snapped off in response to the report's publication. Democrats are equally angry over then FBI Director James Comey's decision to announce just days before the election the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices. "Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice," noted the IG report. "The stark conclusion we draw after reviewing this report is that the FBI's actions helped Donald Trump become President," responded Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) right on schedule. Despite the inevitable reactions from the right and the left, the IG "did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions" of the investigating agents. And, after calling out the then FBI director for breaking from established procedures and flying by the seat of his pants for the greater glory of the bureau and his own cushy role therein, the IG "did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey's part." That leaves plenty of room for continued argument over unquestionably unprofessional behavior. Worthy of attention is the degree to which some agents seemed to believe the email investigation was pointless, with a predetermined outcome. An agent identified as Agent 1 texted a colleague multiple times to complain about "work and bullshit for a political exercise" and "a case that doesnt matter and is predestined…" Such concerns were obviously shared by the IG when it was discovered that Comey's July 5 statement about the outcome of the investigation into Clinton's email practices had first been drafted in May. "We asked Comey about the date of this initial draft and whether it indicated that he had predecided the outcome of the investigation even before the interview of former Secretary Clinton," notes the report. Comey responded, "[I]f you were in my position after nine months you're incompetent if you don't know where this is going." Maybe so, but if word got out that the final take was being drawn up months before the main target was interviewed, you could see why some agents might feel like they were just going through the motions. And word was bound to get out. Comey's draft statement was shared with several top staffers, and the IG report details how much bureau decision-making was driven by the knowledge that the FBI leaked like a sieve. "[I]f we don't put out a letter, somebody is going to leak it," then FBI General Counsel James A. Baker told the IG. Baker resigned in May after being named as a likely leaker himself. Reactions to the report reveal little chance that Teams Red and Teams Blue will agree anytime soon on who was most screwed-over by James Comey and his G-Men. But there is a remarkably harmonious chorus of disdain about the conduct of the FBI. "Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's 500-page report covers plenty," writes Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal. "[B]ut it can be distilled to two words he uses to describe the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the 2016 election: insubordination and bias. Two terms that are chilling in connection with such a powerful agency." "Mr. Comey receives a thrashing in the report," sniffs the New York Times editorial board. "Mr. Horowitz found that the former F.B.I. director repeatedly crossed the line from arrogance to insubordination." As I've pointed out before, the FBI has a long and unpleasant history of entangling itself in politics. The FBI "has placed more emphasis on domestic dissent than on organized crime and, according to some, let its efforts against foreign spies suffer because of the amount of time spent checking up on American protest groups," the U.S. Senate's Church Committee reported in 1976. The FBI maintained and expanded its power through the decades by playing to whoever held office. In former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's 1972 obituary, the New York Times reported, "Roosevelt liked him; he slapped the F.B.I. director's back and laughed when Mr. Hoover confessed that an agent had been caught in the act of illegal wiretapping, and he was amused at the bureau's temerity in putting a spy on Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's counselor, in London. Roosevelt's assignment of counter-espionage duties to the F.B.I. as war loomed in 1936 expanded the bureau's size and heightened Mr. Hoover's prestige. But, when the Republicans won the White House again in 1952, Mr. Hoover's loyalty swung immediately to the new team." But now the FBI has managed to anger both major political parties and much of the country. It's demonstrated its capacity for political meddling and misuse of power—even if people disagree on who was on the receiving end. That offers a rare opportunity to pull the plug on a dangerously powerful agency at a moment when its potential for bias, arrogance, insubordination, and plain incompetence are on public display. Let's kill the FBI while we can.

www.reason.com

right

of4k9lyEdGXmqrVI

test

x72pQdR58eE1mytO

fbi

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-counsel-months-jail-warranted-trump-aide-turned/story?id=57249667

Special counsel says up to 6 months jail 'warranted' for Trump aide-turned cooperating witness

Special counsel Robert Mueller is recommending a judge sentence one-time Donald Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos to up to six months in jail for lying to the FBI , a request that includes a strong rebuke of a man who allegedly failed to assist with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections , according to documents filed with the court . Interested in Russia Investigation ? Add Russia Investigation as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Russia Investigation news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Prosecutors did not make a specific recommendation but urged the judge to give Papadopoulos jail time and said a sentence within the guideline range of up to six months imprisonment was `` appropriate and warranted . '' The government said he should be held accountable for having repeatedly misled them “ about critical facts , in an investigation of national importance , after having been explicitly warned that lying to the FBI was a federal offense . The nature and circumstances of the offense warrant a sentence of incarceration . ” Papadopoulos ’ wife Simona on Friday evening told the ABC7 Chicago I-Team that “ unfortunately they [ prosecutors ] didn ’ t value George ’ s cooperation. ” Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos said that federal authorities have ignored evidence favorable to her husband . Papadopoulos , who had served as a volunteer to the Trump team , traveled as an emissary from the campaign to foreign leaders in the Middle East and the Mediterranean . In July 2017 , he was charged with lying to the FBI about his contacts during the campaign with a professor who had “ substantial connections to Russian government officials , '' and accused of trying to conceal his contacts from the FBI . Court records filed by special counsel Robert Mueller describe how the professor approached Papadopoulos after learning of his role in the Trump campaign . The court filing does not name the professor , but he has since been widely identified as Joseph Mifsud , then the director of the London Academy of Diplomacy . ███ has been unable to reach Mifsud for comment . The professor told Papadopoulos the Russians had “ dirt ” on Democrat Hillary Clinton in the form of “ thousands of emails ” that they had procured , according to the court documents . Papadopoulos reportedly bragged about that offer to an Australian diplomat , who then tipped off the FBI and launched that agency ’ s counterintelligence investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia . Papadopoulos was arrested by the FBI when he arrived at Dulles International Airport in July 2017 and charged under seal . He agreed to cooperate with investigators in exchange for a lighter sentence . The government ’ s sentencing recommendation includes clear signs the Mueller team felt betrayed by Papadopoulos after he struck a plea agreement and pledged his full cooperation . The filing says Papadopoulos repeatedly withheld key details about his contacts with Russians and neglected to turn over the cell phone he used to communicate with Mifsud until the government expressly asked for it . “ His lies negatively affected the FBI ’ s Russia investigation , and prevented the FBI from effectively identifying and confronting witnesses in a timely fashion , ” the filing says . “ His lies were not momentary lapses . He lied repeatedly over the course of more than two hours , and his lies were designed to conceal facts he knew were critical : the importance of the information he received from the Professor , and his own communications and contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries during the Trump campaign . ” The filing also says that , even after his initial FBI interview , Papadopoulos made repeated attempts to land jobs with the fledgling Trump administration , including a high level post with the National Security Council . “ In the hours after being interviewed by the FBI , the defendant submitted his biography and a description of work he did on the campaign in an effort to obtain a position as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Energy Department , ” the filing says . Papadopoulos continued to deceive Mueller investigators during a critical period in early 2017 , when Mifsud was visiting Washington , D.C. , and could have been detained and questioned effectively . “ The defendant ’ s lies undermined investigators ’ ability to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while still in the United States , ” it says . “ The Professor left the United States on February 11 , 2017 and he has not returned to the United States since then . ” Papadopoulos ’ s legal team will file their own sentencing assessment to the court in two weeks , and is expected to ask for probation . The sentence recommendation comes as Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos has mounted the latest in a series of publicity campaigns – this one suggesting her husband has misgivings about his plea agreement . Back in December , in an interview with ABC ’ s George Stephanopoulos , she had described her spouse as the `` John Dean '' of the Russia probe , a reference to the Watergate-era former White House counsel who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice and became a key witness against President Richard Nixon and his aides . “ George is very loyal to his country , ” she said at the time . “ He is already on the right side of history . I think he will make a big difference . ” Earlier this month , Papadopoulos received a sealed sentencing document prepared for the court . After that , the defendant ’ s wife began an aggressive media blitz in which she strongly hinted her husband is considering changing lawyers and rescinding his plea deal . After appearing before Democratic members of the House intelligence committee earlier this summer , she said that Papadopoulos has come to believe the professor may have been working for Western intelligence agencies and set him up . `` I actually never said explicitly that it was an entrapment from the FBI . I just said that he definitely was ... the target of a different set-up , '' she said . In June , the Daily Caller News Foundation reported that Simona Papadopoulos said , `` It looks to be one among a series of attempts to entrap George , '' adding , `` The question today to me [ is whether ] these people are simply shady businessmen or are they part of a greater attempt to entrap George in illegal activity . ” Since her husband ’ s guilty plea in exchange for cooperation with the Mueller probe , Papadopoulos has been living in Chicago . Federal investigators have imposed restrictions on his travel until his sentencing , which is now scheduled for September 7 .

Special counsel Robert Mueller is recommending a judge sentence one-time Donald Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos to up to six months in jail for lying to the FBI, a request that includes a strong rebuke of a man who allegedly failed to assist with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, according to documents filed with the court. Interested in Russia Investigation? Add Russia Investigation as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Russia Investigation news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest Prosecutors did not make a specific recommendation but urged the judge to give Papadopoulos jail time and said a sentence within the guideline range of up to six months imprisonment was "appropriate and warranted." The government said he should be held accountable for having repeatedly misled them “about critical facts, in an investigation of national importance, after having been explicitly warned that lying to the FBI was a federal offense. The nature and circumstances of the offense warrant a sentence of incarceration.” Papadopoulos’ wife Simona on Friday evening told the ABC7 Chicago I-Team that “unfortunately they [prosecutors] didn’t value George’s cooperation.” Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos said that federal authorities have ignored evidence favorable to her husband. Papadopoulos, who had served as a volunteer to the Trump team, traveled as an emissary from the campaign to foreign leaders in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. In July 2017, he was charged with lying to the FBI about his contacts during the campaign with a professor who had “substantial connections to Russian government officials," and accused of trying to conceal his contacts from the FBI. AFP/Getty Images Court records filed by special counsel Robert Mueller describe how the professor approached Papadopoulos after learning of his role in the Trump campaign. The court filing does not name the professor, but he has since been widely identified as Joseph Mifsud, then the director of the London Academy of Diplomacy. ABC News has been unable to reach Mifsud for comment. The professor told Papadopoulos the Russians had “dirt” on Democrat Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails” that they had procured, according to the court documents. Papadopoulos reportedly bragged about that offer to an Australian diplomat, who then tipped off the FBI and launched that agency’s counterintelligence investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Papadopoulos was arrested by the FBI when he arrived at Dulles International Airport in July 2017 and charged under seal. He agreed to cooperate with investigators in exchange for a lighter sentence. The government’s sentencing recommendation includes clear signs the Mueller team felt betrayed by Papadopoulos after he struck a plea agreement and pledged his full cooperation. The filing says Papadopoulos repeatedly withheld key details about his contacts with Russians and neglected to turn over the cell phone he used to communicate with Mifsud until the government expressly asked for it. “His lies negatively affected the FBI’s Russia investigation, and prevented the FBI from effectively identifying and confronting witnesses in a timely fashion,” the filing says. “His lies were not momentary lapses. He lied repeatedly over the course of more than two hours, and his lies were designed to conceal facts he knew were critical: the importance of the information he received from the Professor, and his own communications and contacts with Russians and Russian intermediaries during the Trump campaign.” The filing also says that, even after his initial FBI interview, Papadopoulos made repeated attempts to land jobs with the fledgling Trump administration, including a high level post with the National Security Council. “In the hours after being interviewed by the FBI, the defendant submitted his biography and a description of work he did on the campaign in an effort to obtain a position as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Energy Department,” the filing says. Papadopoulos continued to deceive Mueller investigators during a critical period in early 2017, when Mifsud was visiting Washington, D.C., and could have been detained and questioned effectively. “The defendant’s lies undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while still in the United States,” it says. “The Professor left the United States on February 11, 2017 and he has not returned to the United States since then.” Papadopoulos’s legal team will file their own sentencing assessment to the court in two weeks, and is expected to ask for probation. The sentence recommendation comes as Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos has mounted the latest in a series of publicity campaigns – this one suggesting her husband has misgivings about his plea agreement. Obtained by ABC News Back in December, in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, she had described her spouse as the "John Dean" of the Russia probe, a reference to the Watergate-era former White House counsel who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice and became a key witness against President Richard Nixon and his aides. “George is very loyal to his country,” she said at the time. “He is already on the right side of history. I think he will make a big difference.” Earlier this month, Papadopoulos received a sealed sentencing document prepared for the court. After that, the defendant’s wife began an aggressive media blitz in which she strongly hinted her husband is considering changing lawyers and rescinding his plea deal. After appearing before Democratic members of the House intelligence committee earlier this summer, she said that Papadopoulos has come to believe the professor may have been working for Western intelligence agencies and set him up. "I actually never said explicitly that it was an entrapment from the FBI. I just said that he definitely was...the target of a different set-up," she said. In June, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported that Simona Papadopoulos said, "It looks to be one among a series of attempts to entrap George," adding, "The question today to me [is whether] these people are simply shady businessmen or are they part of a greater attempt to entrap George in illegal activity.” Since her husband’s guilty plea in exchange for cooperation with the Mueller probe, Papadopoulos has been living in Chicago. Federal investigators have imposed restrictions on his travel until his sentencing, which is now scheduled for September 7.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

x72pQdR58eE1mytO

test

CqUsLOS9Xp7XxLIx

fbi

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/11/david-kris-fbi-fisa-carter-page-nunes/

Ex-DOJ Official Picked To Assist FISA Reform Was Ardent Defender Of FBI’s Surveillance Of Carter Page

2020-01-11

Former DOJ official David Kris was picked Friday to oversee the FBI ’ s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general ’ s report . Kris was an ardent defender of the FBI ’ s surveillance of Carter Page . He was also a vocal critic of Republicans who suggested the FBI misled the surveillance court in its applications to wiretap Page . In one essay , Kris endorsed a suggestion that Rep. Devin Nunes should face obstruction of justice charges . Nunes told ███ News Foundation the choice of Kris is “ shocking and inexplicable . ” A former Justice Department official picked Friday to oversee the FBI ’ s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general ’ s report was one of the many pundits during the Russia probe to defend the bureau ’ s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page . David S. Kris , a former assistant attorney general for national security , was also an outspoken critic of Rep. Devin Nunes and other congressional Republicans who accused the FBI of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( FISC ) in applications to wiretap Page . An inspector general ’ s ( IG ) report released Dec. 9 , 2019 , largely vindicated Republicans and Page . The report identified 17 errors and omissions the FBI made in its four applications to surveil Page . The IG also said the FBI was unable to corroborate allegations that Page was a Russian agent . Judge James E. Boasberg , who presides over the FISC , tapped Kris serve as amicus curiae for a review of the FBI ’ s handling of the Page surveillance warrants . In that role , Kris will “ assist ” the FISC in assessing the FBI ’ s implementation of a series of reforms to address the problems uncovered in the IG report . Nunes and Page both panned the choice of Kris given his past commentary defending the FBI . “ It ’ s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside Comey , McCabe , or Schiff , ” Nunes , the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee , told ███ News Foundation . Page also weighed in on Kris ’ s selection to oversee the FBI ’ s reforms . “ If there were any hope for the system fixing this FISA mess , it extinguished with David Kris ’ appointment , ” he told The DCNF . “ Nobody trying to fix the rampant abuse and coverup plaguing the entire FISA process would have picked Kris , ” continued Page , who called Kris a “ longtime FISA apologist . ” “ Instead , you appoint Kris for only one reason : you don ’ t want the system fixed . You just want it to look like you do . ” Kris , who served at the Justice Department from 2009 to 2011 , asserted in his writings during the Trump-Russia probe that Republicans had “ falsely accused ” the FBI of misleading the FISC in its wiretap applications . He also accepted the FBI ’ s assertion that there was probable cause to believe that Page was a foreign agent of Russia — an allegation that was all but debunked by the special counsel ’ s report and the inspector general ’ s report . “ It ’ s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent , ” Kris wrote in an essay March 1 , 2018 , at Lawfare , a blog operated by the Brookings Institution . Kris ’ s assessment — which echoed that of many Democrats and liberals in the media — accepted the FBI ’ s claim at face value that Page was a Russian asset . The FBI made the assertion in four applications to the FISC to wiretap Page . The basis for the allegation was the Democrat-funded Steele dossier . The Justice Department inspector general ’ s report offered a brutal rebuke of the FBI ’ s surveillance of Page . It also offered a scathing portrait of Christopher Steele , the former British spy who wrote the dossier . The IG report said the FBI withheld information regarding Page , a former Naval officer , that undercut the idea that he was a Russian agent . FBI agents also failed to disclose information that raised questions about Steele ’ s credibility and reliability . The FBI failed to inform the FISC that one of Steele ’ s main dossier sources told agents in January 2017 that Steele misrepresented and exaggerated information in the dossier , including about Page . ( RELATED : Steele Dossier Was ‘ Central And Essential ’ To FBI ’ s Decision To Obtain Carter Page FISA ) The IG report said FBI agents inaccurately stated in the FISA applications that Steele had provided information in the past that the bureau used in indictments and search warrants . The report said the claim was inaccurate , and that Steele ’ s associates had given mixed reviews about his reliability . FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the FBI on Dec. 17 , 2019 , to provide a plan to address problems identified in the IG report . Collyer criticized the FBI for providing “ false ” and “ misleading ” information about Page in order to obtain four warrants to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser . ( RELATED : FBI Chief Apologizes For Carter Page FISA Failures ) FBI Director Christopher Wray submitted a response to Collyer ’ s order Friday . He apologized for the errors in the wiretap applications submitted to the FISC , and said he plans to implement dozens of reforms to address the problems identified in the IG report . Kris is one of eight individuals designated by FISC as eligible to serve as an amicus curiae , which are designed to act as neutral arbitrators in issues involving the FISA process . Boasberg did not provide a rationale for choosing Kris . None of the other seven potential amici curiae have spoken out publicly about the Page FISA issue or the Trump-Russia probe . Kris was also among the many pundits dismissive of Republican allegations that the FBI mishandled information in the Steele dossier . One of Kris ’ s main targets was Nunes , a California Republican who relentlessly pursued information from the FBI about the Trump-Russia probe . In his March 1 , 2018 , essay at Lawfare , Kris wholeheartedly defended the FBI ’ s actions in the Trump-Russia probe , while criticizing Nunes over a memo he released Feb. 2 , 2018 , laying out a list of alleged problems with the FBI ’ s rationale to surveil Page . Kris asserted that Nunes “ falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court. ” He also questioned whether Nunes and other Republicans would “ face any consequences for their dishonesty . ” “ The Nunes memo was dishonest . And if it is allowed to stand , we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy , ” wrote Kris , who is now a consultant at Culper Partners and frequent guest on MSNBC . Kris went as far as entertaining the possibility , first proposed by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe , that “ Nunes might be prosecuted for obstruction of justice . ” Kris also wrote that the memo ’ s central claim that the FBI misled the FISC about Christopher Steele “ was not true . ” Kris has acknowledged since the release of the IG report that the FBI committed some “ significant and serious ” errors in its Carter Page FISA applications . He also conceded in a Lawfare essay published Dec. 23 , 2o19 , that Nunes ’ s assertion that the FBI engaged in irregular behavior was “ correct . ” But for Kris , the biggest takeaway from the IG report were the findings that reflected positively on the FBI . He wrote on Twitter the day the report was released that “ the most important take-away ” from the report was that the FBI did not exert political bias in order to undermine the Trump campaign . He also wrote that the errors identified in the IG report “ don ’ t support any claim of deep-state conspiracy or political bias . ” “ The FISC chose a guy who utterly denied the abuses of the Carter Page FISA warrant and then downplayed them when the Inspector General reported on them , ” Nunes told the DNCF . A request for comment submitted to Kris ’ s consulting firm , Culper Partners , was not returned .

Former DOJ official David Kris was picked Friday to oversee the FBI’s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general’s report. Kris was an ardent defender of the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page. He was also a vocal critic of Republicans who suggested the FBI misled the surveillance court in its applications to wiretap Page. In one essay, Kris endorsed a suggestion that Rep. Devin Nunes should face obstruction of justice charges. Nunes told the Daily Caller News Foundation the choice of Kris is “shocking and inexplicable.” A former Justice Department official picked Friday to oversee the FBI’s reforms of its surveillance procedures in the wake of a damning inspector general’s report was one of the many pundits during the Russia probe to defend the bureau’s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page. David S. Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security, was also an outspoken critic of Rep. Devin Nunes and other congressional Republicans who accused the FBI of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in applications to wiretap Page. An inspector general’s (IG) report released Dec. 9, 2019, largely vindicated Republicans and Page. The report identified 17 errors and omissions the FBI made in its four applications to surveil Page. The IG also said the FBI was unable to corroborate allegations that Page was a Russian agent. Judge James E. Boasberg, who presides over the FISC, tapped Kris serve as amicus curiae for a review of the FBI’s handling of the Page surveillance warrants. In that role, Kris will “assist” the FISC in assessing the FBI’s implementation of a series of reforms to address the problems uncovered in the IG report. Nunes and Page both panned the choice of Kris given his past commentary defending the FBI. “It’s hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen outside Comey, McCabe, or Schiff,” Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The choice is shocking and inexplicable.” Page also weighed in on Kris’s selection to oversee the FBI’s reforms. “If there were any hope for the system fixing this FISA mess, it extinguished with David Kris’ appointment,” he told The DCNF. “Nobody trying to fix the rampant abuse and coverup plaguing the entire FISA process would have picked Kris,” continued Page, who called Kris a “longtime FISA apologist.” “Instead, you appoint Kris for only one reason: you don’t want the system fixed. You just want it to look like you do.” Kris, who served at the Justice Department from 2009 to 2011, asserted in his writings during the Trump-Russia probe that Republicans had “falsely accused” the FBI of misleading the FISC in its wiretap applications. He also accepted the FBI’s assertion that there was probable cause to believe that Page was a foreign agent of Russia — an allegation that was all but debunked by the special counsel’s report and the inspector general’s report. “It’s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent,” Kris wrote in an essay March 1, 2018, at Lawfare, a blog operated by the Brookings Institution. Kris’s assessment — which echoed that of many Democrats and liberals in the media — accepted the FBI’s claim at face value that Page was a Russian asset. The FBI made the assertion in four applications to the FISC to wiretap Page. The basis for the allegation was the Democrat-funded Steele dossier. The Justice Department inspector general’s report offered a brutal rebuke of the FBI’s surveillance of Page. It also offered a scathing portrait of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the dossier. The IG report said the FBI withheld information regarding Page, a former Naval officer, that undercut the idea that he was a Russian agent. FBI agents also failed to disclose information that raised questions about Steele’s credibility and reliability. The FBI failed to inform the FISC that one of Steele’s main dossier sources told agents in January 2017 that Steele misrepresented and exaggerated information in the dossier, including about Page. (RELATED: Steele Dossier Was ‘Central And Essential’ To FBI’s Decision To Obtain Carter Page FISA) The IG report said FBI agents inaccurately stated in the FISA applications that Steele had provided information in the past that the bureau used in indictments and search warrants. The report said the claim was inaccurate, and that Steele’s associates had given mixed reviews about his reliability. FISC Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the FBI on Dec. 17, 2019, to provide a plan to address problems identified in the IG report. Collyer criticized the FBI for providing “false” and “misleading” information about Page in order to obtain four warrants to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser. (RELATED: FBI Chief Apologizes For Carter Page FISA Failures) FBI Director Christopher Wray submitted a response to Collyer’s order Friday. He apologized for the errors in the wiretap applications submitted to the FISC, and said he plans to implement dozens of reforms to address the problems identified in the IG report. Kris is one of eight individuals designated by FISC as eligible to serve as an amicus curiae, which are designed to act as neutral arbitrators in issues involving the FISA process. Boasberg did not provide a rationale for choosing Kris. None of the other seven potential amici curiae have spoken out publicly about the Page FISA issue or the Trump-Russia probe. Kris was also among the many pundits dismissive of Republican allegations that the FBI mishandled information in the Steele dossier. One of Kris’s main targets was Nunes, a California Republican who relentlessly pursued information from the FBI about the Trump-Russia probe. In his March 1, 2018, essay at Lawfare, Kris wholeheartedly defended the FBI’s actions in the Trump-Russia probe, while criticizing Nunes over a memo he released Feb. 2, 2018, laying out a list of alleged problems with the FBI’s rationale to surveil Page. Kris asserted that Nunes “falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” He also questioned whether Nunes and other Republicans would “face any consequences for their dishonesty.” “The Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy,” wrote Kris, who is now a consultant at Culper Partners and frequent guest on MSNBC. Kris went as far as entertaining the possibility, first proposed by Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, that “Nunes might be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.” Kris also wrote that the memo’s central claim that the FBI misled the FISC about Christopher Steele “was not true.” Kris has acknowledged since the release of the IG report that the FBI committed some “significant and serious” errors in its Carter Page FISA applications. He also conceded in a Lawfare essay published Dec. 23, 2o19, that Nunes’s assertion that the FBI engaged in irregular behavior was “correct.” But for Kris, the biggest takeaway from the IG report were the findings that reflected positively on the FBI. He wrote on Twitter the day the report was released that “the most important take-away” from the report was that the FBI did not exert political bias in order to undermine the Trump campaign. He also wrote that the errors identified in the IG report “don’t support any claim of deep-state conspiracy or political bias.” “The FISC chose a guy who utterly denied the abuses of the Carter Page FISA warrant and then downplayed them when the Inspector General reported on them,” Nunes told the DNCF. A request for comment submitted to Kris’s consulting firm, Culper Partners, was not returned. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

CqUsLOS9Xp7XxLIx

test

f2t1iRcSA7vUJchL

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/march/theres-a-new-sheriff-in-town-ambassador-nikki-haley-vows-to-take-on-the-un

'There's a New Sheriff in Town': Ambassador Nikki Haley Vows to Take on the UN

2017-03-28

WASHINGTON -- The American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC ) conference has drawn an impressive lineup of speakers in Washington . The annual , bipartisan event is known for bringing in big crowds in support of the Jewish state . House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wis. and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley spoke to the crowd this week , each reaffirming their commitment to repairing and strengthening the alliance between Israel and the United States . `` These past eight years have been tough . Our friendship has been tested . No single political spat or public disagreement can sever our historic alliance with Israel , but it can erode trust . And I think the actions of this past administration damaged this trust , '' commented Ryan . `` That 's why I want to pledge right here and now that so long as I am speaker , we will meet our military assistance commitments to Israel and provide additional funding in times of crisis . When she needs us , we will be there . We are there and we will be there for Israel , '' Ryan committed . It 's Haley , however , that 's being called the `` star of the conference , '' with her pro-Israel remarks and strong stance against the U.N. 's criticism of Israel . `` The days of Israel bashing are over , '' she said . `` You 're not going to take our number one democratic friend in the Middle East and beat up on him . '' `` For anyone that says you ca n't get anything done at the U.N. , they need to know there 's a new sheriff in town , '' Haley said confidently . She went on to express her concerns over the Iranian nuclear deal . `` The reason it 's concerning is because when the Iran deal took place , all it did was empower Iran and it empowered Russia , and it emboldened Iran to feel like they could get away with more , '' she began . `` My concern is , you are seeing a lot of love for the Iran deal in the Security Council , and that 's unfortunate . Why that was ever allowed to go through , why that passed is beyond me . I mean it 's terrible , '' she concluded . Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Haley 's appointment along with the appointment of U.S . Ambassador David Friedman . Netanyahu , who also addressed the crowds Monday , also stressed the importance of US-Israel relations . `` I have said this before and I will say it again , Israel has no greater friend than America and America has no greater friend than Israel , '' said Netanyahu . The conference wraps up Tuesday with speeches from the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y .

WASHINGTON -- The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference has drawn an impressive lineup of speakers in Washington. The annual, bipartisan event is known for bringing in big crowds in support of the Jewish state. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley spoke to the crowd this week, each reaffirming their commitment to repairing and strengthening the alliance between Israel and the United States. "These past eight years have been tough. Our friendship has been tested. No single political spat or public disagreement can sever our historic alliance with Israel, but it can erode trust. And I think the actions of this past administration damaged this trust," commented Ryan. "That's why I want to pledge right here and now that so long as I am speaker, we will meet our military assistance commitments to Israel and provide additional funding in times of crisis. When she needs us, we will be there. We are there and we will be there for Israel," Ryan committed. All Eyes on Nikki Haley It's Haley, however, that's being called the "star of the conference," with her pro-Israel remarks and strong stance against the U.N.'s criticism of Israel. "The days of Israel bashing are over," she said. "You're not going to take our number one democratic friend in the Middle East and beat up on him." "For anyone that says you can't get anything done at the U.N., they need to know there's a new sheriff in town," Haley said confidently. She went on to express her concerns over the Iranian nuclear deal. "The reason it's concerning is because when the Iran deal took place, all it did was empower Iran and it empowered Russia, and it emboldened Iran to feel like they could get away with more," she began. "My concern is, you are seeing a lot of love for the Iran deal in the Security Council, and that's unfortunate. Why that was ever allowed to go through, why that passed is beyond me. I mean it's terrible," she concluded. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Haley's appointment along with the appointment of U.S. Ambassador David Friedman. Netanyahu, who also addressed the crowds Monday, also stressed the importance of US-Israel relations. "I have said this before and I will say it again, Israel has no greater friend than America and America has no greater friend than Israel," said Netanyahu. The conference wraps up Tuesday with speeches from the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

www1.cbn.com

right

f2t1iRcSA7vUJchL

test

Thxxjh0M1SY5hkee

supreme_court

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/26/supreme-court-reinstates-trump-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries/

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump Travel Ban from Muslim-Majority Countries

2017-06-26

Ian Mason

The Supreme Court of the United States announced Monday that it will review the lower court injunctions blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump ’ s executive order barring travel from six Muslim-majority countries . In a per curiam opinion , the Court partially stayed the injunctions blocking enforcement of executive order 13,780 : We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2 ( c ) entry suspension . We grant the Government ’ s applications to stay the injunctions , to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2 ( c ) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States . We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated , as specified in this opinion . The Court wrote that the lower court injunctions , even accepting the First Amendment arguments against the order as likely to succeed , went too far : [ T ] he injunctions reach much further than that : They also bar enforcement of §2 ( c ) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all . The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context . Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party ’ s relationship with the foreign national . The opinion also announced the Court will consolidate the cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Fourth circuit , Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project , respectively . Both cases found the executive unenforceable as a likely violation of the U.S. Constitution ’ s First Amendment Establishment Clause because the lower courts held it was motivated by an attempt to disfavor Islam . The Court had requested additional briefing from the parties in both cases earlier this month , signalling they would hear arguments on the case despite the Court going out of its regular term this week . Arguments are expected to be heard when the Court reconvenes in October . Attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center are expected to face off against a government team now led by acting Solicitor General Jeffery Wall . The government had argued in the new briefing that the injunctions had delayed the start date for the 90-day order . This would allow the ban , which effects those coming from Iran , Libya , Somalia , Sudan , Syria and Yemen , to remain valid despite having been issued in March . A dissent from the per curiam decision , written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch , would have gone further and stayed the injunctions in their entirety , allowing the travel ban to go fully into effect immediately . The executive order was the second issued on the matter . The first , Executive Order 13,769 , also included Iraq and immeditaely was the subject of challenges in the courts . The current order was tailored to address the concerns raised in these initial lawsuits but soon was itself enjoined in both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits . Finding a likelihood the plaintiffs would succeed on First Amendment grounds , these courts ’ decisions to enjoin the orders have heretofore prevented enforcement of the order . Prevailing arguments in the lower courts have controversially included those based on statements made by the president and his surrogates while on the campaign trail as to his motivation for issuing the ban . The Trump administration has been determined to defend this version of the travel ban , setting up Monday ’ s opinion and the potential for a Supreme Court hearing on the merits in the fall .

The Supreme Court of the United States announced Monday that it will review the lower court injunctions blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order barring travel from six Muslim-majority countries. In a per curiam opinion, the Court partially stayed the injunctions blocking enforcement of executive order 13,780: We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion. The Court wrote that the lower court injunctions, even accepting the First Amendment arguments against the order as likely to succeed, went too far: [T]he injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. The opinion also announced the Court will consolidate the cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and Fourth circuit, Trump v. Hawaii and Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, respectively. Both cases found the executive unenforceable as a likely violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Establishment Clause because the lower courts held it was motivated by an attempt to disfavor Islam. The Court had requested additional briefing from the parties in both cases earlier this month, signalling they would hear arguments on the case despite the Court going out of its regular term this week. Arguments are expected to be heard when the Court reconvenes in October. Attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center are expected to face off against a government team now led by acting Solicitor General Jeffery Wall. The government had argued in the new briefing that the injunctions had delayed the start date for the 90-day order. This would allow the ban, which effects those coming from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, to remain valid despite having been issued in March. A dissent from the per curiam decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, would have gone further and stayed the injunctions in their entirety, allowing the travel ban to go fully into effect immediately. The executive order was the second issued on the matter. The first, Executive Order 13,769, also included Iraq and immeditaely was the subject of challenges in the courts. The current order was tailored to address the concerns raised in these initial lawsuits but soon was itself enjoined in both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. Finding a likelihood the plaintiffs would succeed on First Amendment grounds, these courts’ decisions to enjoin the orders have heretofore prevented enforcement of the order. Prevailing arguments in the lower courts have controversially included those based on statements made by the president and his surrogates while on the campaign trail as to his motivation for issuing the ban. The Trump administration has been determined to defend this version of the travel ban, setting up Monday’s opinion and the potential for a Supreme Court hearing on the merits in the fall.

www.breitbart.com

right

Thxxjh0M1SY5hkee

test

gYyfY5ndJ3Sp20t1

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/trump-defends-hush-money-payments-as-simple-private-transaction-idUSKBN1O91JW

Trump defends hush money payments as 'simple private transaction'

2018-12-10

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Donald Trump on Monday defended hush money payments reported by his former lawyer , responding a day after Democratic lawmakers said the U.S. president could face impeachment and jail time if the transactions are proven to violate campaign finance laws . Trump said on Twitter that Democrats were wrongly targeting “ a simple private transaction. ” Court filings last week drew renewed attention to six-figure payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign by Trump ’ s personal lawyer to two women so they would not discuss their alleged affairs with the candidate . U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler , who will lead the Judiciary Committee when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month , said on Sunday that if the payments were found to violate campaign finance laws it would be an impeachable offense . His Democratic counterpart on the Intelligence Committee , Representative Adam Schiff , said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office and could “ face the real prospect of jail time . ” Under U.S. law , campaign contributions , defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election , must be disclosed . Such payments are also limited to $ 2,700 per person . Earlier this year , Trump acknowledged repaying his former lawyer Michael Cohen for the $ 130,000 paid to porn star Stephanie Clifford , also known as Stormy Daniels . He previously disputed knowing anything about the payments . On Monday , the president again denied wrongdoing and sought to shift any blame to Cohen . One post misspelled the word “ smoking ” twice , drawing criticism and ridicule on Twitter . “ Democrats can ’ t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey ’ s testimony . No Smocking Gun ... No Collusion , ” he wrote , referring to Fox News comment on the case . “ So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction , wrongly call it a campaign contribution , which it was not , ” he wrote . He said that even if it were a campaign contribution it would amount to a civil case , adding , “ but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine . Lawyer ’ s liability if he made a mistake , not me . ” Trump has denied affairs with Stormy Daniels and the other woman who Cohen said was given hush money , former Playboy model Karen McDougal . U.S. prosecutors on Friday sought prison time for Cohen , Trump ’ s self-proclaimed “ fixer , ” for the payments they said were made in “ coordination with and at the direction of ” Trump , as well as on charges of evading taxes and lying to Congress . The case stemmed from a federal investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion with Trump ’ s campaign . Russia has denied interfering and Trump has said his campaign did not cooperate with Moscow . Legal experts are divided over whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime , as well as on whether a violation of campaign finance law would be an impeachable offense .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump on Monday defended hush money payments reported by his former lawyer, responding a day after Democratic lawmakers said the U.S. president could face impeachment and jail time if the transactions are proven to violate campaign finance laws. Trump said on Twitter that Democrats were wrongly targeting “a simple private transaction.” Court filings last week drew renewed attention to six-figure payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign by Trump’s personal lawyer to two women so they would not discuss their alleged affairs with the candidate. U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, who will lead the Judiciary Committee when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives next month, said on Sunday that if the payments were found to violate campaign finance laws it would be an impeachable offense. His Democratic counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff, said Trump could be indicted once he leaves office and could “face the real prospect of jail time.” Under U.S. law, campaign contributions, defined as things of value given to a campaign to influence an election, must be disclosed. Such payments are also limited to $2,700 per person. Earlier this year, Trump acknowledged repaying his former lawyer Michael Cohen for the $130,000 paid to porn star Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels. He previously disputed knowing anything about the payments. On Monday, the president again denied wrongdoing and sought to shift any blame to Cohen. One post misspelled the word “smoking” twice, drawing criticism and ridicule on Twitter. “Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion,” he wrote, referring to Fox News comment on the case. “So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution, which it was not,” he wrote. He said that even if it were a campaign contribution it would amount to a civil case, adding, “but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me.” Trump has denied affairs with Stormy Daniels and the other woman who Cohen said was given hush money, former Playboy model Karen McDougal. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump pauses while delivering remarks at the Project Safe Neighborhoods National Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, U.S., December 7, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst U.S. prosecutors on Friday sought prison time for Cohen, Trump’s self-proclaimed “fixer,” for the payments they said were made in “coordination with and at the direction of” Trump, as well as on charges of evading taxes and lying to Congress. The case stemmed from a federal investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion with Trump’s campaign. Russia has denied interfering and Trump has said his campaign did not cooperate with Moscow. Legal experts are divided over whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime, as well as on whether a violation of campaign finance law would be an impeachable offense.

www.reuters.com

center

gYyfY5ndJ3Sp20t1

test

KNKSupUEgLw5ksuU

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/04/breaking-report-shows-lavish-spending-at-irs-conference/

Report shows lavish spending at IRS conference

2013-06-04

( CNN ) - The Internal Revenue Service spent millions of taxpayer dollars on everything from event planners ' commissions to speakers ' fees to guest prizes to parody videos at a 2010 conference , an audit of the agency shows . The beleaguered agency - already snared in controversy over its targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status - spent $ 4.1 million on a 2010 conference in Anaheim , California , with `` questionable expenses '' comprising much of the budget , according to the report released Tuesday by the Treasury Department 's inspector general for tax administration . The audit notes that a large chunk of that money - about $ 3.2 million - came from unused funds allocated for hiring . This was in the same year that the IRS began to single out conservative and tea party groups that sought tax-exempt office , in part because the agency said it did not have the personnel to handle the overwhelming amount of applications pouring in that year . `` Effective cost management is especially important given the current economic environment and focus on Government efficiency , '' Inspector General J. Russell George said in a statement . `` Certain of the IRS 's expenses associated with the Anaheim conference do not appear to be a good use of taxpayer funds . '' The August 2010 conference , held by the Small Business/Self-Employed division , had 2,600 attendees at three hotels in Anaheim . The audit states that none of the guests were required to document their attendance at the training sessions . While the division made 1,516 hires that year , not all of them were on board the full year , so the division used the unused money for the three-day conference . Managers also indicated the used additional training funds for the event . The audit notes that the IRS–a stickler for record keeping–could only provide documentation for $ 4.1 million . The division estimated it actually spent $ 4,297,285 , but could not source that additional amount , according to the report . The IRS used event planners instead of IRS employees or contractors to set up the conference , giving no incentive to get lower rates and leaving the government to pay $ 135 per night for all rooms . Instead of working for favorable room rates , both event planners got $ 66,500 in commission from the hotels , according to the audit . Other expenses included more than $ 135,000 on outside speakers–including a $ 17,000 fee for a speaker who created paintings on stage to make his point that one must free `` the thought process to find creative solutions to challenges . '' `` The speaker created six paintings at these two keynote sessions ( three at each session ) . These paintings consisted of the following portraits : Albert Einstein ( one ) ; Michael Jordan ( one ) ; Abraham Lincoln ( one ) ; U2 singer Bono ( one ) ; and the Statute of Liberty ( two ) , '' the audit states . While two of the paintings were given away at the conference and three were donated , one was reported lost . The IRS also paid $ 11,400 to a speaker who specializes in happiness and positive psychology . He led four 90-minute workshops . Another speaker received $ 27,500 for two hour-long speeches . The speaker 's fee included a $ 2,500 flight in first class . The presentation was based on the speaker 's published book and , according to the contract , the speaker was to `` share how seemingly random combinations of ideas can drive radical innovations . '' On a somewhat ironic note , one of the sessions in the programs lists a speech given by IRS speakers titled : `` Political Savvy : How Not to Shoot Yourself in the Foot . '' In other expenses , IRS employees doled out $ 35,800 on three planning trips before the conference . Forty-five employees who lived in the local area got to stay in the hotels and received daily per diems , amounting to more than $ 30,000 total . And attendees got numerous gifts and promotional items from conference organizers–totaling more than $ 64,000 . This included imprinted bags , imprinted hard-covered journals , lanyards , travel mugs , picture frames , and various promotion items , according to the audit . Some attendees were also given Los Angeles Angels baseball tickets as contest prizes , which the division said came as a donation from the hotels . At the three hotels , 132 suite upgrades were provided each night of the conference , representing nearly 5 % of the 2,830 rooms booked . The upgrades ranged from $ 299 to $ 1,000 per night . The hotels provided 10 free rooms each night , which were used by paid speakers and non-IRS support staff , according to the audit . Two of the event planners were given free rooms for 19 nights . While attendees received a daily $ 71 per diem , they were also given two free drink coupons , daily continental breakfasts , and beverages and snacks during breaks . The SB/SE division spent more than $ 50,000 on videos for the conference . One of the videos , CNN has reported , had a Star-Trek theme , while the other was a parody on IRS employees learning how to do the Cupid Shuffle dance . Because the IRS did not keep track of all expenses for the videos , the inspector general 's office estimates that it took 62 staff hours to produce the piece at a minimum hourly rate of $ 50 . While the focus of the audit was on the 2010 conference , the inspector general looked at all IRS conferences between 2010 and 2012 , finding that the agency held 225 conferences during that time at an estimated cost of $ 49 million . Nearly $ 38 million of that came in 2010 alone . The inspector general 's office said it made nine recommendations to the IRS for future conferences , and the agency agreed to all nine . Responding to the report , the IRS maintained that the 2010 conference was needed to make sure managers had proper training for `` significant new programs , major staff and manager turnover and a substantial increase in security threats . '' The Small Business/Self-Employed division amounts to nearly one-third of the agency 's total work force , and at the time of the 2010 conference , almost 30 % of the division 's managers had been hired in the prior two years . However , acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel , who was appointed last month after his predecessor stepped down amid scandal , said in a statement that the 2010 conference was an `` unfortunate vestige from a prior era '' and such a conference would not take place today . `` I will continue my efforts and ensure tight spending protocols are in place to protect the use of taxpayer dollars , '' he said . According to the official IRS response , written by IRS chief financial officer Pamela LaRue , the agency had already put in place an `` extensive series of procedures '' and has `` dramatically cut '' expenses for conferences since 2010 . For example , LaRue notes , all conferences must now be approved centrally rather than by individual units at the IRS . The number of large meetings decreased by 84 % and the costs for those meetings decreased by 87 % by 2012 , LaRue writes . The IRS predicts costs for 2013 will be even lower . Travel and training expenses are also down by more than 80 % , according to the IRS . The agency now does 90 % of its training hours online–nearly double the amount from 2010 . `` The IRS takes seriously our obligations to be good stewards of government resources , '' LaRue writes , adding that the agency has reached $ 1 billion in savings since 2009 . As for the use of event planners and the receipt of room upgrades noted in the audit , LaRue says those items did not involve `` any additional government resources . '' IRS officials will continue to make their case this week when they appear Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform .

6 years ago Updated 3:44 p.m. ET Tuesday 6/4 (CNN) - The Internal Revenue Service spent millions of taxpayer dollars on everything from event planners' commissions to speakers' fees to guest prizes to parody videos at a 2010 conference, an audit of the agency shows. The beleaguered agency - already snared in controversy over its targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status - spent $4.1 million on a 2010 conference in Anaheim, California, with "questionable expenses" comprising much of the budget, according to the report released Tuesday by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration. The audit notes that a large chunk of that money - about $3.2 million - came from unused funds allocated for hiring. This was in the same year that the IRS began to single out conservative and tea party groups that sought tax-exempt office, in part because the agency said it did not have the personnel to handle the overwhelming amount of applications pouring in that year. "Effective cost management is especially important given the current economic environment and focus on Government efficiency," Inspector General J. Russell George said in a statement. "Certain of the IRS's expenses associated with the Anaheim conference do not appear to be a good use of taxpayer funds." Read the audit report The August 2010 conference, held by the Small Business/Self-Employed division, had 2,600 attendees at three hotels in Anaheim. The audit states that none of the guests were required to document their attendance at the training sessions. While the division made 1,516 hires that year, not all of them were on board the full year, so the division used the unused money for the three-day conference. Managers also indicated the used additional training funds for the event. The audit notes that the IRS–a stickler for record keeping–could only provide documentation for $4.1 million. The division estimated it actually spent $4,297,285, but could not source that additional amount, according to the report. The IRS used event planners instead of IRS employees or contractors to set up the conference, giving no incentive to get lower rates and leaving the government to pay $135 per night for all rooms. Instead of working for favorable room rates, both event planners got $66,500 in commission from the hotels, according to the audit. Other expenses included more than $135,000 on outside speakers–including a $17,000 fee for a speaker who created paintings on stage to make his point that one must free "the thought process to find creative solutions to challenges." "The speaker created six paintings at these two keynote sessions (three at each session). These paintings consisted of the following portraits: Albert Einstein (one); Michael Jordan (one); Abraham Lincoln (one); U2 singer Bono (one); and the Statute of Liberty (two)," the audit states. While two of the paintings were given away at the conference and three were donated, one was reported lost. The IRS also paid $11,400 to a speaker who specializes in happiness and positive psychology. He led four 90-minute workshops. Another speaker received $27,500 for two hour-long speeches. The speaker's fee included a $2,500 flight in first class. The presentation was based on the speaker's published book and, according to the contract, the speaker was to "share how seemingly random combinations of ideas can drive radical innovations." On a somewhat ironic note, one of the sessions in the programs lists a speech given by IRS speakers titled: "Political Savvy: How Not to Shoot Yourself in the Foot." In other expenses, IRS employees doled out $35,800 on three planning trips before the conference. Forty-five employees who lived in the local area got to stay in the hotels and received daily per diems, amounting to more than $30,000 total. And attendees got numerous gifts and promotional items from conference organizers–totaling more than $64,000. This included imprinted bags, imprinted hard-covered journals, lanyards, travel mugs, picture frames, and various promotion items, according to the audit. Some attendees were also given Los Angeles Angels baseball tickets as contest prizes, which the division said came as a donation from the hotels. At the three hotels, 132 suite upgrades were provided each night of the conference, representing nearly 5% of the 2,830 rooms booked. The upgrades ranged from $299 to $1,000 per night. The hotels provided 10 free rooms each night, which were used by paid speakers and non-IRS support staff, according to the audit. Two of the event planners were given free rooms for 19 nights. While attendees received a daily $71 per diem, they were also given two free drink coupons, daily continental breakfasts, and beverages and snacks during breaks. The SB/SE division spent more than $50,000 on videos for the conference. One of the videos, CNN has reported, had a Star-Trek theme, while the other was a parody on IRS employees learning how to do the Cupid Shuffle dance. Because the IRS did not keep track of all expenses for the videos, the inspector general's office estimates that it took 62 staff hours to produce the piece at a minimum hourly rate of $50. While the focus of the audit was on the 2010 conference, the inspector general looked at all IRS conferences between 2010 and 2012, finding that the agency held 225 conferences during that time at an estimated cost of $49 million. Nearly $38 million of that came in 2010 alone. The inspector general's office said it made nine recommendations to the IRS for future conferences, and the agency agreed to all nine. Responding to the report, the IRS maintained that the 2010 conference was needed to make sure managers had proper training for "significant new programs, major staff and manager turnover and a substantial increase in security threats." The Small Business/Self-Employed division amounts to nearly one-third of the agency's total work force, and at the time of the 2010 conference, almost 30% of the division's managers had been hired in the prior two years. However, acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who was appointed last month after his predecessor stepped down amid scandal, said in a statement that the 2010 conference was an "unfortunate vestige from a prior era" and such a conference would not take place today. "I will continue my efforts and ensure tight spending protocols are in place to protect the use of taxpayer dollars," he said. According to the official IRS response, written by IRS chief financial officer Pamela LaRue, the agency had already put in place an "extensive series of procedures" and has "dramatically cut" expenses for conferences since 2010. For example, LaRue notes, all conferences must now be approved centrally rather than by individual units at the IRS. The number of large meetings decreased by 84% and the costs for those meetings decreased by 87% by 2012, LaRue writes. The IRS predicts costs for 2013 will be even lower. Travel and training expenses are also down by more than 80%, according to the IRS. The agency now does 90% of its training hours online–nearly double the amount from 2010. "The IRS takes seriously our obligations to be good stewards of government resources," LaRue writes, adding that the agency has reached $1 billion in savings since 2009. As for the use of event planners and the receipt of room upgrades noted in the audit, LaRue says those items did not involve "any additional government resources." IRS officials will continue to make their case this week when they appear Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

KNKSupUEgLw5ksuU

test

SMYZBp6RmEvwK46T

supreme_court

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/20/cnn-poll-judging-the-supreme-court/?hpt=po_c1

CNN Poll: Judging the Supreme Court

2013-06-20

Washington ( CNN ) - As the Supreme Court gets ready to issue opinions on some high profile and contentious cases , a new national poll indicates Americans are split on whether the high court is doing a good job . According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Thursday morning , 48 % of the public say they approve of the job the Supreme Court 's doing , with an equal amount saying they disapprove . There is , however , an ideological divide . Fifty-three percent of liberals and 58 % of moderates , but only 37 % of conservatives , say that they approve of the court . `` That 's probably a reaction to last year 's decision on Barack Obama 's health care law , '' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . In a closely watched ruling , the court upheld the Affordable Care Act , better known as Obamacare , last June . `` Before that ruling , most conservatives supported the Supreme Court , compared to only 44 % of liberals . Now , most liberals approve of the court , with most conservatives saying they disapprove , '' adds Holland . All that may change over the next week as the Supreme Court releases opinions on affirmative action , same-sex marriage , and the Voting Rights Act , cases that are sure to generate fresh controversy . The case involving affirmative action is Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin . Abigail Fisher individually sued the flagship state university after her college application was rejected in 2008 when she was a high school senior in Sugar Land , Texas . Fisher claims she was turned away in part because she is white , despite being more qualified than some minority applicants . The school defends its policy of considering race as one of many factors , such as test scores , community service , leadership and work experience , to ensure a diverse campus . According to the poll , nearly seven in ten disapprove of affirmative action admissions programs at colleges and law schools that give racial preferences to minority applicants , with 29 % saying they disagree . There 's an obvious partisan divide , with 49 % of Democrats , 24 % of independents , and just 14 % of Republicans approving of such affirmative action programs . And there 's a racial gap , with 51 % of non-white respondents but just 19 % of white respondents saying they approve of giving preferences to minority applicants . Also in front of the Supreme Court is the Voting Rights Act , which was passed in 1965 to prevent some state and local governments from using rules and procedures which prevented many black Americans from voting . The key enforcement provision of the measure was reauthorized in 2006 for another 25 years , with all or parts of 16 states covered under the `` pre-clearance '' provision . A county in Alabama subsequently filed suit , saying the federal monitoring of their election procedures was overly burdensome and unwarranted . The case before the high court is called Shelby County , Alabama v. Holder . The survey indicates the public is evenly divided over whether the Voting Rights Act is still necessary , with 48 % saying yes and 50 % saying no . There 's a slight racial gap and a larger partisan divide . There are two same-sex marriage cases in front of the Supreme Court . At issue in Hollingsworth v. Perry is whether the U.S. Constitution 's 14th Amendment guarantee of `` equal protection '' prevents states from defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman . The case involves California 's Proposition 8 , a statewide ballot measure that banned same-sex marriages in the Golden State , which California 's Supreme Court had previously ruled were legal . According to the poll , 55 % of Americans support same-sex marriage , with 44 % opposed . The 55 % support is up 11 percentage points from 2008 . `` In the 1970s , when polls first tackled this touchy topic , a majority of Americans believed that homosexual relationships between consenting adults were morally wrong , a belief that persisted into the 1990s and the first few years of the 21st century , '' says Holland . `` But three years ago , the number who felt that homosexual relationships were morally wrong began to drop below 50 % , and currently 54 % of the public says that homosexual relationships are not a moral issue . Not surprisingly , that shift in opinion coincided with a growth in support for same-sex marriage . '' The other case is Windsor v. U.S .. At issue is whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment 's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states . The case involves Edith `` Edie '' Windsor , who was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those other married couples would have to pay . Because her partner was a woman , the federal government did not recognize the same-sex marriage legally , even though their home state of New York did . The law known as DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and woman only . The legal issue is whether the federal government can deny tax , health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry . According to the poll , 60 % say the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them , with 39 % saying they disagree . The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International June 11-13 , with 1,014 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - As the Supreme Court gets ready to issue opinions on some high profile and contentious cases, a new national poll indicates Americans are split on whether the high court is doing a good job. According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Thursday morning, 48% of the public say they approve of the job the Supreme Court's doing, with an equal amount saying they disapprove. There is, however, an ideological divide. Fifty-three percent of liberals and 58% of moderates, but only 37% of conservatives, say that they approve of the court. "That's probably a reaction to last year's decision on Barack Obama's health care law," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. In a closely watched ruling, the court upheld the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, last June. "Before that ruling, most conservatives supported the Supreme Court, compared to only 44% of liberals. Now, most liberals approve of the court, with most conservatives saying they disapprove," adds Holland. All that may change over the next week as the Supreme Court releases opinions on affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and the Voting Rights Act, cases that are sure to generate fresh controversy. The case involving affirmative action is Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. Abigail Fisher individually sued the flagship state university after her college application was rejected in 2008 when she was a high school senior in Sugar Land, Texas. Fisher claims she was turned away in part because she is white, despite being more qualified than some minority applicants. The school defends its policy of considering race as one of many factors, such as test scores, community service, leadership and work experience, to ensure a diverse campus. According to the poll, nearly seven in ten disapprove of affirmative action admissions programs at colleges and law schools that give racial preferences to minority applicants, with 29% saying they disagree. There's an obvious partisan divide, with 49% of Democrats, 24% of independents, and just 14% of Republicans approving of such affirmative action programs. And there's a racial gap, with 51% of non-white respondents but just 19% of white respondents saying they approve of giving preferences to minority applicants. Also in front of the Supreme Court is the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965 to prevent some state and local governments from using rules and procedures which prevented many black Americans from voting. The key enforcement provision of the measure was reauthorized in 2006 for another 25 years, with all or parts of 16 states covered under the "pre-clearance" provision. A county in Alabama subsequently filed suit, saying the federal monitoring of their election procedures was overly burdensome and unwarranted. The case before the high court is called Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. . The survey indicates the public is evenly divided over whether the Voting Rights Act is still necessary, with 48% saying yes and 50% saying no. There's a slight racial gap and a larger partisan divide. There are two same-sex marriage cases in front of the Supreme Court. At issue in Hollingsworth v. Perry is whether the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of "equal protection" prevents states from defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. The case involves California's Proposition 8, a statewide ballot measure that banned same-sex marriages in the Golden State, which California's Supreme Court had previously ruled were legal. According to the poll, 55% of Americans support same-sex marriage, with 44% opposed. The 55% support is up 11 percentage points from 2008. "In the 1970s, when polls first tackled this touchy topic, a majority of Americans believed that homosexual relationships between consenting adults were morally wrong, a belief that persisted into the 1990s and the first few years of the 21st century," says Holland. "But three years ago, the number who felt that homosexual relationships were morally wrong began to drop below 50%, and currently 54% of the public says that homosexual relationships are not a moral issue. Not surprisingly, that shift in opinion coincided with a growth in support for same-sex marriage." The other case is Windsor v. U.S.. At issue is whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states. The case involves Edith "Edie" Windsor, who was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those other married couples would have to pay. Because her partner was a woman, the federal government did not recognize the same-sex marriage legally, even though their home state of New York did. The law known as DOMA defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and woman only. The legal issue is whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. According to the poll, 60% say the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them, with 39% saying they disagree. The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International June 11-13, with 1,014 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

SMYZBp6RmEvwK46T

test

Ec9Vf45KmUzUN7xa

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46943364

US teen denies mocking Native American

A teenager involved in a controversial encounter between a Native American man and a crowd of students has spoken out . A video appeared to show some of the boys laughing and jeering as Omaha elder Nathan Phillips sang and drummed in Washington . The footage , which went viral , led to widespread criticism of the boys . However , additional video footage has provided further details of the incident , while student Nick Sandmann has denied mocking Mr Phillips . `` I did not make any hand gestures or aggressive moves , '' he said . `` I believed that by remaining motionless and calm , I was helping to diffuse [ sic ] the situation . '' At least three groups appear to have been involved in Friday 's incident . Students from Kentucky 's Covington Catholic High School , who had finished taking part in March for Life , an anti-abortion rally , had gathered at the Lincoln Memorial . The group of teenagers was predominantly white , and many wore Make America Great Again caps . Mr Phillips and many other Native American activists were also at the memorial , having taken part in the Indigenous Peoples March . Meanwhile , a group of black men , who called themselves Hebrew Israelites , were at the scene . Video footage shows them shouting insults at many people , including Native Americans , as well as the schoolboys . As the group shouted at the students , some of the teenagers began chanting , and one of them took his top off . Mr Phillips then approached the students , singing and beating a drum , in what he said was a prayer to defuse tensions . He was surrounded by the students , some of whom began chanting and singing as well . A short video emerged showing Mr Sandmann smiling and standing directly in front of Mr Phillips as he beat the drum . Other students laughed , shouted and clapped along . The video went viral as many accused the boys of mocking and being disrespectful towards the Elder . The Covington Catholic High School apologised to Mr Phillips and said they would investigate and `` take appropriate action , up to and including expulsion '' . Meanwhile , the Sisters of Mercy , a Catholic group , also criticised the boys ' behaviour , saying the videos showed `` a bigoted disrespect of indigenous peoples '' . However , supporters of the students said they were being unfairly targeted , while others began searching social media for further video , which showed the Hebrew Israelites group shouting at the students , and Mr Phillips approaching them . In a statement released by a PR company , Mr Sandmann said `` outright lies '' were being spread about him and his family and that he had received death threats as a result of the incident . He said the group of African American protesters had called the students `` racists '' and `` incest kids '' . `` Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public , a student in our group asked one of our teacher chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group . '' Then , he said , the Native American protesters approached the students , including Mr Phillips , who was playing his drum . `` I did not see anyone try to block his path , '' he said . `` He locked eyes with me and approached me , coming within inches of my face . He played his drum the entire time he was in my face . '' `` To be honest , I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me , '' he said . `` I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protester . He did not make any attempt to go around me ... I was not intentionally making faces at the protester . I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry , intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation . '' `` I respect this person 's right to protest and engage in free speech activities ... I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others , but that is his choice to make . '' Mr Sandmann said the students had only used school chants , and he had not heard anyone make hateful or racist remarks . However , Mr Phillips , who appeared upset in a video after that encounter , said he had heard the students saying `` build that wall '' . That phrase was not audible in video footage of the incident . Two other participants in the Indigenous Peoples March , and a photojournalist covering the march , told US media they had heard people chanting `` build that wall '' and `` Trump 2020 '' . Mr Phillips told AP news agency he had been trying to reach the Lincoln statue to pray when one of the students blocked him . `` They were making remarks to each other ... [ such as ] 'In my state those Indians are nothing but a bunch of drunks ' , '' he said . Kaya Taitano , who filmed the video that went viral , told CNN : `` I did not feel safe in that circle ... they just surrounded him and they were mocking him . '' Meanwhile , Marcus Frejo , who accompanied Mr Phillips , told the New York Times he had heard the students making noises that appeared to mock Native American chanting - although he had also heard some of the students sing along . US media reports say that the students performed a haka chant , and some appeared to make the tomahawk chop gesture - which many Native Americans consider disrespectful . Separately , one of the men in the Hebrew Israelites group issued a Facebook video , saying that the students had `` started it '' . He accused the students of `` mocking us while we 're having discourse '' , and argued that , although his group had been vocal , they `` did n't approach '' the students and there was no `` physical situation '' . The US , and American politics , has remained deeply divided in recent years . Native American groups have accused President Donald Trump of using racist language while taunting a senator . He has also been criticised for extreme rhetoric against Mexicans , immigrants and Muslims , and for blaming `` both sides '' for violence at a white supremacist rally . Some groups argue that `` Trump ! '' has been used as racially motivated chant , and say his words have emboldened people who wish to express racist views . Meanwhile , many Trump supporters and conservative groups argue that they are unfairly picked on by left-wing groups and the media . Correction 25 January 2019 : In subsequent US media interviews Mr Phillips said that while he had served in the Marine reserves , he was never deployed to Vietnam and so we have removed references describing him as a Vietnam veteran .

Image copyright Kaya Taitano/Social Media/Reuters Image caption Nick Sandmann (left) and Nathan Phillips (right) both said they were trying to defuse tensions A teenager involved in a controversial encounter between a Native American man and a crowd of students has spoken out. A video appeared to show some of the boys laughing and jeering as Omaha elder Nathan Phillips sang and drummed in Washington. The footage, which went viral, led to widespread criticism of the boys. However, additional video footage has provided further details of the incident, while student Nick Sandmann has denied mocking Mr Phillips. "I did not make any hand gestures or aggressive moves," he said. "I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse [sic] the situation." What do we know happened? At least three groups appear to have been involved in Friday's incident. Students from Kentucky's Covington Catholic High School, who had finished taking part in March for Life, an anti-abortion rally, had gathered at the Lincoln Memorial. The group of teenagers was predominantly white, and many wore Make America Great Again caps. Mr Phillips and many other Native American activists were also at the memorial, having taken part in the Indigenous Peoples March. Meanwhile, a group of black men, who called themselves Hebrew Israelites, were at the scene. Video footage shows them shouting insults at many people, including Native Americans, as well as the schoolboys. As the group shouted at the students, some of the teenagers began chanting, and one of them took his top off. Mr Phillips then approached the students, singing and beating a drum, in what he said was a prayer to defuse tensions. He was surrounded by the students, some of whom began chanting and singing as well. How did the controversy break out? A short video emerged showing Mr Sandmann smiling and standing directly in front of Mr Phillips as he beat the drum. Other students laughed, shouted and clapped along. The video went viral as many accused the boys of mocking and being disrespectful towards the Elder. The Covington Catholic High School apologised to Mr Phillips and said they would investigate and "take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion". You may also like: Meanwhile, the Sisters of Mercy, a Catholic group, also criticised the boys' behaviour, saying the videos showed "a bigoted disrespect of indigenous peoples". However, supporters of the students said they were being unfairly targeted, while others began searching social media for further video, which showed the Hebrew Israelites group shouting at the students, and Mr Phillips approaching them. In a statement released by a PR company, Mr Sandmann said "outright lies" were being spread about him and his family and that he had received death threats as a result of the incident. What is Nick Sandmann's account? He said the group of African American protesters had called the students "racists" and "incest kids". "Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public, a student in our group asked one of our teacher chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group." Then, he said, the Native American protesters approached the students, including Mr Phillips, who was playing his drum. "I did not see anyone try to block his path," he said. "He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face." "To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me," he said. "I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protester. He did not make any attempt to go around me... I was not intentionally making faces at the protester. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation." "I respect this person's right to protest and engage in free speech activities... I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make." What do other accounts say? Mr Sandmann said the students had only used school chants, and he had not heard anyone make hateful or racist remarks. However, Mr Phillips, who appeared upset in a video after that encounter, said he had heard the students saying "build that wall". Image copyright Reuters Image caption Nathan Phillips, centre, at a 2017 protest against an oil pipeline That phrase was not audible in video footage of the incident. Two other participants in the Indigenous Peoples March, and a photojournalist covering the march, told US media they had heard people chanting "build that wall" and "Trump 2020". Mr Phillips told AP news agency he had been trying to reach the Lincoln statue to pray when one of the students blocked him. "They were making remarks to each other... [such as] 'In my state those Indians are nothing but a bunch of drunks'," he said. Kaya Taitano, who filmed the video that went viral, told CNN: "I did not feel safe in that circle... they just surrounded him and they were mocking him." Meanwhile, Marcus Frejo, who accompanied Mr Phillips, told the New York Times he had heard the students making noises that appeared to mock Native American chanting - although he had also heard some of the students sing along. US media reports say that the students performed a haka chant, and some appeared to make the tomahawk chop gesture - which many Native Americans consider disrespectful. Separately, one of the men in the Hebrew Israelites group issued a Facebook video, saying that the students had "started it". He accused the students of "mocking us while we're having discourse", and argued that, although his group had been vocal, they "didn't approach" the students and there was no "physical situation". How did it all get so polarised? The US, and American politics, has remained deeply divided in recent years. Native American groups have accused President Donald Trump of using racist language while taunting a senator. He has also been criticised for extreme rhetoric against Mexicans, immigrants and Muslims, and for blaming "both sides" for violence at a white supremacist rally. Some groups argue that "Trump!" has been used as racially motivated chant, and say his words have emboldened people who wish to express racist views. Meanwhile, many Trump supporters and conservative groups argue that they are unfairly picked on by left-wing groups and the media. Correction 25 January 2019: In subsequent US media interviews Mr Phillips said that while he had served in the Marine reserves, he was never deployed to Vietnam and so we have removed references describing him as a Vietnam veteran.

www.bbc.com

center

Ec9Vf45KmUzUN7xa

test

HGVv51E93mxgQt0M

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/entertainment/2020/may/the-price-is-right-gives-drag-queen-a-platform-for-primetime-planned-parenthood-abortion-fundraiser-nbsp

'The Price Is Right' Gives Drag Queen a Platform for PrimeTime Planned Parenthood Abortion Fundraiser

2020-05-06

CBS will air a controversial episode of the once family staple `` The Price is Right '' in primetime next week , featuring drag queen RuPaul who will be playing to raise money for the nation 's largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood . Broadway World reported the show will air on May 11 with host Drew Carey . The special was taped before California 's COVID-19 pandemic lockdown . CBS previously aired two `` The Price Is Right at Night '' specials last December which proved to be ratings winners for the network , according to Deadline . The popular game show has been aired by CBS since Sept. 4 , 1972 . It 's the longest-running series in network television history . Bob Barker hosted the show for 35 years . Carey stepped in to host when Barker retired in 2007 . LifeNews.com reported RuPaul has been an abortion activist for years . In 2017 , he told Marie Claire magazine that his mother used to work at Planned Parenthood , the largest abortion group in America . He organized a fundraiser for the abortion chain that year , too . `` Women in our culture have been so marginalized and so really beaten down , '' he told the magazine . `` We live in a masculine-dominated culture . How dare some man tell a woman what to do with her body . That is outrageous ! Outrageous . As a human , that is a big issue for me that really strikes a chord . '' LifeNews argues that Planned Parenthood does not really help women and does not need any financial support . In its most recent annual report , the abortion provider documented it took the lives of 345,627 babies and has more than $ 1.6 billion in revenue . As ███ News reported back in 2019 , Planned Parenthood 's leaders admitted the organization 's mission is abortion , not women 's health . Former CEO Dr. Leana Wen responded on social media to a Buzzfeed article acknowledging that abortion is n't just a service the organization provides but is the core mission . `` First , our core mission is providing , protecting , and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care . We will never back down from that fight - it 's a fundamental human right and women 's lives are at stake , '' Wen wrote in a tweet at the time . Less than a year after Wen 's hiring , she was fired by Planned Parenthood 's board of directors . The group has long argued it 's about providing health care , but when Wen tried to make that Planned Parenthood 's main message , she soon found out that its real mission is protecting abortion . Wen wrote about her tumultuous 10 months with the organization in a New York Times opinion piece . `` In the end , I was asked to leave for the same reason I was hired : I was changing the direction of Planned Parenthood , '' she said . Wen cited philosophical differences stemming around her desire to de-politicize the organization and focus on a wide range of policies that affect women 's health . She wrote , `` The new board leadership has determined that the priority of Planned Parenthood moving forward is to double down on abortion rights advocacy . ''

CBS will air a controversial episode of the once family staple "The Price is Right" in primetime next week, featuring drag queen RuPaul who will be playing to raise money for the nation's largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood. Broadway World reported the show will air on May 11 with host Drew Carey. The special was taped before California's COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. CBS previously aired two "The Price Is Right at Night" specials last December which proved to be ratings winners for the network, according to Deadline. The popular game show has been aired by CBS since Sept. 4, 1972. It's the longest-running series in network television history. Bob Barker hosted the show for 35 years. Carey stepped in to host when Barker retired in 2007. LifeNews.com reported RuPaul has been an abortion activist for years. In 2017, he told Marie Claire magazine that his mother used to work at Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion group in America. He organized a fundraiser for the abortion chain that year, too. "Women in our culture have been so marginalized and so really beaten down," he told the magazine. "We live in a masculine-dominated culture. How dare some man tell a woman what to do with her body. That is outrageous! Outrageous. As a human, that is a big issue for me that really strikes a chord." LifeNews argues that Planned Parenthood does not really help women and does not need any financial support. In its most recent annual report, the abortion provider documented it took the lives of 345,627 babies and has more than $1.6 billion in revenue. As CBN News reported back in 2019, Planned Parenthood's leaders admitted the organization's mission is abortion, not women's health. Former CEO Dr. Leana Wen responded on social media to a Buzzfeed article acknowledging that abortion isn't just a service the organization provides but is the core mission. "First, our core mission is providing, protecting, and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care. We will never back down from that fight - it's a fundamental human right and women's lives are at stake," Wen wrote in a tweet at the time. Less than a year after Wen's hiring, she was fired by Planned Parenthood's board of directors. The group has long argued it's about providing health care, but when Wen tried to make that Planned Parenthood's main message, she soon found out that its real mission is protecting abortion. Wen wrote about her tumultuous 10 months with the organization in a New York Times opinion piece. "In the end, I was asked to leave for the same reason I was hired: I was changing the direction of Planned Parenthood," she said. Wen cited philosophical differences stemming around her desire to de-politicize the organization and focus on a wide range of policies that affect women's health. She wrote, "The new board leadership has determined that the priority of Planned Parenthood moving forward is to double down on abortion rights advocacy."

www1.cbn.com

right

HGVv51E93mxgQt0M

test

1NUACgpjhPf14xJL

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-hiding-plain-sight-hunter-biden-defends-foreign/story?id=66275416

Exclusive: 'I'm here': Hunter Biden hits back at Trump taunt in exclusive ABC News interview

As President Donald Trump continues to fill his Twitter feed and campaign speeches with attacks on Hunter Biden over his foreign business deals , the former vice president 's son defended the ethical implications of his private ventures in an interview with ███ , but conceded taking a misstep in failing to foresee the political implications on his father 's career . Interested in Impeachment Inquiry ? Add Impeachment Inquiry as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Impeachment Inquiry news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest `` In retrospect , look , I think that it was poor judgment on my part . Is that I think that it was poor judgment because I do n't believe now , when I look back on it -- I know that there was -- did nothing wrong at all , '' Hunter Biden told ███ in an exclusive interview . `` However , was it poor judgment to be in the middle of something that is ... a swamp in — in — in many ways ? Yeah . '' `` I gave a hook to some very unethical people to act in illegal ways to try to do some harm to my father . That 's where I made the mistake , '' said Biden . `` So I take full responsibility for that . Did I do anything improper ? No , not in any way . Not in any way whatsoever . '' No topic was off-limits when Biden sat down with ███ ' Amy Robach over the weekend , including how the spotlight on his personal and professional life has threatened his ongoing struggle with addiction . It 's his first broadcast interview since attracting the attention of Trump , who posed this question to his 66 million Twitter followers last week : `` WHERE 'S HUNTER ? '' WHERE 'S HUNTER ? — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 12 , 2019 `` I 'm here . I 'm here and I 'm working and I 'm living my life , '' Hunter Biden retorted from his Los Angeles home . `` Hiding in plain sight , I guess . '' `` Did I make a mistake ? Well , maybe in the grand scheme of things , yeah , '' he said , again referring to fallout from his overseas business . `` But did I make a mistake based upon some ethical lapse ? Absolutely not . '' Biden said , `` I take -- full responsibility for that . Do I -- did I do anything improper ? No , and not in any way . Not in any way whatsoever . I joined a board , I served honorably . I did -- I focused on corporate governance . I did n't have any discussions with my father before or after I joined the board as it related to it , other than that brief exchange that we had . '' Even so , the 49-year-old has maintained a low profile in recent months as the president and his allies have targeted Hunter Biden for his professional endeavors in Ukraine and China . Hunter Biden told ███ he does not specifically regret those business ventures , but wishes he had anticipated future attacks from his father 's political rivals . `` What I regret is not taking into account that there would be a Rudy Giuliani and a president of the United States that would be listening to this -- this ridiculous conspiracy idea . '' Trump 's overtures to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July phone call to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden has led to a burgeoning impeachment inquiry in Congress . When a transcript of the call revealed the president 's repeated references to the Bidens , Hunter described his reaction as being `` like every other American -- I was shocked . '' Soon after reading the transcript released by the White House , Hunter picked up the phone and called his father . Hunter said his father asked him about his daughter , Maisy , before getting into the big news . `` For real . And that 's not a joke . I mean , and then discussion was literally like , 'Oh my gosh , ' '' the younger Biden told ███ , describing their mutual surprise at the nature of the transcript . `` But other than that , really , I want to make it clear , it 's not like anybody has to have any discussion beyond that . '' Hunter Biden reiterated that he never discussed his foreign business dealings with his father , and made it clear he has no interest in becoming a political football as congressional Democrats haul witnesses in for depositions as part of their impeachment proceedings . `` I 'll let Congress handle that , '' he said . `` And I 'll let you guys in the media handle that . And I 'll let my dad 's campaign handle that . And the only thing that I 'm looking to handle is to make certain that I get up every day and do the next right thing . And that really is the way that I 've been trying to live my life . '' Despite his desire to stay out of the spotlight , ethics experts told ███ that Hunter Biden 's role on the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company called Burisma , while his father fronted U.S. foreign policy toward Kyiv , could present an ethical conundrum -- an allegation Hunter fervently disputed . Biden spoke with conviction when asked about how much information he shared with his father and even whether he was qualified . `` [ My father ] read the press reports that I 'd joined the board of Burisma which was a Ukrainian natural gas company . And there 's been a lot of misinformation about me , not about my dad . Nobody buys Dad . But -- by this idea that I was unqualified to be on the board , '' said Biden . `` I was vice chairman of the board of Amtrak for five years , '' he continued . `` I was the chairman of the board of the U.N. World Food Program . I was a lawyer for Boies Schiller Flexner , one of the most prestigious law firms in -- in the world . '' `` I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board -- if not more . '' Even so , on Sunday the Biden campaign released details of a proposed government ethics plan , which included a stipulation designed to `` rein in executive branch financial conflicts of interest '' -- an apparent response to allegations lodged against the Biden family . And while he cited being a lawyer at a prominent firm and his record serving on several boards as qualifications for the job , in his interview with ███ , Hunter Biden acknowledged that his last name likely played a role in his Burisma board appointment . `` If your last name was n't Biden , '' Robach asked , `` do you think you would 've been asked to be on the board of Burisma ? '' `` I do n't know . I do n't know . Probably not , in retrospect , '' he said . `` But that 's -- you know -- I do n't think that there 's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name was n't Biden . '' `` Because my dad was vice president of the United States . There 's literally nothing , as a young man or as a full grown adult that -- my father in some way has n't had influence over . It does not serve either one of us , '' Biden continued . On the same day the Biden campaign rolled out their government ethics plan , a lawyer for Hunter Biden announced that his client would step down from the board of directors of a Chinese-backed private equity company by the end of this month -- and commit to halting all work with foreign entities if his father wins the White House in 2020 . `` I 'm taking it off the table , Amy , '' Hunter Biden said of his decision to step away from any foreign businesses . `` I 'm making that commitment . Let 's see if anybody else makes that commitment . But that 's the commitment that I 'm making . '' `` Look , I 'm a private citizen , '' he said . `` One thing that I do n't have to do is sit here and open my kimono as it relates to how much money I make or make or did or did n't . But it 's all been reported . '' In a press conference over the weekend , Joe Biden said the decision `` represents the kind of man of integrity [ Hunter ] is . '' The president took the opportunity to recast the decision as Hunter `` being forced to leave a Chinese Company . '' Wow ! Hunter Biden is being forced to leave a Chinese Company . Now watch the Fake News wrap their greasy and very protective arms around him . Only softball questions of him please ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 14 , 2019 While the congressional impeachment inquiry focuses , for the time being , squarely on the president 's interactions with Ukrainian officials , Trump 's more recent line of attack against the Bidens has targeted Hunter 's Chinese business venture . Earlier this month , Trump called on Beijing to launch an investigation into the matter . `` The Biden family was PAID OFF , pure and simple ! '' Trump tweeted earlier this month , echoing an accusation raised by his personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani . The president and his allies have accused Hunter Biden of banking $ 1.5 billion from the joint investment firm , a figure Hunter Biden called `` crazy '' and `` has no basis in fact in any way . '' Reports at the time indicated Hunter Biden 's firm sought to raise $ 1.5 billion for the fund -- not that either he or his firm pocketed $ 1.5 billion from the deal . `` They feel like they have the license to go out and say whatever they want , '' Hunter Biden said . `` It 's insane to even -- it feels to me like living in some kind of , you know , 'Alice in Wonderland , ' where you 're up on the real world and then you fall down the rabbit hole , and , you know , the president 's the Cheshire Cat asking you questions about crazy things that do n't bear any resemblance to the reality of anything that has to do with me . '' Despite Hunter Biden 's dismissal of the $ 1.5 billion figure attached to his investment in the firm , ethics experts have said his connection with the Chinese-based corporation again raises the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest , particularly in light of the fact that Hunter Biden flew with his father to Beijing aboard Air Force Two in 2013 -- around the time the deal was negotiated . `` I 've traveled everywhere with my dad , '' Biden said . `` And I went [ to China in 2013 ] because my daughter was on the trip too . '' Hunter Biden 's lawyer said he has yet to receive a financial return on investment , adding that he only became a minority stakeholder in the company in October 2017 – after Joe Biden was no longer vice president . Prior to then , he served as an unpaid director . Again , Biden insists he never spoke of his professional dealings with his father on the 13-hour flight . And while he insists he did not engage in any business during the visit , he told The New Yorker in July that he did meet with a business partner , Jonathan Li , and even organized Li to shake hands with his father . Asked about that interaction , Hunter Biden said he could not remember it specifically , but said he `` probably '' introduced them , and in fact `` hoped '' he had – adding that he had been friends with Li for 13 years . `` Whether I 'm in New York , or whether I 'm in Washington , D.C. , or whether I 'm on the campaign trail in Nevada , or whether I am in Iowa with him -- [ and ] a friend and a business associate is in the hotel , and my dad 's staying there -- is it inappropriate for me to have coffee with him ? '' Biden asked rhetorically . Robach pressed the matter , though , asking Hunter what he would say to those `` who believe this is exactly why people hate Washington . '' `` I do n't know what to tell you . I made a mistake in retrospect as it related to creating any perception that that was wrong , '' Hunter Biden said . `` My dad has never made a decision about anything , I 'm absolutely certain , taking into account anything other than what is best for the American people and what the people that elected him to do . I am 100 % certain of that . '' Despite the controversy , Biden maintains that the attention on his foreign business deals wo n't harm his father 's campaign in the long run . `` I think that they know who my dad is , and I think that they know that my dad is not Donald Trump , '' he said . `` I certainly hope that there is no negative political ramifications of this . I think that the truth always wins . '' Still , Biden says , the toll of being in the president 's line of fire has placed a strain on his personal life -- even though he insists his relationship with his father is as strong as ever . `` My dad does n't have to defend me . My dad only has to love me . And my dad loves me unequivocally , '' he said . `` And so [ that is ] one thing that he does n't have to get involved in because he knows that I am my own man and that I 'm strong enough . '' In fact , he used the president 's attacks to draw a contrast between his father and Trump . `` As it relates to whether he can take on Donald Trump , absolutely , '' he said . `` But my dad does n't go after other people 's kids . He just does n't . Never has . '' But as far as being a target for President Trump , Biden insists he does n't care . `` Being the subject of Donald Trump 's ire is a feather in my cap . It 's not something that I go to bed nervous about at night at all . The reason I 'm able to do that is because I am absolutely enveloped in love of my family , '' said Biden . Trump continued to target the younger Biden after this interview aired . `` Hunter Biden was really bad on @ GMA , '' the president tweeted on Tuesday . `` Now Sleepy Joe has real problems ! Reminds me of Crooked Hillary and her 33,000 deleted Emails , not recoverable ! '' The president is not the only Trump family member to target the Bidens . At a campaign rally , Eric Trump , the president 's son , led a chant of `` lock him up , '' referring to Hunter Biden . In response , Hunter called the Trumps `` irrelevant , '' adding that he does not spend time thinking about them . Hunter Biden was really bad on @ GMA . Now Sleepy Joe has real problems ! Reminds me of Crooked Hillary and her 33,000 deleted Emails , not recoverable ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 15 , 2019 `` Unlike them , I do n't spend a lot of time thinking about them . I really do n't . It 's all noise . And what they do is they create just an enormous amount of noise . I have to then answer questions -- about accusations made by probably the most unethical group of people that we 've ever seen in this republic , '' Biden said . `` They 'll never understand the level for how much I love my dad and how much he loves me , '' he said , adding later , `` They 're out of a B movie . I mean , they really are . '' `` I 've been through some sh -- stuff in my life . I 've been through some real , real stuff . This is n't real stuff . It is n't . It truly is n't . That part of it , that Barnum and Bailey -- you know , say anything , do anything you want , you know , I mean , like , you know , Donald Prince Humperdinck -- Trump Jr. is not somebody that I really care about , '' said Biden . Hunter Biden likened the president to a bully , and said , `` I do n't feed bullies . '' In another jab at Trump , Hunter Biden told Robach he takes `` no pleasure in this as watching this death spiral of this administration -- this president and the people that surround him . '' `` It 's really hard for me to say anything -- snarky right now or combative because I was raised to respect that office . it 's making me emotional . I do n't -- I do n't know . I hope that -- that the history is n't fully written yet . I hope that -- that a lot of people that -- that have a chance at redemption here stand up for what is right , '' Biden continued . And even as he tries to remain positive , Hunter Biden worries that the undue attention on his personal life could undermine his sobriety -- an issue he has long struggled with . He was discharged from the Navy Reserve in February 2014 after a positive test for cocaine . `` Like every single person that I 've ever known , I have fallen and I 've gotten up . I 've done esteemable things and things that are -- have been in my life that I -- that -- that I regret . every single one of those things has brought me exactly to where I am right now , which is probably the best place I 've ever been in my life . I 've gone through my own struggles , said Biden . `` You 've got to live in the connections that you have to healthy things . And I have so many of them , '' he said . `` And I 've got to live there instead of living I fear , like , 'Oh my God , the stress is going to make me drink , or the stress is going to make me use . ' '' Still , as the son of the former vice president , he recognizes the reality of his position – and that if his father succeeds in winning the White House , there will be much more of the criticism .

As President Donald Trump continues to fill his Twitter feed and campaign speeches with attacks on Hunter Biden over his foreign business deals, the former vice president's son defended the ethical implications of his private ventures in an interview with ABC News, but conceded taking a misstep in failing to foresee the political implications on his father's career. Interested in Impeachment Inquiry? Add Impeachment Inquiry as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Impeachment Inquiry news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest "In retrospect, look, I think that it was poor judgment on my part. Is that I think that it was poor judgment because I don't believe now, when I look back on it -- I know that there was -- did nothing wrong at all," Hunter Biden told ABC News in an exclusive interview. "However, was it poor judgment to be in the middle of something that is...a swamp in — in — in many ways? Yeah." "I gave a hook to some very unethical people to act in illegal ways to try to do some harm to my father. That's where I made the mistake," said Biden. "So I take full responsibility for that. Did I do anything improper? No, not in any way. Not in any way whatsoever." No topic was off-limits when Biden sat down with ABC News' Amy Robach over the weekend, including how the spotlight on his personal and professional life has threatened his ongoing struggle with addiction. It's his first broadcast interview since attracting the attention of Trump, who posed this question to his 66 million Twitter followers last week: "WHERE'S HUNTER?" WHERE'S HUNTER? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2019 "I'm here. I'm here and I'm working and I'm living my life," Hunter Biden retorted from his Los Angeles home. "Hiding in plain sight, I guess." "Did I make a mistake? Well, maybe in the grand scheme of things, yeah," he said, again referring to fallout from his overseas business. "But did I make a mistake based upon some ethical lapse? Absolutely not." Biden said, "I take -- full responsibility for that. Do I -- did I do anything improper? No, and not in any way. Not in any way whatsoever. I joined a board, I served honorably. I did -- I focused on corporate governance. I didn't have any discussions with my father before or after I joined the board as it related to it, other than that brief exchange that we had." Even so, the 49-year-old has maintained a low profile in recent months as the president and his allies have targeted Hunter Biden for his professional endeavors in Ukraine and China. Hunter Biden told ABC News he does not specifically regret those business ventures, but wishes he had anticipated future attacks from his father's political rivals. "What I regret is not taking into account that there would be a Rudy Giuliani and a president of the United States that would be listening to this -- this ridiculous conspiracy idea." Trump's overtures to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July phone call to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden has led to a burgeoning impeachment inquiry in Congress. When a transcript of the call revealed the president's repeated references to the Bidens, Hunter described his reaction as being "like every other American -- I was shocked." ABC News Soon after reading the transcript released by the White House, Hunter picked up the phone and called his father. Hunter said his father asked him about his daughter, Maisy, before getting into the big news. "For real. And that's not a joke. I mean, and then discussion was literally like, 'Oh my gosh,'" the younger Biden told ABC News, describing their mutual surprise at the nature of the transcript. "But other than that, really, I want to make it clear, it's not like anybody has to have any discussion beyond that." Hunter Biden reiterated that he never discussed his foreign business dealings with his father, and made it clear he has no interest in becoming a political football as congressional Democrats haul witnesses in for depositions as part of their impeachment proceedings. "I'll let Congress handle that," he said. "And I'll let you guys in the media handle that. And I'll let my dad's campaign handle that. And the only thing that I'm looking to handle is to make certain that I get up every day and do the next right thing. And that really is the way that I've been trying to live my life." Despite his desire to stay out of the spotlight, ethics experts told ABC News that Hunter Biden's role on the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company called Burisma, while his father fronted U.S. foreign policy toward Kyiv, could present an ethical conundrum -- an allegation Hunter fervently disputed. Biden spoke with conviction when asked about how much information he shared with his father and even whether he was qualified. "[My father] read the press reports that I'd joined the board of Burisma which was a Ukrainian natural gas company. And there's been a lot of misinformation about me, not about my dad. Nobody buys Dad. But -- by this idea that I was unqualified to be on the board," said Biden. "I was vice chairman of the board of Amtrak for five years," he continued. "I was the chairman of the board of the U.N. World Food Program. I was a lawyer for Boies Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in -- in the world." "I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody else that was on the board -- if not more." Even so, on Sunday the Biden campaign released details of a proposed government ethics plan, which included a stipulation designed to "rein in executive branch financial conflicts of interest" -- an apparent response to allegations lodged against the Biden family. And while he cited being a lawyer at a prominent firm and his record serving on several boards as qualifications for the job, in his interview with ABC News, Hunter Biden acknowledged that his last name likely played a role in his Burisma board appointment. "If your last name wasn't Biden," Robach asked, "do you think you would've been asked to be on the board of Burisma?" "I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect," he said. "But that's -- you know -- I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden." "Because my dad was vice president of the United States. There's literally nothing, as a young man or as a full grown adult that -- my father in some way hasn't had influence over. It does not serve either one of us," Biden continued. ABC News On the same day the Biden campaign rolled out their government ethics plan, a lawyer for Hunter Biden announced that his client would step down from the board of directors of a Chinese-backed private equity company by the end of this month -- and commit to halting all work with foreign entities if his father wins the White House in 2020. "I'm taking it off the table, Amy," Hunter Biden said of his decision to step away from any foreign businesses. "I'm making that commitment. Let's see if anybody else makes that commitment. But that's the commitment that I'm making." "Look, I'm a private citizen," he said. "One thing that I don't have to do is sit here and open my kimono as it relates to how much money I make or make or did or didn't. But it's all been reported." In a press conference over the weekend, Joe Biden said the decision "represents the kind of man of integrity [Hunter] is." The president took the opportunity to recast the decision as Hunter "being forced to leave a Chinese Company." Wow! Hunter Biden is being forced to leave a Chinese Company. Now watch the Fake News wrap their greasy and very protective arms around him. Only softball questions of him please! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2019 While the congressional impeachment inquiry focuses, for the time being, squarely on the president's interactions with Ukrainian officials, Trump's more recent line of attack against the Bidens has targeted Hunter's Chinese business venture. Earlier this month, Trump called on Beijing to launch an investigation into the matter. "The Biden family was PAID OFF, pure and simple!" Trump tweeted earlier this month, echoing an accusation raised by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. The president and his allies have accused Hunter Biden of banking $1.5 billion from the joint investment firm, a figure Hunter Biden called "crazy" and "has no basis in fact in any way." Reports at the time indicated Hunter Biden's firm sought to raise $1.5 billion for the fund -- not that either he or his firm pocketed $1.5 billion from the deal. "They feel like they have the license to go out and say whatever they want," Hunter Biden said. "It's insane to even -- it feels to me like living in some kind of, you know, 'Alice in Wonderland,' where you're up on the real world and then you fall down the rabbit hole, and, you know, the president's the Cheshire Cat asking you questions about crazy things that don't bear any resemblance to the reality of anything that has to do with me." Despite Hunter Biden's dismissal of the $1.5 billion figure attached to his investment in the firm, ethics experts have said his connection with the Chinese-based corporation again raises the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest, particularly in light of the fact that Hunter Biden flew with his father to Beijing aboard Air Force Two in 2013 -- around the time the deal was negotiated. "I've traveled everywhere with my dad," Biden said. "And I went [to China in 2013] because my daughter was on the trip too." Hunter Biden's lawyer said he has yet to receive a financial return on investment, adding that he only became a minority stakeholder in the company in October 2017 – after Joe Biden was no longer vice president. Prior to then, he served as an unpaid director. Again, Biden insists he never spoke of his professional dealings with his father on the 13-hour flight. And while he insists he did not engage in any business during the visit, he told The New Yorker in July that he did meet with a business partner, Jonathan Li, and even organized Li to shake hands with his father. ABC News Asked about that interaction, Hunter Biden said he could not remember it specifically, but said he "probably" introduced them, and in fact "hoped" he had – adding that he had been friends with Li for 13 years. "Whether I'm in New York, or whether I'm in Washington, D.C., or whether I'm on the campaign trail in Nevada, or whether I am in Iowa with him -- [and] a friend and a business associate is in the hotel, and my dad's staying there -- is it inappropriate for me to have coffee with him?" Biden asked rhetorically. Robach pressed the matter, though, asking Hunter what he would say to those "who believe this is exactly why people hate Washington." "I don't know what to tell you. I made a mistake in retrospect as it related to creating any perception that that was wrong," Hunter Biden said. "My dad has never made a decision about anything, I'm absolutely certain, taking into account anything other than what is best for the American people and what the people that elected him to do. I am 100% certain of that." Despite the controversy, Biden maintains that the attention on his foreign business deals won't harm his father's campaign in the long run. "I think that they know who my dad is, and I think that they know that my dad is not Donald Trump," he said. "I certainly hope that there is no negative political ramifications of this. I think that the truth always wins." Still, Biden says, the toll of being in the president's line of fire has placed a strain on his personal life -- even though he insists his relationship with his father is as strong as ever. "My dad doesn't have to defend me. My dad only has to love me. And my dad loves me unequivocally," he said. "And so [that is] one thing that he doesn't have to get involved in because he knows that I am my own man and that I'm strong enough." In fact, he used the president's attacks to draw a contrast between his father and Trump. "As it relates to whether he can take on Donald Trump, absolutely," he said. "But my dad doesn't go after other people's kids. He just doesn't. Never has." ABC News But as far as being a target for President Trump, Biden insists he doesn't care. "Being the subject of Donald Trump's ire is a feather in my cap. It's not something that I go to bed nervous about at night at all. The reason I'm able to do that is because I am absolutely enveloped in love of my family," said Biden. Trump continued to target the younger Biden after this interview aired. "Hunter Biden was really bad on @GMA," the president tweeted on Tuesday. "Now Sleepy Joe has real problems! Reminds me of Crooked Hillary and her 33,000 deleted Emails, not recoverable!" The president is not the only Trump family member to target the Bidens. At a campaign rally, Eric Trump, the president's son, led a chant of "lock him up," referring to Hunter Biden. In response, Hunter called the Trumps "irrelevant," adding that he does not spend time thinking about them. Hunter Biden was really bad on @GMA. Now Sleepy Joe has real problems! Reminds me of Crooked Hillary and her 33,000 deleted Emails, not recoverable! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2019 "Unlike them, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them. I really don't. It's all noise. And what they do is they create just an enormous amount of noise. I have to then answer questions -- about accusations made by probably the most unethical group of people that we've ever seen in this republic," Biden said. "They'll never understand the level for how much I love my dad and how much he loves me," he said, adding later, "They're out of a B movie. I mean, they really are." "I've been through some sh-- stuff in my life. I've been through some real, real stuff. This isn't real stuff. It isn't. It truly isn't. That part of it, that Barnum and Bailey -- you know, say anything, do anything you want, you know, I mean, like, you know, Donald Prince Humperdinck-- Trump Jr. is not somebody that I really care about," said Biden. Hunter Biden likened the president to a bully, and said, "I don't feed bullies." In another jab at Trump, Hunter Biden told Robach he takes "no pleasure in this as watching this death spiral of this administration -- this president and the people that surround him." "It's really hard for me to say anything -- snarky right now or combative because I was raised to respect that office. it's making me emotional. I don't -- I don't know. I hope that -- that the history isn't fully written yet. I hope that-- that a lot of people that -- that have a chance at redemption here stand up for what is right," Biden continued. And even as he tries to remain positive, Hunter Biden worries that the undue attention on his personal life could undermine his sobriety -- an issue he has long struggled with. He was discharged from the Navy Reserve in February 2014 after a positive test for cocaine. "Like every single person that I've ever known, I have fallen and I've gotten up. I've done esteemable things and things that are -- have been in my life that I -- that -- that I regret. every single one of those things has brought me exactly to where I am right now, which is probably the best place I've ever been in my life. I've gone through my own struggles, said Biden. "You've got to live in the connections that you have to healthy things. And I have so many of them," he said. "And I've got to live there instead of living I fear, like, 'Oh my God, the stress is going to make me drink, or the stress is going to make me use.'" Still, as the son of the former vice president, he recognizes the reality of his position – and that if his father succeeds in winning the White House, there will be much more of the criticism. "It comes with the territory," he said.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

1NUACgpjhPf14xJL

test

lM664ViZ4iDg8WW8

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump

2017-03-03

Joel B. Pollak

Levin called Obama ’ s effort “ police state ” tactics , and suggested that Obama ’ s actions , rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump , should be the target of congressional investigation . Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post , Levin described the case against Obama so far , based on what is already publicly known . The following is an expanded version of that case , including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline . 1 . June 2016 : FISA request . The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( FISA ) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers . The request , uncharacteristically , is denied . 2 . July : Russia joke . Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) from winning the presidential nomination . In a press conference , Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton ’ s own missing emails , joking : “ Russia , if you ’ re listening , I hope you ’ re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. ” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking . 3 . October : Podesta emails . In October , Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta , rolling out batches every day until the election , creating new mini-scandals . The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians . 4 . October : FISA request . The Obama administration submits a new , narrow request to the FISA court , now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks . No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue , ostensibly for national security reasons , Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes . The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services . 5 . January 2017 : Buzzfeed/CNN dossier . Buzzfeed releases , and CNN reports , a supposed intelligence “ dossier ” compiled by a foreign former spy . It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign , and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump . None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false . Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington . 6 . January : Obama expands NSA sharing . As Michael Walsh later notes , and as the New York Times reports , the outgoing Obama administration “ expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government ’ s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. ” The new powers , and reduced protections , could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked . 7 . January : Times report . The New York Times reports , on the eve of Inauguration Day , that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) , the Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ) , the National Security Agency ( NSA ) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties . Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “ a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government , ” though it is unclear how they found out , since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information . 8 . February : Mike Flynn scandal . Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak . The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador , not monitoring of the Trump campaign . The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama ’ s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia , though Flynn earlier denied discussing them . Sally Yates , whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination , is involved in the investigation . In the end , Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence ( perhaps inadvertently ) about the content of the conversation . 9 . February : Times claims extensive Russian contacts . The New York Times cites “ four current and former American officials ” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “ repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials . The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “ no evidence ” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians . The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks . 10 . March : the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions . The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions ’ s Senate office . The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions ’ s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians , though in context ( not presented by the Post ) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate , and that he was responding to claims in the “ dossier ” of ongoing contacts . The New York Times , in covering the story , adds that the Obama White House “ rushed to preserve ” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign . By “ preserve ” it really means “ disseminate ” : officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “ to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators ” and perhaps the media as well .

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation. Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline. 1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied. 2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking. 3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians. 4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services. 5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington. 6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked. 7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information. 8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation. 9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks. 10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

www.breitbart.com

right

lM664ViZ4iDg8WW8

test

ZaySC9d8ZLsL3NWV

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-reflexive-racism-of-the-american-left/

The Reflexive Racism of the American Left

Jeffrey Lord, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Debra J. Saunders, Philip Leigh, Brian Mcnicoll

“ Treat the Negro as a citizen and a voter — as he is , and must remain — and soon parties will be divided , not on the color line , but on principle . ” So wrote President Ulysses S. Grant in a message to Congress in 1875 . As Grant biographer Ron Chernow points out in his recent book , this was a “ prophetic message ” indeed from the man who won the Civil War that freed black Americans . Black Americans chained into the tyranny imposed in a political deal with slave owners that created the Democratic Party — and established the culture of racism that exists in the party to this day . All of this , sadly — make that very sadly during the week that celebrates the life of Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. — surfaces yet again . Surfaces as , once again , the reflexive racism of the American Left is front and center in the controversy over President Trump ’ s alleged “ s * * * hole ” remarks . Let ’ s leave “ alleged ” out of this . While two Senators present for the meeting say they didn ’ t hear the remark and the Senator who says he did — Democrat Dick Durbin — was outed by the Obama White House for making up comments by Republicans at a leadership meeting with President Obama . Let ’ s say President Trump did say it . Then ? Then a comment that had nothing to do with race was immediately transformed into an example of out-and-out racism . In the New York Times , Emory University ’ s Professor George Yancy asserts that the President is a “ white racist. ” And over at CNN , my old sparring partner and friend Don Lemon closed his “ Trump is racist ” monologue saying this : And for all of you who over the last few years uttered that tired , lazy , uninformed , uneducated , ignorant response of calling me and others who point out racist behavior racists , you know what you can go do ? I can ’ t say that , but you can go read a book . A history book . Let me make this crystal clear . Respectfully to my friend Don — and I do mean respectfully — I have read history books . Lots of them . Plus original sources . And it is crystal clear from those original documents of history that the reflexive racism of the American Left — the Democratic Party — that the media determinedly ignores and that disturbed President Grant 143 years ago flowers still today in the Left ’ s “ Culture of Racism. ” And for a reason . Let ’ s start with the history . Back there in the ancient times of 2008 I took note of that history in this space . I had discovered that the website of the Democratic National Committee was boasting of its party history in civil rights — with the curious omission of 52 years of party history . As I wrote at the time , what was missing was interesting indeed . And it certainly wasn ’ t getting much media coverage — then or now . Let me remind : So what ’ s missing ? * There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery . There were 6 from 1840-1860 . * There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves . There were 7 from 1800-1861 . * There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject . There were 20 , from 1868-1948 . * There is no reference to “ Jim Crow ” as in “ Jim Crow laws , ” nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them . These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC ’ s missing years . These laws segregated public schools , public transportation , restaurants , rest rooms and public places in general ( everything from water coolers to beaches ) . The reason Civil Rights heroine Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the front of a “ whites only ” bus , the “ whites only ” designation the direct result of Democrats . * There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan , which , according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner became “ a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party. ” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease ’ s description of the Klan as the “ terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. ” * There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Thirteenth , Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution . The Thirteenth banned slavery . The Fourteenth effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision ( made by Democrat pro-slavery Supreme Court justices ) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves . The Fifteenth gave black Americans the right to vote . * There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 . It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of Democratic President Andrew Johnson . The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property , sign contracts , sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding . * There is no reference to the Democrats ’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 . It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant . The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations . * There is no reference to the Democrats ’ 1904 platform , which devotes a section to “ Sectional and Racial Agitation , ” claiming the GOP ’ s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “ revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country , ” which in turn “ means confusion , distraction of business , and the reopening of wounds now happily healed. ” * There is no reference to four Democrat platforms , 1908-1920 , that are silent on blacks , segregation , lynching , and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount . By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address “ Rights of the Negro ” ( 1908 ) , oppose lynchings ( in 1912 , 1920 , 1924 , 1928 ) and , as the New Deal kicks in , speak out about the dangers of making blacks “ wards of the state. ” * There is no reference to the DNC-sponsored Democrat Convention of 1924 , known to history as the “ Klanbake. ” The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden . Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan , the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright . To celebrate the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the Convention . Attended by hundreds of cheering Convention delegates , the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African Americans and Catholics . * There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government of the United States , specifically at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913 . There is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II . * There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board , passed labor and child welfare laws and created Social Security with Wilson ’ s New Freedom and FDR ’ s New Deal . There is no reference these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks . Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials , state legislators , state governors , U.S . Congressmen and U.S . Senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965 . Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democrat presidents , Grover Cleveland , Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt . * There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats , or that 80 percent of the nay vote on the bill in the Senate came from the Democrats . Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia ( a former Klan member ) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore , Sr. , father of future Vice President Al Gore . * Last , but certainly not least , there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham , Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor , who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors , was in fact — yes indeed — both a member of the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan . I am often criticized for mentioning this history . But the fact remains that history counts . To bring this to an individual level , if someone has spent their entire life chain-smoking cigarettes , it should come as no surprise when the doctor tells them that they have cancer . In this case , the American Left — specifically their party of choice , the Democratic Party — has been inhaling the poison of racism since Thomas Jefferson created the Party with the support of slave owners . It is now a full blown cancer — a “ Culture of Racism. ” There are very few Leftists not infected with this party cancer . Let ’ s look at Grant ’ s message to America again : “ Treat the Negro as a citizen and a voter-as he is , and must remain-and soon parties will be divided , not on the color line , but on principle . ” A full 143 years after Grant wrote those words of warning the American Left and the Democrats have done exactly what Grant feared . By approaching issues always out of the Left ’ s Culture of Racism they have divided political parties not on principle — Big Government versus Limited Government or free markets versus socialism — but , as Grant put it , they perpetually have divided it “ on the color line . ” The tragic part of this , as mentioned here last week , is that it has turned the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. on its head . Among the famous lines from that famous 1963 “ I Have a Dream ” speech of Dr. King ’ s was this : I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character . Dr. King was , in other words , in complete agreement with then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy , when Kennedy said this in a speech in Kentucky a few months earlier in 1963 at Kentucky ’ s celebration of the 100th anniversary of Lincoln ’ s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation . Said RFK , approvingly quoting Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan from an 1883 dissent to the overruling of the 1875 Civil Rights Act : He ( Justice Harlan ) said , “ Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens . ” Kennedy also noted that Harlan had accurately predicted the future ( not unlike Grant ) in his dissent , when Harlan wrote that if the 1875 Civil Rights Act was overturned doing so : … gives no other result than to render permanent peace impossible and to , keep alive a conflict of races , the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned . That is exactly what happened — and the 1875 law written by Republicans , opposed by Democrats , and signed into law by President Grant had to be re-done in 1964 . After almost 100 years of Leftist-driven racism that ran the Democratic Party with an iron fist — an iron fist of racism still at the center of the American Left today . Which the media simply ignores . Now the Left is telling us , as did Laurie Rubel , a Brooklyn College math education professor , exactly the opposite of the King and Kennedy message — not to mention the Ulysses Grant message : Teachers who claim color-blindness — that is , they claim to not notice the race of their students — are , in effect , refusing to acknowledge the impact of enduring racial stratification on students and their families . By claiming not to notice , the teacher is saying that she is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child ’ s identity and that she does not account for it in her curricular planning and instruction . And as also noted last week , the Daily Caller surfaced a memo from ex-Hillary Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri , now President of the Center for American Progress Action Fund , in which the bold pitch that “ defending Dreamers ” ( aka DACA ) was nothing less than a “ Defining Political Moment for Democrats. ” In other words , as Grant warned 143 years ago , the Democrats and the Progressive Left are still all about tying racism to the progressive agenda . That ’ s how they win elections — which the ex-Hillary aide candidly admitted . Thus there is just incredible irony in Professor Yancy ’ s closing words in his Times article . Wrote Yancy : So , as we celebrate the Rev . Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s birthday , we must face the fact that we are at a moral crossroad . Will America courageously live out Dr. King ’ s dream or will it go down the road of bigotry and racist vitriol , preferring to live out Mr. Trump ’ s nightmare instead ? We are indeed at a moral crossroads . And those of us who believe in Dr. King ’ s dream of a colorblind America where all Americans are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character understand that the “ bigotry and racist vitriol ” in this country is not coming from President Trump or his supporters but rather from the American Left and the Democratic Party . Which intends to perpetuate it for as far as the political eye can see .

“Treat the Negro as a citizen and a voter — as he is, and must remain — and soon parties will be divided, not on the color line, but on principle.” So wrote President Ulysses S. Grant in a message to Congress in 1875. As Grant biographer Ron Chernow points out in his recent book, this was a “prophetic message” indeed from the man who won the Civil War that freed black Americans. Black Americans chained into the tyranny imposed in a political deal with slave owners that created the Democratic Party — and established the culture of racism that exists in the party to this day. All of this, sadly — make that very sadly during the week that celebrates the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — surfaces yet again. Surfaces as, once again, the reflexive racism of the American Left is front and center in the controversy over President Trump’s alleged “s***hole” remarks. Let’s leave “alleged” out of this. While two Senators present for the meeting say they didn’t hear the remark and the Senator who says he did — Democrat Dick Durbin — was outed by the Obama White House for making up comments by Republicans at a leadership meeting with President Obama. Let’s say President Trump did say it. Then? Then a comment that had nothing to do with race was immediately transformed into an example of out-and-out racism. In the New York Times, Emory University’s Professor George Yancy asserts that the President is a “white racist.” And over at CNN, my old sparring partner and friend Don Lemon closed his “Trump is racist” monologue saying this: And for all of you who over the last few years uttered that tired, lazy, uninformed, uneducated, ignorant response of calling me and others who point out racist behavior racists, you know what you can go do? I can’t say that, but you can go read a book. A history book. Let me make this crystal clear. Respectfully to my friend Don — and I do mean respectfully — I have read history books. Lots of them. Plus original sources. And it is crystal clear from those original documents of history that the reflexive racism of the American Left — the Democratic Party — that the media determinedly ignores and that disturbed President Grant 143 years ago flowers still today in the Left’s “Culture of Racism.” And for a reason. Let’s start with the history. Back there in the ancient times of 2008 I took note of that history in this space. I had discovered that the website of the Democratic National Committee was boasting of its party history in civil rights — with the curious omission of 52 years of party history. As I wrote at the time, what was missing was interesting indeed. And it certainly wasn’t getting much media coverage — then or now. Let me remind: So what’s missing? * There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were 6 from 1840-1860. * There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were 7 from 1800-1861. * There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868-1948. * There is no reference to “Jim Crow” as in “Jim Crow laws,” nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC’s missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Civil Rights heroine Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the front of a “whites only” bus, the “whites only” designation the direct result of Democrats. * There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” * There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth banned slavery. The Fourteenth effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision (made by Democrat pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The Fifteenth gave black Americans the right to vote. * There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of Democratic President Andrew Johnson. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding. * There is no reference to the Democrats’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations. * There is no reference to the Democrats’ 1904 platform, which devotes a section to “Sectional and Racial Agitation,” claiming the GOP’s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn “means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.” * There is no reference to four Democrat platforms, 1908-1920, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching, and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address “Rights of the Negro” (1908), oppose lynchings (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks “wards of the state.” * There is no reference to the DNC-sponsored Democrat Convention of 1924, known to history as the “Klanbake.” The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the Convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering Convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African Americans and Catholics. * There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government of the United States, specifically at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II. * There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws and created Social Security with Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. There is no reference these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democrat presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. * There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80 percent of the nay vote on the bill in the Senate came from the Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore, Sr., father of future Vice President Al Gore. * Last, but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Alabama Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact — yes indeed — both a member of the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan. I am often criticized for mentioning this history. But the fact remains that history counts. To bring this to an individual level, if someone has spent their entire life chain-smoking cigarettes, it should come as no surprise when the doctor tells them that they have cancer. In this case, the American Left — specifically their party of choice, the Democratic Party — has been inhaling the poison of racism since Thomas Jefferson created the Party with the support of slave owners. It is now a full blown cancer — a “Culture of Racism.” There are very few Leftists not infected with this party cancer. Let’s look at Grant’s message to America again: “Treat the Negro as a citizen and a voter-as he is, and must remain-and soon parties will be divided, not on the color line, but on principle.” A full 143 years after Grant wrote those words of warning the American Left and the Democrats have done exactly what Grant feared. By approaching issues always out of the Left’s Culture of Racism they have divided political parties not on principle — Big Government versus Limited Government or free markets versus socialism — but, as Grant put it, they perpetually have divided it “on the color line.” The tragic part of this, as mentioned here last week, is that it has turned the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on its head. Among the famous lines from that famous 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech of Dr. King’s was this: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Dr. King was, in other words, in complete agreement with then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, when Kennedy said this in a speech in Kentucky a few months earlier in 1963 at Kentucky’s celebration of the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Said RFK, approvingly quoting Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan from an 1883 dissent to the overruling of the 1875 Civil Rights Act: He (Justice Harlan) said, “Our Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Kennedy also noted that Harlan had accurately predicted the future (not unlike Grant) in his dissent, when Harlan wrote that if the 1875 Civil Rights Act was overturned doing so: … gives no other result than to render permanent peace impossible and to, keep alive a conflict of races, the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned. That is exactly what happened — and the 1875 law written by Republicans, opposed by Democrats, and signed into law by President Grant had to be re-done in 1964. After almost 100 years of Leftist-driven racism that ran the Democratic Party with an iron fist — an iron fist of racism still at the center of the American Left today. Which the media simply ignores. Now the Left is telling us, as did Laurie Rubel, a Brooklyn College math education professor, exactly the opposite of the King and Kennedy message — not to mention the Ulysses Grant message: Teachers who claim color-blindness — that is, they claim to not notice the race of their students — are, in effect, refusing to acknowledge the impact of enduring racial stratification on students and their families. By claiming not to notice, the teacher is saying that she is dismissing one of the most salient features of the child’s identity and that she does not account for it in her curricular planning and instruction. And as also noted last week, the Daily Caller surfaced a memo from ex-Hillary Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri, now President of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, in which the bold pitch that “defending Dreamers” (aka DACA) was nothing less than a “Defining Political Moment for Democrats.” In other words, as Grant warned 143 years ago, the Democrats and the Progressive Left are still all about tying racism to the progressive agenda. That’s how they win elections — which the ex-Hillary aide candidly admitted. Thus there is just incredible irony in Professor Yancy’s closing words in his Times article. Wrote Yancy: So, as we celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, we must face the fact that we are at a moral crossroad. Will America courageously live out Dr. King’s dream or will it go down the road of bigotry and racist vitriol, preferring to live out Mr. Trump’s nightmare instead? We are indeed at a moral crossroads. And those of us who believe in Dr. King’s dream of a colorblind America where all Americans are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character understand that the “bigotry and racist vitriol” in this country is not coming from President Trump or his supporters but rather from the American Left and the Democratic Party. Which intends to perpetuate it for as far as the political eye can see. That isn’t just sad. It’s tragic.

www.spectator.org

right

ZaySC9d8ZLsL3NWV

test

4tkiY3XBbYI1vrh8

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/06/cnbc-pictures-images-andrew-yang-tulsi-gabbard-2020-democrats-candidates-twitter/

CNBC Appears To Bungle Photographs For Both Andrew Yang And Tulsi Gabbard

2020-01-06

CNBC appeared to put up incorrect pictures for both 2020 presidential candidates Andrew Yang and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard during Monday morning ’ s “ Squawk Box . ” The show was discussing 2020 candidates ’ fourth quarter fundraising and put up a list of various candidates with their names , pictures and the amount of money each raised . ( RELATED : # BoycottMSNBC Trends On Twitter After Yang Demands Apology From Network For Apparent Media Blackout ) CNBC put up a picture of an unknown Asian man instead of Yang . “ Squawk Box ” also put up a picture of former presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for Gabbard . The mistake occurred on the early morning show around 6:50 a.m . It was corrected and addressed on-air during a later program called “ Squawk Alley , ” CNBC public relations Vice President Jennifer Dauble told ███ . “ The screenshot below was from Squawk Box this morning around 6:50 am when we mistakenly ran the wrong images , ” Dauble said in an email , including a link to the later program where the images were correct . Founding Partner of Redpoint Ventures Geoff Yang tweeted , saying that the image was of him . Geoff Yang added that he is “ NOT running for President . ” The video was put onto “ private ” mode by CNBC Television ’ s YouTube page shortly after the clip aired . Both Yang and Gabbard have criticized the media throughout their campaigns , with Yang specifically having a problem with MSNBC . Yang announced in November that he was boycotting MSNBC because of an apparent media blackout against his campaign . He ended his boycott of the network in December . MSNBC left Yang off of dozens of lists naming the various 2020 presidential candidates and invited him on-air to then cut away to cover another presidential candidate . The network also failed to include him in the polling lists , according to a previous round-up by writer Scott Santens . Gabbard blasted CNN and The New York Times during the October debate for suggesting she is a Russian asset and apologist for Assad . She called the comments “ completely despicable. ” CNN and the NYT were co-hosting the debate . Yang has stood up for Gabbard at one point during the campaign , saying “ she deserves more respect . ”

CNBC appeared to put up incorrect pictures for both 2020 presidential candidates Andrew Yang and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard during Monday morning’s “Squawk Box.” The show was discussing 2020 candidates’ fourth quarter fundraising and put up a list of various candidates with their names, pictures and the amount of money each raised. (RELATED: #BoycottMSNBC Trends On Twitter After Yang Demands Apology From Network For Apparent Media Blackout) CNBC put up a picture of an unknown Asian man instead of Yang. “Squawk Box” also put up a picture of former presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for Gabbard. The mistake occurred on the early morning show around 6:50 a.m. It was corrected and addressed on-air during a later program called “Squawk Alley,” CNBC public relations Vice President Jennifer Dauble told the Daily Caller. “The screenshot below was from Squawk Box this morning around 6:50 am when we mistakenly ran the wrong images,” Dauble said in an email, including a link to the later program where the images were correct. Founding Partner of Redpoint Ventures Geoff Yang tweeted, saying that the image was of him. Geoff Yang added that he is “NOT running for President.” The video was put onto “private” mode by CNBC Television’s YouTube page shortly after the clip aired. Both Yang and Gabbard have criticized the media throughout their campaigns, with Yang specifically having a problem with MSNBC. Yang announced in November that he was boycotting MSNBC because of an apparent media blackout against his campaign. He ended his boycott of the network in December. MSNBC left Yang off of dozens of lists naming the various 2020 presidential candidates and invited him on-air to then cut away to cover another presidential candidate. The network also failed to include him in the polling lists, according to a previous round-up by writer Scott Santens. Gabbard blasted CNN and The New York Times during the October debate for suggesting she is a Russian asset and apologist for Assad. She called the comments “completely despicable.” CNN and the NYT were co-hosting the debate. Yang has stood up for Gabbard at one point during the campaign, saying “she deserves more respect.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

4tkiY3XBbYI1vrh8

test

qPT0vsEpELHVa9RZ

race_and_racism

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/local/2019/10/14/family-seeks-answers-after-texas-police-kill-atatiana-jefferson-at-home/

Family Seeks Answers After Texas Police Kill Atatiana Jefferson at Home

2019-10-14

FORT WORTH , Texas ( AP ) — A white police officer who killed a black woman inside her Texas home while responding to a neighbor ’ s call about an open front door “ didn ’ t have time to perceive a threat ” before he opened fire , an attorney for the woman ’ s family said . “ You didn ’ t hear the officer shout , ‘ Gun , gun , gun , ’ ” attorney Lee Merritt said after viewing video taken from a Fort Worth officer ’ s bodycam during Saturday ’ s shooting of Atatiana Jefferson , 28 . “ He didn ’ t have time to perceive a threat . That ’ s murder . ” Her family told KXAS television that Jefferson was watching her 8-year-old nephew when she was killed early Saturday . The Fort Worth Police Department said in a statement that officers saw someone near a window inside the home and that one of them drew his duty weapon and fired after “ perceiving a threat. ” The video released by police shows two officers searching the home from the outside with flashlights before one shouts , “ Put your hands up , show me your hands. ” One shot is then fired through a window . “ It ’ s another one of those situations where the people that are supposed to protect us are actually not here to protect us , ” said Jefferson ’ s sister , Amber Carr . “ You know , you want to see justice , but justice don ’ t bring my sister back , ” Carr said . An aunt , Venitta Body , said the family does not understand why Jefferson was killed . “ It ’ s like from the moment we got the call , it ’ s been more and more inconceivable and more confusing . And there has nothing been done in order to take away that confusion , ” Body said . Police Lt. Brandon O ’ Neil said Sunday that the officer , who ’ s been on the force since April 2018 , is on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation and will be interviewed about the fatal shooting on Monday . His name was not released . At a brief news conference at police headquarters , O ’ Neil confirmed that the officer did not announce he was police before he fired the fatal shot and that his failure to do so is part of the department ’ s investigation . O ’ Neil also confirmed that Jefferson ’ s 8-year-old nephew was in the room with Jefferson when she was shot . He said representatives of the police department have spoken with the woman ’ s family and “ shared our serious and heartfelt concern for this unspeakable loss. ” Her family has said she was watching her nephew at the time . O ’ Neil declined to answer reporters ’ questions and said Fort Worth Police Chief Ed Kraus plans to conduct a more in-depth news conference on Monday . James Smith , who called a police non-emergency number about the open door , told reporters he was just trying to be a good neighbor . “ I ’ m shaken . I ’ m mad . I ’ m upset . And I feel it ’ s partly my fault , ” Smith said . “ If I had never dialed the police department , she ’ d still be alive . ” Smith said Jefferson and her nephew typically lived with an older woman , who ’ s been in the hospital . “ It makes you not want to call the police department , ” he said . In an audio recording of Smith ’ s call that was released by police , the neighbor said it was “ not normal ” for the house to leave its front door open for hours at that time of day . Merritt said Jefferson ’ s family expects “ a thorough and expedient investigation . ” The Fort Worth Police Department said it released bodycam footage soon after the shooting to provide transparency , but that any “ camera footage inside the residence ” could not be distributed due to state law . However , the bodycam video released to media included blurred still frames showing a gun inside a bedroom at the home . It ’ s unclear if the firearm was found near the woman , and police have not said that the officer who shot her thought she had a gun . The police statement released Saturday said only that officers who entered the residence after the shooting found a firearm . Police did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Sunday . Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday called on the Justice Department to investigate . “ The killings of unarmed Black Americans have got to end , ” Sanders tweeted . “ Atatiana Jefferson should be alive . ” The shooting comes less than two weeks after a white former Dallas police officer was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being convicted of murder in the fatal shooting of her black neighbor inside his own apartment . Amber Guyger , 31 , said during her trial that mistook Botham Jean ’ s apartment for her own , which was one floor below Jean ’ s . Merritt also represents Jean ’ s family .

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — A white police officer who killed a black woman inside her Texas home while responding to a neighbor’s call about an open front door “didn’t have time to perceive a threat” before he opened fire, an attorney for the woman’s family said. “You didn’t hear the officer shout, ‘Gun, gun, gun,’” attorney Lee Merritt said after viewing video taken from a Fort Worth officer’s bodycam during Saturday’s shooting of Atatiana Jefferson, 28. “He didn’t have time to perceive a threat. That’s murder.” Her family told KXAS television that Jefferson was watching her 8-year-old nephew when she was killed early Saturday. The Fort Worth Police Department said in a statement that officers saw someone near a window inside the home and that one of them drew his duty weapon and fired after “perceiving a threat.” The video released by police shows two officers searching the home from the outside with flashlights before one shouts, “Put your hands up, show me your hands.” One shot is then fired through a window. “It’s another one of those situations where the people that are supposed to protect us are actually not here to protect us,” said Jefferson’s sister, Amber Carr. “You know, you want to see justice, but justice don’t bring my sister back,” Carr said. An aunt, Venitta Body, said the family does not understand why Jefferson was killed. “It’s like from the moment we got the call, it’s been more and more inconceivable and more confusing. And there has nothing been done in order to take away that confusion,” Body said. Police Lt. Brandon O’Neil said Sunday that the officer, who’s been on the force since April 2018, is on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation and will be interviewed about the fatal shooting on Monday. His name was not released. At a brief news conference at police headquarters, O’Neil confirmed that the officer did not announce he was police before he fired the fatal shot and that his failure to do so is part of the department’s investigation. O’Neil also confirmed that Jefferson’s 8-year-old nephew was in the room with Jefferson when she was shot. He said representatives of the police department have spoken with the woman’s family and “shared our serious and heartfelt concern for this unspeakable loss.” Her family has said she was watching her nephew at the time. O’Neil declined to answer reporters’ questions and said Fort Worth Police Chief Ed Kraus plans to conduct a more in-depth news conference on Monday. James Smith, who called a police non-emergency number about the open door, told reporters he was just trying to be a good neighbor. “I’m shaken. I’m mad. I’m upset. And I feel it’s partly my fault,” Smith said. “If I had never dialed the police department, she’d still be alive.” Smith said Jefferson and her nephew typically lived with an older woman, who’s been in the hospital. “It makes you not want to call the police department,” he said. In an audio recording of Smith’s call that was released by police, the neighbor said it was “not normal” for the house to leave its front door open for hours at that time of day. Merritt said Jefferson’s family expects “a thorough and expedient investigation.” The Fort Worth Police Department said it released bodycam footage soon after the shooting to provide transparency, but that any “camera footage inside the residence” could not be distributed due to state law. However, the bodycam video released to media included blurred still frames showing a gun inside a bedroom at the home. It’s unclear if the firearm was found near the woman, and police have not said that the officer who shot her thought she had a gun. The police statement released Saturday said only that officers who entered the residence after the shooting found a firearm. Police did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Sunday. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday called on the Justice Department to investigate. “The killings of unarmed Black Americans have got to end,” Sanders tweeted. “Atatiana Jefferson should be alive.” The shooting comes less than two weeks after a white former Dallas police officer was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being convicted of murder in the fatal shooting of her black neighbor inside his own apartment. Amber Guyger, 31, said during her trial that mistook Botham Jean’s apartment for her own, which was one floor below Jean’s. Merritt also represents Jean’s family.

www.breitbart.com

right

qPT0vsEpELHVa9RZ

test

PpZqXWFHjcJAjOZB

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41752908

Clinton team and Democrats 'bankrolled' Trump dirty dossier

US President Donald Trump has seized on reports that Hillary Clinton 's team bankrolled a sleazy dossier of allegations linking him to Russia . Claims that Mr Trump had been filmed with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel surfaced in the closing stretch of last year 's White House race . Mrs Clinton 's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) reportedly helped fund the research . `` The victim here is the President , '' Mr Trump tweeted on Wednesday . According to US media reports , Perkins Coie , a law firm representing the Clinton campaign and DNC , hired intelligence firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 . Fusion GPS , based in Washington DC , was paid to dig up dirt on Mr Trump , who was then Mrs Clinton 's rival for the presidency . The intelligence firm subcontracted Christopher Steele , a former British spy who previously worked in Russia , to compile the research . Attributed to unnamed sources , it claimed that Mr Trump had colluded with Russian officials during the election campaign . The unsubstantiated dossier also alleged that Kremlin spies filmed Mr Trump with prostitutes at Moscow 's Ritz-Carlton hotel in 2013 . The opposition research was initially funded by an unknown Republican consulting firm , which pulled the plug once Mr Trump captured the party 's nomination . The Clinton campaign then picked up the tab , according to the reports . As he headed off to Dallas , Texas , on Wednesday , President Trump told reporters on the White House lawn : `` It 's very sad what they 've done with this fake dossier . '' He added : `` Hillary Clinton always denied it , the Democrats always denied it . `` I think it 's a disgrace , it 's a very sad commentary on politics in this country . '' In January shortly before he was sworn in as president , Mr Trump dismissed the dossier as `` fake news '' . White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted on Tuesday : `` The real Russia scandal ? Clinton campaign paid for the fake Russia dossier , then lied about it & covered it up . '' Political campaigns have been in the business of digging up dirt on their rivals since the dawn of democratic elections . A choice bit of `` opposition research '' , deployed at an opportune moment , can be a decisive factor in a close election . So it should come as little surprise that supporters of a Republican candidate went to work building a file on Donald Trump during the party primaries or that Democrats took the baton as the general election geared up . What 's unusual - and what will pique the interest of investigators and fuel the suspicions of conservatives - is that after the election , once Hillary Clinton was defeated , the FBI would pick up funding for this investigation . A topic as sensitive as this - allegations of foreign influence on a presidential campaign - does n't seem like something the US government should be outsourcing . There have been plenty of accusations , on both sides of ideological divide , that the FBI has become politicised . Stories like this wo n't help diminish those concerns . In fact , they will almost certainly be cited to undermine the results of ongoing inquiries into Mr Trump 's possible Russia ties , whether or not the eventual findings have a connection to this now-infamous dossier . The DNC said its new leadership had nothing to do with creation of the dossier . A spokeswoman told the Washington Post , which broke the story : `` But let 's be clear , there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign 's ties to Russia , and the American public deserves to know what happened . '' Earlier this week , a US judge gave Fusion GPS until Thursday to reach an agreement with congressional investigators who issued a subpoena to see the firm 's bank records over the last two years . Some of Mr Steele 's allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI began looking into whether there were any links between Trump aides and the Kremlin . Special counsel Robert Mueller and several congressional panels are investigating the same alleged connections , but to date have revealed no conclusive evidence . A few weeks ago Mr Mueller 's team questioned Mr Steele about the assertions in the dossier .

US President Donald Trump has seized on reports that Hillary Clinton's team bankrolled a sleazy dossier of allegations linking him to Russia. Claims that Mr Trump had been filmed with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel surfaced in the closing stretch of last year's White House race. Mrs Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) reportedly helped fund the research. "The victim here is the President," Mr Trump tweeted on Wednesday. According to US media reports, Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the Clinton campaign and DNC, hired intelligence firm Fusion GPS in April 2016. Fusion GPS, based in Washington DC, was paid to dig up dirt on Mr Trump, who was then Mrs Clinton's rival for the presidency. The intelligence firm subcontracted Christopher Steele, a former British spy who previously worked in Russia, to compile the research. Attributed to unnamed sources, it claimed that Mr Trump had colluded with Russian officials during the election campaign. The unsubstantiated dossier also alleged that Kremlin spies filmed Mr Trump with prostitutes at Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel in 2013. Image copyright PA Image caption Christopher Steele, a former British spy who worked in Russia, compiled the research The opposition research was initially funded by an unknown Republican consulting firm, which pulled the plug once Mr Trump captured the party's nomination. The Clinton campaign then picked up the tab, according to the reports. As he headed off to Dallas, Texas, on Wednesday, President Trump told reporters on the White House lawn: "It's very sad what they've done with this fake dossier." He added: "Hillary Clinton always denied it, the Democrats always denied it. "I think it's a disgrace, it's a very sad commentary on politics in this country." In January shortly before he was sworn in as president, Mr Trump dismissed the dossier as "fake news". White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted on Tuesday: "The real Russia scandal? Clinton campaign paid for the fake Russia dossier, then lied about it & covered it up." Government outsourcing Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington Political campaigns have been in the business of digging up dirt on their rivals since the dawn of democratic elections. A choice bit of "opposition research", deployed at an opportune moment, can be a decisive factor in a close election. So it should come as little surprise that supporters of a Republican candidate went to work building a file on Donald Trump during the party primaries or that Democrats took the baton as the general election geared up. What's unusual - and what will pique the interest of investigators and fuel the suspicions of conservatives - is that after the election, once Hillary Clinton was defeated, the FBI would pick up funding for this investigation. A topic as sensitive as this - allegations of foreign influence on a presidential campaign - doesn't seem like something the US government should be outsourcing. There have been plenty of accusations, on both sides of ideological divide, that the FBI has become politicised. Stories like this won't help diminish those concerns. In fact, they will almost certainly be cited to undermine the results of ongoing inquiries into Mr Trump's possible Russia ties, whether or not the eventual findings have a connection to this now-infamous dossier. The DNC said its new leadership had nothing to do with creation of the dossier. A spokeswoman told the Washington Post, which broke the story: "But let's be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened." Earlier this week, a US judge gave Fusion GPS until Thursday to reach an agreement with congressional investigators who issued a subpoena to see the firm's bank records over the last two years. Some of Mr Steele's allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI began looking into whether there were any links between Trump aides and the Kremlin. Special counsel Robert Mueller and several congressional panels are investigating the same alleged connections, but to date have revealed no conclusive evidence. A few weeks ago Mr Mueller's team questioned Mr Steele about the assertions in the dossier.

www.bbc.com

center

PpZqXWFHjcJAjOZB

test

damws5hx0azplBwg

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/media-shows-its-face-in-attack-on-kids/

Media Shows Its Face in Attack on Kids

Daniel J. Flynn, Dominick Sansone, Patrick Hynes, George Neumayr, Mark Bauerlein, Ed Morrow, Debra J. Saunders

If the media ’ s biases did not prevent it from covering the March for Life , then maybe it could have saved itself from broadcasting those biases to the country in such embarrassing fashion . Stubbornly not covering the largest annual civil rights event forced journalists to rely on selectively-edited videos of the Lincoln Memorial culture clash packaged for them by activists . Their bias begat bias . The fact of the media botching the story matters less than why it did so . Nathan Phillips , the Native American who claimed the boys of Covington Catholic menacingly surrounded him , in reality confronted them by beating a drum rudely in their faces . The students did not mock a religious ritual ; Phillips did , earlier in the weekend by attempting to invade mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception by banging his drum . He lied when he described the boys as “ in the process of attacking these four black individuals ” and that they “ looked like they were going to lynch them. ” The four black men , better described as cultists than as individuals , hectored the teenagers by calling them “ crackers , ” “ incest babies , “ faggots , ” and various unprintables . Rather than a Vietnam veteran , Phillips served stateside as a refrigerator mechanic discharged as a private after going absent without leave during his four-year tenure in the Marines . Apologies were in order . Some responsible journalists issued them . Many instead continued to demand them from the teenagers whom they slandered and libeled . Still others changed the subject . As the story evolved from fiction to fact , neither nonexistent “ build the wall ” chants nor an imaginary near-lynching of black men made them villains but rather the “ Make America Great Again ” ball caps favored by the youths did . Speeding past the massive errors , media members shifted the narrative . CNN talking head Angela Rye maintained that “ this Make America Great Again hat is just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at as a KKK hood . ” “ Aligning oneself with Trump ’ s movement is an aggressive political statement , ” Noah Berlatsky , who compares the Make America Great Again hat to the Nazi salute , informs at NBCNews.com . Regarding Nathan Phillips ’ s bizarre observation that the high school boys wished “ to have the freedom to rip me apart , ” Berlatsky calls it a “ reasonable interpretation ” based on their headwear . Of the smiling Nick Sandmann , Berlatsky writes , “ the hat he was wearing spoke hate . ” “ The Catholic Church ’ s pro-life teaching encompasses a panoply of issues such as : abortion , immigration , capital punishment , the environment and climate change , sex trafficking , and the inequitable distribution of the world ’ s resources , ” Father Edward Beck writes @ CNN.com . “ Some claim the ‘ MAGA philosophy ’ is not in accord with church teaching on many of these issues . Teachers and chaperones from the Catholic school should have discouraged students from , however unwittingly , promoting a questionable partisan political agenda . ” After so much dishonesty , the truth outs . The fashion police admit that kids wearing red hats rated them the doxing , the violent threats against them , and the shutting down their school on Monday . The familiar refrain of 1960s activists informed that “ the issue is not the issue. ” With the ostensible issues — racial taunts , an imminent hate crime averted by a drum , disrespectful youngsters mocking a Vietnam veteran — all exposed as not just lies but reversals of the truth , critics hang their hats on , well , hats . People warning about stereotypes hoisted themselves on their own petard in creating ideologically neat caricatures of the kids . An online mob called for violence against what it termed a mob : Catholic high school students gathering to catch a bus ( not every assembled group constitutes a mob ) . Adults inveighing against bullying viciously attacked a group of teenagers . Self-righteousness enables people to engage in the very behaviors they rail against . A Catch-22 quality colors the Fourth Estate . Journalists want their audience to hate all things Trump . But the more they show their audience that they hate all things Trump , the more they discredit themselves to their audience . Journalism , so seductive a weapon for the ideologue , loses its power when wielded as a brickbat . Ideologues surely gain more power through the media . But the media necessarily loses power when ideologues use it to propagate ideology rather than promulgate facts . Journalists ignore Joe Friday ’ s advice at their own peril . The media tried to expose the smirking face of Trump supporters . Instead , they unmasked the shiny-eyed , drooling face of Trump ’ s media antagonists .

If the media’s biases did not prevent it from covering the March for Life, then maybe it could have saved itself from broadcasting those biases to the country in such embarrassing fashion. Stubbornly not covering the largest annual civil rights event forced journalists to rely on selectively-edited videos of the Lincoln Memorial culture clash packaged for them by activists. Their bias begat bias. The fact of the media botching the story matters less than why it did so. Nathan Phillips, the Native American who claimed the boys of Covington Catholic menacingly surrounded him, in reality confronted them by beating a drum rudely in their faces. The students did not mock a religious ritual; Phillips did, earlier in the weekend by attempting to invade mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception by banging his drum. He lied when he described the boys as “in the process of attacking these four black individuals” and that they “looked like they were going to lynch them.” The four black men, better described as cultists than as individuals, hectored the teenagers by calling them “crackers,” “incest babies, “faggots,” and various unprintables. Rather than a Vietnam veteran, Phillips served stateside as a refrigerator mechanic discharged as a private after going absent without leave during his four-year tenure in the Marines. Apologies were in order. Some responsible journalists issued them. Many instead continued to demand them from the teenagers whom they slandered and libeled. Still others changed the subject. As the story evolved from fiction to fact, neither nonexistent “build the wall” chants nor an imaginary near-lynching of black men made them villains but rather the “Make America Great Again” ball caps favored by the youths did. Speeding past the massive errors, media members shifted the narrative. CNN talking head Angela Rye maintained that “this Make America Great Again hat is just as maddening and frustrating and triggering for me to look at as a KKK hood.” “Aligning oneself with Trump’s movement is an aggressive political statement,” Noah Berlatsky, who compares the Make America Great Again hat to the Nazi salute, informs at NBCNews.com. Regarding Nathan Phillips’s bizarre observation that the high school boys wished “to have the freedom to rip me apart,” Berlatsky calls it a “reasonable interpretation” based on their headwear. Of the smiling Nick Sandmann, Berlatsky writes, “the hat he was wearing spoke hate.” “The Catholic Church’s pro-life teaching encompasses a panoply of issues such as: abortion, immigration, capital punishment, the environment and climate change, sex trafficking, and the inequitable distribution of the world’s resources,” Father Edward Beck writes @ CNN.com. “Some claim the ‘MAGA philosophy’ is not in accord with church teaching on many of these issues. Teachers and chaperones from the Catholic school should have discouraged students from, however unwittingly, promoting a questionable partisan political agenda.” After so much dishonesty, the truth outs. The fashion police admit that kids wearing red hats rated them the doxing, the violent threats against them, and the shutting down their school on Monday. The familiar refrain of 1960s activists informed that “the issue is not the issue.” With the ostensible issues — racial taunts, an imminent hate crime averted by a drum, disrespectful youngsters mocking a Vietnam veteran — all exposed as not just lies but reversals of the truth, critics hang their hats on, well, hats. Ironies abound. People warning about stereotypes hoisted themselves on their own petard in creating ideologically neat caricatures of the kids. An online mob called for violence against what it termed a mob: Catholic high school students gathering to catch a bus (not every assembled group constitutes a mob). Adults inveighing against bullying viciously attacked a group of teenagers. Self-righteousness enables people to engage in the very behaviors they rail against. A Catch-22 quality colors the Fourth Estate. Journalists want their audience to hate all things Trump. But the more they show their audience that they hate all things Trump, the more they discredit themselves to their audience. Journalism, so seductive a weapon for the ideologue, loses its power when wielded as a brickbat. Ideologues surely gain more power through the media. But the media necessarily loses power when ideologues use it to propagate ideology rather than promulgate facts. Journalists ignore Joe Friday’s advice at their own peril. The media tried to expose the smirking face of Trump supporters. Instead, they unmasked the shiny-eyed, drooling face of Trump’s media antagonists.

www.spectator.org

right

damws5hx0azplBwg

test

ZpPrDatvAE4E1fcW

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/09/heres-a-list-of-the-5-biggest-ny-times-screw-ups-this-year/

Here’s A List Of The 5 Biggest NY Times Screw Ups This Year

2017-08-09

The New York Times reported Monday the outlet had “ obtained ” an unpublished government draft of a climate change report some feared President Trump would suppress , but it turned out the draft has been available online since January . In light of this oversight , which TheNYT has since issued a correction on , here is a list of the biggest errors , inaccuracies , blunders , misrepresentations and general failures from the paper of record so far in 2016 . 1 ) Correction On Claim That 17 Intel Agencies “ Agree ” On Russia In a June report , TheNYT regurgitated the baseless claim that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed Russia was responsible for meddling in the 2016 election . The report in question was published roughly one month after ███ News Foundation fact check team had thoroughly debunked the claim . ( RELATED : The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months ) TheNYT and other media outlets parroted the claim after Hillary Clinton used it in a presidential debate . Almost a year later , after the claim was debunked in multiple high profile settings , TheNYT issued a correction noting that only four intelligence agencies came to a consensus on Russian meddling . 2 ) Parody Twitter Account Mistaken For Official Account Of The North Korean Government NYT reporters incorrectly attributed a tweet mocking American military efforts to the North Korean government , when the tweet was actually the product of an account dedicated to parodying North Korean news . The DPRK News Service claims to be the “ official News feed of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea , ” but the account is run by two Americans — Patrick and Derrick , according to The Washington Post . TheNYT later issued a correction acknowledging they fell for the parody . 3 ) Story On Food Stamps And Soda Flubbed — Twice TheNYT misreported data from a government study on what people buy on food stamps , then updated the story with an additional error without issuing a correction . The central claim of the January story , headlined , “ In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household : Lots of Soda , ” was that the Department of Agriculture has a report showing food stamps recipients spend nearly 10 cents of every dollar on soft drinks . But that number is almost double what the report actually said . TheNYT later updated the story , without issuing an note of correction , after a University of Arkansas professor pointed out the error on Twitter . The updated version , however , still incorrectly stated that soft drinks are not included in the “ sweetened beverages ” category . “ SNAP households spent 9.3 percent of their grocery budgets on sweetened beverages alone , not including soft drinks , ” the article said . This is incorrect , as soft drinks are indeed included in the “ sweetened beverage ” category in the USDA ’ s full report . 4 ) NYT Reporter Forced To Correct Statement On Attorney General Jeff Sessions New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman was forced to retract a June tweet insinuating Sessions was corrupt . Weisman asserted former FBI Director James Comey testified that Sessions asked him directly to call the Russia probe “ a matter. ” But Comey had actually testified that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch — not Sessions — had approached him with that request . Weisman ’ s tweet no longer appears on his Twitter page , but he sent another tweet shortly after noon in which he reported the news that the request came from Lynch . 5 ) Correction To Editorial Attacking Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory After a man shot up a GOP congressional baseball practice in May , TheNYT used a debunked conspiracy theory to attack former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin in an editorial . The paper baselessly linked her campaign messaging to the shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011 . “ In 2011 , when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot , grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people , including a 9-year-old girl , the link to political incitement was clear , ” the editorial board wrote . “ Before the shooting , Sarah Palin ’ s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs . ” Not only is the correction baseless , but the description of the map was inaccurate as well . The map in question depicted Democratic districts in crosshairs — not Democratic candidates . After substantial public backlash , TheNYT heavily edited the piece and added a correction : “ An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords . In fact , no such link was established . The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting . It depicted electoral districts , not individual Democratic lawmakers , beneath stylized cross hairs . ”

The New York Times reported Monday the outlet had “obtained” an unpublished government draft of a climate change report some feared President Trump would suppress, but it turned out the draft has been available online since January. In light of this oversight, which TheNYT has since issued a correction on, here is a list of the biggest errors, inaccuracies, blunders, misrepresentations and general failures from the paper of record so far in 2016. 1) Correction On Claim That 17 Intel Agencies “Agree” On Russia In a June report, TheNYT regurgitated the baseless claim that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed Russia was responsible for meddling in the 2016 election. The report in question was published roughly one month after The Daily Caller News Foundation fact check team had thoroughly debunked the claim. (RELATED: The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months) TheNYT and other media outlets parroted the claim after Hillary Clinton used it in a presidential debate. Almost a year later, after the claim was debunked in multiple high profile settings, TheNYT issued a correction noting that only four intelligence agencies came to a consensus on Russian meddling. 2) Parody Twitter Account Mistaken For Official Account Of The North Korean Government NYT reporters incorrectly attributed a tweet mocking American military efforts to the North Korean government, when the tweet was actually the product of an account dedicated to parodying North Korean news. The DPRK News Service claims to be the “official News feed of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,” but the account is run by two Americans — Patrick and Derrick, according to The Washington Post. TheNYT later issued a correction acknowledging they fell for the parody. 3) Story On Food Stamps And Soda Flubbed — Twice TheNYT misreported data from a government study on what people buy on food stamps, then updated the story with an additional error without issuing a correction. The central claim of the January story, headlined, “In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda,” was that the Department of Agriculture has a report showing food stamps recipients spend nearly 10 cents of every dollar on soft drinks. But that number is almost double what the report actually said. TheNYT later updated the story, without issuing an note of correction, after a University of Arkansas professor pointed out the error on Twitter. The updated version, however, still incorrectly stated that soft drinks are not included in the “sweetened beverages” category. “SNAP households spent 9.3 percent of their grocery budgets on sweetened beverages alone, not including soft drinks,” the article said. This is incorrect, as soft drinks are indeed included in the “sweetened beverage” category in the USDA’s full report. 4) NYT Reporter Forced To Correct Statement On Attorney General Jeff Sessions New York Times editor Jonathan Weisman was forced to retract a June tweet insinuating Sessions was corrupt. Weisman asserted former FBI Director James Comey testified that Sessions asked him directly to call the Russia probe “a matter.” But Comey had actually testified that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch — not Sessions — had approached him with that request. Weisman’s tweet no longer appears on his Twitter page, but he sent another tweet shortly after noon in which he reported the news that the request came from Lynch. The tweet makes no mention of his previous mix-up. 5) Correction To Editorial Attacking Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory After a man shot up a GOP congressional baseball practice in May, TheNYT used a debunked conspiracy theory to attack former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in an editorial. The paper baselessly linked her campaign messaging to the shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011. “In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear,” the editorial board wrote. “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” Not only is the correction baseless, but the description of the map was inaccurate as well. The map in question depicted Democratic districts in crosshairs — not Democratic candidates. After substantial public backlash, TheNYT heavily edited the piece and added a correction: “An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.” Follow Jack on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

ZpPrDatvAE4E1fcW

test

GdWnMXRW9p9EID3w

race_and_racism

ABC News (Online)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/unfair-policing-african-americans-widespread-phenomenon-attorney-general/story?id=71673284&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_heads_hero_live_hero_hed

Unfair policing of African Americans a 'widespread phenomenon,' Attorney General Barr says

Abc News, Pierre Thomas, Lucien Bruggeman, Jack Date, Alexander Mallin, Luke Barr

Unfair policing of African Americans a 'widespread phenomenon , ' Attorney General Barr says The nation 's top law enforcement officer sat down for an ABC News exclusive . Amid nationwide unrest and frustration with law enforcement , Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday acknowledged that communities of color are often policed differently from white ones , calling the unfairness a “ widespread phenomenon . ” “ I do think it is a widespread phenomenon that African American males , in particular , are treated with extra suspicion and maybe not given the benefit of the doubt , ” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas in an exclusive interview . “ I think it is wrong if people are not respected appropriately and given their due , ” he explained , “ and I think it ’ s something we have to address . ” Backlash and protests in the wake of multiple high-profile killings of unarmed African Americans – including of George Floyd in Minneapolis – has evolved into a national reckoning and calls for an overhaul of law enforcement . Barr said he hopes Floyd ’ s death “ is a catalyst for the kinds of changes that are needed . ” “ Before the George Floyd incident I thought we were in a good place , ” he continued . “ I think that this episode in Minneapolis showed that we still have some work to do in addressing the distrust that exists in the African American community toward law enforcement . ” ABC 's Pierre Thomas interviews Attorney General William Barr , July 8 , 2020 . Luke Barr/ABC News In Congress , efforts to enact legislative change in law enforcement have thus far failed . A police reform bill penned in June by Sen. Tim Scott , R-S.C. , died in the Senate , where Democrats voted almost unanimously against moving forward with the proposal . Scott , who joined Barr during his visit to South Carolina on Wednesday to meet with law enforcement , insisted “ the bill wasn ’ t a failure , ” and told ABC News that he remains hopeful that legislators can come together on crafting a bipartisan effort . As protests continue , Barr pushed back on calls to “ defund the police , ” a phrase that has emerged as a rallying cry for demonstrators . Asked whether there is “ value in defunding the police , ” Barr was unequivocal : “ No , because I don ’ t think the money should come out of the police . ” “ We have to think about more investment in the police , ” he added . “ So one of the things we ’ ve been talking about is trying to direct some of the [ Health and Human Services ] money and grant programs and sync it up with law enforcement spending so we can enable the departments to have co-responders . That is , social workers and mental health experts who can go on certain kinds of calls to help . ” Artist Dustin Klein projects an image of George Floyd onto the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Richmond , Va. , June 18 , 2020 . Julia Rendleman/Reuters In the department ’ s only civil rights investigation into police use of force , Barr shared the results exclusively with ABC News . “ We found , in that case , that there was a drug unit in the Springfield ( Mass . ) police department that was engaged in a pattern and practice of using excessive force , ” Barr said . When pressed over why previous administrations had mounted approximately 70 `` pattern or practice '' probes in comparison with the single investigation under the Trump administration , Barr said he would not necessarily be opposed to using them as a tool more in the future — but indicated his belief that there are better ways to conduct oversight of police departments . ABC 's Pierre Thomas interviews Attorney General William Barr , July 8 , 2020 . Luke Barr/ABC News Barr also weighed in on the Black Lives Matter movement , which has seen a notable uptick in support in recent weeks despite harsh criticism from President Donald Trump , who has called the movement a `` symbol of hate . '' A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that more than two-thirds of Americans now support it to some extent . `` Black Lives Matter -- is a term that 's being used , it 's a group that pushes for civil rights of African Americans . What 's -- what 's your view of Black Lives Matter ? And are you willing to say Black Lives Matter ? '' Thomas asked . `` Well , I make a distinction . I 'd make a distinction between the organization , which I do n't agree with . They have a broader agenda , '' Barr responded . `` But in terms of the proposition that black lives matter , obviously black lives matter . I think all lives all human life is is sacred and entitled to respect . And obviously , black lives matter . `` But I also think that it 's being used now is sort of distorting the debate to some extent , because it 's used really to refer exclusively to black lives that are lost to police misconduct , which are , you know , have been going down statistically . Five years ago , there were 40 such incidents . This last year it was 10 . So at least it 's a positive trajectory there . But then you compare it to a thousand homicides in the African American community . Those black lives matter , too . And those are lives that are protected by the police , '' he added . In his framing of the Black Lives Matter movement , however , Barr said it remains is too narrow . More focus should be placed on economic advancement as opposed to “ just physical safety. ” On its website , the Black Lives Matter movement describes itself as `` committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness , where every Black person has the social , economic , and political power to thrive . '' “ It ’ s not just protecting life . It ’ s black lives matter in ensuring that African Americans fully participate in the benefits of this society and their lives flourish , ” Barr continued . “ It goes beyond just physical safety . It goes to getting good education , it goes to having economic opportunities . ” In terms of violence against African Americans , Barr added that he fears protesters are missing a key element of the broader narrative . That is , violence within their own communities . “ I also think [ the phrase ] is being used now – it is distorting the debate to some extent , because it is used really to refer almost exclusively to black lives that are lost to police misconduct , ” he said . “ Then you compare it to 8,000 homicides in the African American community , those are black lives that matter , too . And those are lives that are protected by the police . ” In Kansas City , for example , Barr said the Justice Department has been in touch with state authorities in Missouri to provide additional federal agents after what Barr called “ a serious spike in crime . ” The influx of support will be called Operation Legend , named after a 4-year-old boy who was shot and killed while sleeping in his Kansas City home . The boy had just recovered from open-heart surgery . “ My daughter had open heart surgery at a comparable age , and I remember how stressful it was for our family , ” Barr said . “ And the idea of your child surviving that , and the joy you would feel to see your kid pull through something like that , it affected me a lot . ” This report was featured in the Thursday , July 9 , 2020 , episode of “ Start Here , ” ABC News ’ daily news podcast . `` Start Here '' offers a straightforward look at the day 's top stories in 20 minutes . Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , the ABC News app or wherever you get your podcasts .

Unfair policing of African Americans a 'widespread phenomenon,' Attorney General Barr says The nation's top law enforcement officer sat down for an ABC News exclusive. Amid nationwide unrest and frustration with law enforcement, Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday acknowledged that communities of color are often policed differently from white ones, calling the unfairness a “widespread phenomenon.” “I do think it is a widespread phenomenon that African American males, in particular, are treated with extra suspicion and maybe not given the benefit of the doubt,” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas in an exclusive interview. “I think it is wrong if people are not respected appropriately and given their due,” he explained, “and I think it’s something we have to address.” Backlash and protests in the wake of multiple high-profile killings of unarmed African Americans – including of George Floyd in Minneapolis – has evolved into a national reckoning and calls for an overhaul of law enforcement. Barr said he hopes Floyd’s death “is a catalyst for the kinds of changes that are needed.” “Before the George Floyd incident I thought we were in a good place,” he continued. “I think that this episode in Minneapolis showed that we still have some work to do in addressing the distrust that exists in the African American community toward law enforcement.” ABC's Pierre Thomas interviews Attorney General William Barr, July 8, 2020. Luke Barr/ABC News In Congress, efforts to enact legislative change in law enforcement have thus far failed. A police reform bill penned in June by Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., died in the Senate, where Democrats voted almost unanimously against moving forward with the proposal. Scott, who joined Barr during his visit to South Carolina on Wednesday to meet with law enforcement, insisted “the bill wasn’t a failure,” and told ABC News that he remains hopeful that legislators can come together on crafting a bipartisan effort. As protests continue, Barr pushed back on calls to “defund the police,” a phrase that has emerged as a rallying cry for demonstrators. Asked whether there is “value in defunding the police,” Barr was unequivocal: “No, because I don’t think the money should come out of the police.” “We have to think about more investment in the police,” he added. “So one of the things we’ve been talking about is trying to direct some of the [Health and Human Services] money and grant programs and sync it up with law enforcement spending so we can enable the departments to have co-responders. That is, social workers and mental health experts who can go on certain kinds of calls to help.” Artist Dustin Klein projects an image of George Floyd onto the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Va., June 18, 2020. Julia Rendleman/Reuters In the department’s only civil rights investigation into police use of force, Barr shared the results exclusively with ABC News. “We found, in that case, that there was a drug unit in the Springfield (Mass.) police department that was engaged in a pattern and practice of using excessive force,” Barr said. When pressed over why previous administrations had mounted approximately 70 "pattern or practice" probes in comparison with the single investigation under the Trump administration, Barr said he would not necessarily be opposed to using them as a tool more in the future — but indicated his belief that there are better ways to conduct oversight of police departments. ABC's Pierre Thomas interviews Attorney General William Barr, July 8, 2020. Luke Barr/ABC News Barr also weighed in on the Black Lives Matter movement, which has seen a notable uptick in support in recent weeks despite harsh criticism from President Donald Trump, who has called the movement a "symbol of hate." A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that more than two-thirds of Americans now support it to some extent. "Black Lives Matter-- is a term that's being used, it's a group that pushes for civil rights of African Americans. What's-- what's your view of Black Lives Matter? And are you willing to say Black Lives Matter?" Thomas asked. "Well, I make a distinction. I'd make a distinction between the organization, which I don't agree with. They have a broader agenda," Barr responded. "But in terms of the proposition that black lives matter, obviously black lives matter. I think all lives all human life is is sacred and entitled to respect. And obviously, black lives matter. "But I also think that it's being used now is sort of distorting the debate to some extent, because it's used really to refer exclusively to black lives that are lost to police misconduct, which are, you know, have been going down statistically. Five years ago, there were 40 such incidents. This last year it was 10. So at least it's a positive trajectory there. But then you compare it to a thousand homicides in the African American community. Those black lives matter, too. And those are lives that are protected by the police," he added. In his framing of the Black Lives Matter movement, however, Barr said it remains is too narrow. More focus should be placed on economic advancement as opposed to “just physical safety.” On its website, the Black Lives Matter movement describes itself as "committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive." “It’s not just protecting life. It’s black lives matter in ensuring that African Americans fully participate in the benefits of this society and their lives flourish,” Barr continued. “It goes beyond just physical safety. It goes to getting good education, it goes to having economic opportunities.” Protesters hold signs outside the Minneapolis 1st Police precinct during a demonstration against police brutality and racism on June 13, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images In terms of violence against African Americans, Barr added that he fears protesters are missing a key element of the broader narrative. That is, violence within their own communities. “I also think [the phrase] is being used now – it is distorting the debate to some extent, because it is used really to refer almost exclusively to black lives that are lost to police misconduct,” he said. “Then you compare it to 8,000 homicides in the African American community, those are black lives that matter, too. And those are lives that are protected by the police.” In Kansas City, for example, Barr said the Justice Department has been in touch with state authorities in Missouri to provide additional federal agents after what Barr called “a serious spike in crime.” The influx of support will be called Operation Legend, named after a 4-year-old boy who was shot and killed while sleeping in his Kansas City home. The boy had just recovered from open-heart surgery. “My daughter had open heart surgery at a comparable age, and I remember how stressful it was for our family,” Barr said. “And the idea of your child surviving that, and the joy you would feel to see your kid pull through something like that, it affected me a lot.” This report was featured in the Thursday, July 9, 2020, episode of “Start Here,” ABC News’ daily news podcast. "Start Here" offers a straightforward look at the day's top stories in 20 minutes. Listen for free every weekday on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, the ABC News app or wherever you get your podcasts.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

GdWnMXRW9p9EID3w

test

UYNRAQLTVruerwd5

education

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/head-start-programs-forced-close-early-funds-flights/story?id=19095420#.UYP7Q8rC2W8

Head Start Programs, Forced to Close Early, Still Have Funds For Flights

Sarah Parnass

By cutting funds for Head Start , sequestration has sent low-income children in some states home 10 days early . But the federal government 's inability to agree on a budget did n't prevent 2,800 Head Start leaders from attending a three-day conference in National Harbor , Md. , this week . Chalk it up to the peculiarities of the sequester . In this case , it 's O.K . to cut classes for kids , but not O.K . to reallocate Training and Technical Assistance funds . National Harbor is along the Potomac River , just over the border from Washington , D.C. ; it offers hotels , restaurants , shopping and a marina . The Office of Head Start held its second annual `` National Birth to Five Leadership Institute '' conference at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center . Rooms went for $ 224 per room per night , a rate set by the U.S General Services Administration ; according to Kenneth Wolfe , deputy director of Administration for Children & Families ' office of public affairs , the event 's total approved cost was $ 752,059 , not including the cost of the stay , meals and air-fare for the grantees . The conference included seminars and lectures focused on teaching parents , educators and administrators to use data to improve programs . Head Start 's mission is to help low-income children from birth to age five develop socially and cognitively before they enter the formal education system . Community Action Partnership of Kern ( CAPK ) in Bakersfield , Calif. , sent four team members to the training . CAPK had to reduce the number of days they offer their program this year from 168 to 158 , two days below the national standard minimum . Next year they plan to operate 160 days . Mark Corum , outreach and resource development manager for CAPK , said any day their children are n't attending Head Start is a detriment to both the children 's learning and the parents . `` Ideally we 're trying to help people with a safety net . You know , they 've fallen through the cracks , '' Corum told ███ on Thursday . `` It 's the total family that we bring and embrace and try to make them better . '' He 's seen `` firsthand '' how the program has helped parents and children with achieve success in life . To celebrate Head Start and protest the cuts , Massachusetts organizers are planning a parade on Boston Common for May 31 . They `` [ h ] ope to … perhaps convince some folks in Washington that our children are as important as air traffic controllers and meat inspectors and that they should seriously consider rescinding this foolish sequester that is causing havoc with the lives of our most underprivileged families , '' John Drew , president and CEO of Action for Boston Community Development ( ABCD ) , told ███ in an email Thursday . READ MORE : Pre-School for All : President Obama 's Pipe Dream or Possibility ? The Boston-area Head Start programs considered cutting as many as 250 slots for children at the onset of the sequester cuts . They are continuing to figure out `` how many classes , children , teachers and parents will be left behind , '' when cuts go into effect for their programs in September , Drew said . Of their 650-person staff , ABCD sent two to the conference . So how can programs facing a 5.2 percent decrease in their budgets afford to send staff to the national conference ? Groups are drawing from a section of their budget set aside for `` Training and Technical Assistance . '' Congress allocates funds for this separately from Head Start 's operating costs , and the Office of Head Start absorbed all of the TTA sequester cuts , so that grantee 's TTA budgets would remain intact . `` The Office of Head Start is committed to working with programs to ensure the provision of high-quality services continue during this challenging time of sequestration , '' Kenneth Wolfe , deputy director of Administration for Children & Families ' office of public affairs , told ███ in an email . TTA money can not be reallocated to cover operating costs without direction from Congress . So while Vanessa Gibbons , director of Jackson County Civic Action Committee in Moss Point , Miss. , would rather use the money to continue giving her young students a safe place to go before their older siblings ' schools let out for the summer , she instead has had to cut her program 10 days short this year . `` They specifically told us we could not cut our training budget . Those dollars were not even in the equation . That would have made it easy . But that was not even an option , '' Gibbons told ███ . The problem is similar to the one the Federal Aviation Administration faced , which led them to furlough workers and space out flights in a way that slowed air travel . But Congress quickly passed a measure giving the FAA the flexibility to reallocate unused improvement funds in order to quash the irksome flight delays . READ MORE : Food Safety , Unemployment , Flood Predictors Still Subject to Sequestration Some on the left have criticized Congress for a bill targeted at helping the FAA . `` Members of Congress fly often , so they 're fixing that sequester mess , '' New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote on Twitter . `` But no fix for kids sequestered out of Head Start . '' Rep. Rosa DeLauro , D-Conn. , posted an animation of an airplane on Twitter with the hashtag , `` # endthesequester . '' `` 4 million meals for seniors eliminated … 70,000 children kicked out of Head Start … 125,000 Americans without rental assistance , '' the message in white lettering on the black plane read . `` But your next flight will be on time . ''

By cutting funds for Head Start, sequestration has sent low-income children in some states home 10 days early. But the federal government's inability to agree on a budget didn't prevent 2,800 Head Start leaders from attending a three-day conference in National Harbor, Md., this week. Chalk it up to the peculiarities of the sequester. In this case, it's O.K. to cut classes for kids, but not O.K. to reallocate Training and Technical Assistance funds. National Harbor is along the Potomac River, just over the border from Washington, D.C.; it offers hotels, restaurants, shopping and a marina. The Office of Head Start held its second annual "National Birth to Five Leadership Institute" conference at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center. Rooms went for $224 per room per night, a rate set by the U.S General Services Administration; according to Kenneth Wolfe, deputy director of Administration for Children & Families' office of public affairs, the event's total approved cost was $752,059, not including the cost of the stay, meals and air-fare for the grantees. The conference included seminars and lectures focused on teaching parents, educators and administrators to use data to improve programs. Head Start's mission is to help low-income children from birth to age five develop socially and cognitively before they enter the formal education system. Community Action Partnership of Kern (CAPK) in Bakersfield, Calif., sent four team members to the training. CAPK had to reduce the number of days they offer their program this year from 168 to 158, two days below the national standard minimum. Next year they plan to operate 160 days. READ MORE: 57 Terrible Consequences of the Sequester Mark Corum, outreach and resource development manager for CAPK, said any day their children aren't attending Head Start is a detriment to both the children's learning and the parents. "Ideally we're trying to help people with a safety net. You know, they've fallen through the cracks," Corum told ABC News on Thursday. "It's the total family that we bring and embrace and try to make them better." He's seen "firsthand" how the program has helped parents and children with achieve success in life. To celebrate Head Start and protest the cuts, Massachusetts organizers are planning a parade on Boston Common for May 31. They "[h]ope to … perhaps convince some folks in Washington that our children are as important as air traffic controllers and meat inspectors and that they should seriously consider rescinding this foolish sequester that is causing havoc with the lives of our most underprivileged families," John Drew, president and CEO of Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD), told ABC News in an email Thursday. READ MORE: Pre-School for All: President Obama's Pipe Dream or Possibility? The Boston-area Head Start programs considered cutting as many as 250 slots for children at the onset of the sequester cuts. They are continuing to figure out "how many classes, children, teachers and parents will be left behind," when cuts go into effect for their programs in September, Drew said. Of their 650-person staff, ABCD sent two to the conference. So how can programs facing a 5.2 percent decrease in their budgets afford to send staff to the national conference? Groups are drawing from a section of their budget set aside for "Training and Technical Assistance." Congress allocates funds for this separately from Head Start's operating costs, and the Office of Head Start absorbed all of the TTA sequester cuts, so that grantee's TTA budgets would remain intact. "The Office of Head Start is committed to working with programs to ensure the provision of high-quality services continue during this challenging time of sequestration," Kenneth Wolfe, deputy director of Administration for Children & Families' office of public affairs, told ABC News in an email. TTA money cannot be reallocated to cover operating costs without direction from Congress. So while Vanessa Gibbons, director of Jackson County Civic Action Committee in Moss Point, Miss., would rather use the money to continue giving her young students a safe place to go before their older siblings' schools let out for the summer, she instead has had to cut her program 10 days short this year. "They specifically told us we could not cut our training budget. Those dollars were not even in the equation. That would have made it easy. But that was not even an option," Gibbons told ABC News. The problem is similar to the one the Federal Aviation Administration faced, which led them to furlough workers and space out flights in a way that slowed air travel. But Congress quickly passed a measure giving the FAA the flexibility to reallocate unused improvement funds in order to quash the irksome flight delays. READ MORE: Food Safety, Unemployment, Flood Predictors Still Subject to Sequestration Some on the left have criticized Congress for a bill targeted at helping the FAA. "Members of Congress fly often, so they're fixing that sequester mess," New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote on Twitter. "But no fix for kids sequestered out of Head Start." Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., posted an animation of an airplane on Twitter with the hashtag, "#endthesequester." "4 million meals for seniors eliminated … 70,000 children kicked out of Head Start … 125,000 Americans without rental assistance," the message in white lettering on the black plane read. "But your next flight will be on time."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

UYNRAQLTVruerwd5

test

cGgzB5jEoda2k0Xy

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/republican-rob-portman-supports-gay-marriage/story?id=18736731

GOP's Portman Supports Gay Marriage

Michael Falcone, Z. Byron Wolf

U.S. Sen . Rob Portman , R-Ohio , once on the short-list to be Mitt Romney 's 2012 running mate , has reversed his opposition to gay marriage , revealing that his own son is gay . Portman Thursday told reporters from several Ohio newspapers that when his son , Will , 21 , informed him that he was gay two years ago , `` It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective , and that 's of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have , to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years , '' according to an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer . The newspaper also noted that Portman , who as a congressman backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act , thinks part of the law should be repealed . The Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the case later this month . `` I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad , the government should n't deny them the opportunity to get married , '' he wrote in an op-ed that ran Friday in the Columbus Dispatch . Sen. Portman , 57 , reveals two other interesting points in an interview with CNN 's Dana Bash : He told Mitt Romney `` everything '' during the vice presidential vetting process and he consulted with former Vice President Dick Cheney , whose daughter , Mary , is gay . Gay marriage was banned in Portman 's home state of Ohio with an amendment to the state constitution that was passed in 2004 . Portman said he believes that same-sex couples who marry legally in states where it 's allowed should get the federal benefits that are granted to heterosexual married couples but are n't currently extended to gay married couples because of the Defense of Marriage Act , such as the ability to file joint tax returns . The news comes at a time when several high-profile Republicans , including former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman , have endorsed gay marriage and when public opinion on the issue appears to be shifting . `` If there was any doubt that the conservative logjam on the issue of civil marriage for committed gay and lesbian couples has broken , Senator Portman 's support for the freedom to marry has erased it , '' Gregory T. Angelo , executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans , said . `` Senator Portman 's evolution on this issue highlights how personal it is for Americans , whether they 're the junior senator from Ohio or your next-door neighbor , all Americans have a gay friend , colleague or family member , and understand them to be as deserving as their straight counterparts of the inalienable rights of life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are the promise of the United States . '' But it comes at a time when much of the base of the GOP is still very much opposed to gay marriage . Speaking Thursday at an annual conference for conservatives , Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida exhorted opponents to treat his opinions with respect . `` Just because I believe that states should have the rights to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot , '' Rubio said . The GOP will have some soul-searching to do on the issue , which is still important , particularly to evangelical social conservatives who have voted Republican . `` While you still have some GOP lawmakers willing to take a stand for traditional marriage , the Republican leadership has walked away from this issue , '' David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network wrote . `` In turn , what very well may happen is that conservative evangelicals all across the country may start walking away from the GOP . That 's not just empty rhetoric . That really could be reality . ''

U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, once on the short-list to be Mitt Romney's 2012 running mate, has reversed his opposition to gay marriage, revealing that his own son is gay. Portman Thursday told reporters from several Ohio newspapers that when his son, Will, 21, informed him that he was gay two years ago, "It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have, to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," according to an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The newspaper also noted that Portman, who as a congressman backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, thinks part of the law should be repealed. The Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to the case later this month. "I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married," he wrote in an op-ed that ran Friday in the Columbus Dispatch. Sen. Portman, 57, reveals two other interesting points in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash: He told Mitt Romney "everything" during the vice presidential vetting process and he consulted with former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter, Mary, is gay. Related: Rob Portman's Reversal Gay marriage was banned in Portman's home state of Ohio with an amendment to the state constitution that was passed in 2004. Portman said he believes that same-sex couples who marry legally in states where it's allowed should get the federal benefits that are granted to heterosexual married couples but aren't currently extended to gay married couples because of the Defense of Marriage Act, such as the ability to file joint tax returns. The news comes at a time when several high-profile Republicans, including former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, have endorsed gay marriage and when public opinion on the issue appears to be shifting. Conservative gay-rights groups heralded Portman's announcement. "If there was any doubt that the conservative logjam on the issue of civil marriage for committed gay and lesbian couples has broken, Senator Portman's support for the freedom to marry has erased it," Gregory T. Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said. "Senator Portman's evolution on this issue highlights how personal it is for Americans, whether they're the junior senator from Ohio or your next-door neighbor, all Americans have a gay friend, colleague or family member, and understand them to be as deserving as their straight counterparts of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are the promise of the United States." But it comes at a time when much of the base of the GOP is still very much opposed to gay marriage. Speaking Thursday at an annual conference for conservatives, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida exhorted opponents to treat his opinions with respect. "Just because I believe that states should have the rights to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot," Rubio said. The GOP will have some soul-searching to do on the issue, which is still important, particularly to evangelical social conservatives who have voted Republican. "While you still have some GOP lawmakers willing to take a stand for traditional marriage, the Republican leadership has walked away from this issue," David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network wrote. "In turn, what very well may happen is that conservative evangelicals all across the country may start walking away from the GOP. That's not just empty rhetoric. That really could be reality."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

cGgzB5jEoda2k0Xy

test

33xZmrXV1Rim2guu

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44143960

Stormy Daniels: Trump discloses payment to reimburse lawyer

US President Donald Trump has officially disclosed his reimbursement to his lawyer , who paid a porn star to hush up her claims of an affair . The Office of Government Ethics found on Wednesday that Mr Trump ought to have revealed the payment in his previous financial disclosure . The filing shows he paid Michael Cohen between $ 100,001 ( £75,000 ) and $ 250,000 for expenses incurred in 2016 . Mr Trump previously denied knowing of the $ 130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels . The White House stated in a footnote to the filing that it was listing the payment `` in the interest of transparency '' , and contended it did not have to make the disclosure . However , the head of the Office of Government Ethics ( OGE ) wrote in a letter that `` the payment made by Mr Cohen is required to be reported '' in the liabilities section of the statement . In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , the OGE acting director said : `` You may find the disclosure relevant to any inquiry you may be pursuing . '' The deputy attorney general is overseeing the Department of Justice investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election . The Stormy Daniels payment is a potential legal problem for the president because it could be seen as an illegal campaign contribution . Mr Cohen , whose records relating to the settlement were seized in an FBI raid last month , is now reportedly under criminal investigation . Ms Daniels , whose real name is Stephanie Clifford , alleges that she and Mr Trump had sex in a hotel room in Lake Tahoe , a resort area between California and Nevada , in 2006 . Mr Trump 's lawyer said his client `` vehemently denies '' the claim . If the actress 's account is true , the tryst would have happened just a few months after Melania Trump gave birth to her son , Barron , whose father is Mr Trump . In April , Mr Trump said he was unaware Mr Cohen had paid Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election . Mr Trump 's payment to Mr Cohen was first confirmed a fortnight ago by Rudy Giuliani , another of the president 's attorneys , in a television interview . Mr Giuliani said the transaction was to keep Ms Daniels quiet about her `` false and extortionist accusation '' that she had sex with Mr Trump , suggesting her claim could have damaged his candidacy . Later that week , the president said the newly hired Mr Giuliani needed time to `` get his facts straight '' . Also on Wednesday , the Senate Intelligence Committee backed up the American intelligence community 's findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election to help Mr Trump . The panel 's assessment contradicts a conclusion in March by the House Intelligence Committee rejecting allegations that the Kremlin had aimed to boost the Republican candidate 's chances . The disclosure shows millions in 2017 income from rents , licences , book and television royalties , company shares , hotel management fees and golf courses , with interests from India to Dubai . His Washington hotel in a former Post Office building brought in more than $ 40m in 2017 , its first full year in operation . His golf courses , including the president 's Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach , did not appear to see major gains , despite frequent visits from the president . Mar-a-Lago contributed $ 25m in income , compared with about $ 37m on the previous report . The president reported royalties from his 1987 book The Art of the Deal in the same $ 100,000- $ 1m range as he did last year - and sales for some of his lesser titles picked up . Many of his shareholdings are in mutual and index funds , rather than the cross-section of American companies he once owned .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Was Trump's Stormy Daniels payment legal? US President Donald Trump has officially disclosed his reimbursement to his lawyer, who paid a porn star to hush up her claims of an affair. The Office of Government Ethics found on Wednesday that Mr Trump ought to have revealed the payment in his previous financial disclosure. The filing shows he paid Michael Cohen between $100,001 (£75,000) and $250,000 for expenses incurred in 2016. Mr Trump previously denied knowing of the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Stormy Daniels: "I was threatened" The White House stated in a footnote to the filing that it was listing the payment "in the interest of transparency", and contended it did not have to make the disclosure. However, the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) wrote in a letter that "the payment made by Mr Cohen is required to be reported" in the liabilities section of the statement. In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the OGE acting director said: "You may find the disclosure relevant to any inquiry you may be pursuing." The deputy attorney general is overseeing the Department of Justice investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election. The Stormy Daniels payment is a potential legal problem for the president because it could be seen as an illegal campaign contribution. Mr Cohen, whose records relating to the settlement were seized in an FBI raid last month, is now reportedly under criminal investigation. Ms Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges that she and Mr Trump had sex in a hotel room in Lake Tahoe, a resort area between California and Nevada, in 2006. Mr Trump's lawyer said his client "vehemently denies" the claim. If the actress's account is true, the tryst would have happened just a few months after Melania Trump gave birth to her son, Barron, whose father is Mr Trump. Image copyright Stormy Daniels Image caption Stormy Daniels says she had sex with Mr Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel in 2006 In April, Mr Trump said he was unaware Mr Cohen had paid Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election. Mr Trump's payment to Mr Cohen was first confirmed a fortnight ago by Rudy Giuliani, another of the president's attorneys, in a television interview. Mr Giuliani said the transaction was to keep Ms Daniels quiet about her "false and extortionist accusation" that she had sex with Mr Trump, suggesting her claim could have damaged his candidacy. Later that week, the president said the newly hired Mr Giuliani needed time to "get his facts straight". Also on Wednesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee backed up the American intelligence community's findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election to help Mr Trump. The panel's assessment contradicts a conclusion in March by the House Intelligence Committee rejecting allegations that the Kremlin had aimed to boost the Republican candidate's chances. Image copyright AFP/Getty Image caption Mr Trump earned $100,000-$1m in royalties from The Art of the Deal in 2017 What else did we learn? The disclosure shows millions in 2017 income from rents, licences, book and television royalties, company shares, hotel management fees and golf courses, with interests from India to Dubai. His Washington hotel in a former Post Office building brought in more than $40m in 2017, its first full year in operation. His golf courses, including the president's Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, did not appear to see major gains, despite frequent visits from the president. Mar-a-Lago contributed $25m in income, compared with about $37m on the previous report. The president reported royalties from his 1987 book The Art of the Deal in the same $100,000-$1m range as he did last year - and sales for some of his lesser titles picked up. Many of his shareholdings are in mutual and index funds, rather than the cross-section of American companies he once owned. What else did we learn from the disclosure?

www.bbc.com

center

33xZmrXV1Rim2guu

test

4bLgSLB4zQGNtjG5

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/trumps-hour-of-action/

President-elect Donald Trump’s will have more prayers read during his inauguration ceremonies than any president in American history.

George Neumayr, Jeffrey Lord, Debra J. Saunders, Brian Mcnicoll, Aymenn Al-Tamimi, Jared Whitley

It didn ’ t take long for President Trump to rip into the self-serving ruling class and hit the populist themes of his campaign . Wasting no time on the usual fluff and platitudes that make most inaugural addresses forgettable , Trump made it plain that this program is to undo the globalism , socialism , secularism and Islamophilia of the last eight years . As the pols behind him shifted uneasily in their seats and looked glum , he promised to eradicate “ radical Islamic terrorism , ” protect American borders ( instead of the “ borders of other countries ” ) , make “ America first ” the criterion of all policy , stop the hubristic meddling in the affairs of other countries and financing other nation ’ s armies while neglecting our own , move Americans from “ welfare to work , ” and address crumbling inner cities . He even worked in a few references to the “ almighty creator , ” whose protection he implied is more efficacious than those of secularist pols . Trump was all business and didn ’ t shy away from any of his campaign ’ s criticism of the “ establishment. ” The days of Washington feathering its nest at the expense of “ forgotten ” Americans is over , he said : “ The people have become the rulers of this country again. ” He said that the day marks not the transfer of power from one party to another but the transfer of power from Washington “ to the people. ” In a veiled barb at establishment Republicans , he said it is less important which party controls the government than that the people control the government . A no-nonsense nationalism defined the speech . Every note of it contrasted with the open-borders internationalism and special-interests ideology to which both parties , in varying degrees , have paid homage for the last sixteen years : “ The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans . For many decades , we ’ ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry… We ’ ve made other countries rich while the wealth , strength , and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon . ” The speech was a concise repudiation of the Clinton , Bush , and Obama presidencies , marking the end of an era of “ empty talk ” and the beginning of the “ hour of action . ”

It didn’t take long for President Trump to rip into the self-serving ruling class and hit the populist themes of his campaign. Wasting no time on the usual fluff and platitudes that make most inaugural addresses forgettable, Trump made it plain that this program is to undo the globalism, socialism, secularism and Islamophilia of the last eight years. As the pols behind him shifted uneasily in their seats and looked glum, he promised to eradicate “radical Islamic terrorism,” protect American borders (instead of the “borders of other countries”), make “America first” the criterion of all policy, stop the hubristic meddling in the affairs of other countries and financing other nation’s armies while neglecting our own, move Americans from “welfare to work,” and address crumbling inner cities. He even worked in a few references to the “almighty creator,” whose protection he implied is more efficacious than those of secularist pols. Trump was all business and didn’t shy away from any of his campaign’s criticism of the “establishment.” The days of Washington feathering its nest at the expense of “forgotten” Americans is over, he said: “The people have become the rulers of this country again.” He said that the day marks not the transfer of power from one party to another but the transfer of power from Washington “to the people.” In a veiled barb at establishment Republicans, he said it is less important which party controls the government than that the people control the government. A no-nonsense nationalism defined the speech. Every note of it contrasted with the open-borders internationalism and special-interests ideology to which both parties, in varying degrees, have paid homage for the last sixteen years: “The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans. For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry… We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.” The speech was a concise repudiation of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies, marking the end of an era of “empty talk” and the beginning of the “hour of action.”

www.spectator.org

right

4bLgSLB4zQGNtjG5

test

BqNSxIbZjXO55oa8

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/21/christie-drops-challenge-to-same-sex-marriages/

Christie drops challenge to same-sex marriages

2013-10-21

( CNN ) - New Jersey Republican Gov . Chris Christie is dropping a legal challenge to a court ruling abolishing the state 's ban on same-sex marriages . `` Although the Governor strongly disagrees with the Court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people , the Court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and , therefore , same-sex marriage is the law , '' Christie 's office said Monday morning in a statement . `` The Governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his Administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court . '' Friday , the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to temporarily block a lower court ruling knocking down the state 's same-sex marriage ban . The state 's highest court had been scheduled to hear further arguments in January . With that case dropped , same-sex weddings in New Jersey became legal starting at 12:01 a.m. Monday . Christie has long said he opposes weddings for gay and lesbian couples . In his first reelection debate earlier this month , he called for a state referendum to decide the issue , although the governor said he would accept legalized same-sex marriages were a majority of Garden State voters to approve it . In the second debate against state Sen. Barbara Buono , the Democratic challenger , Christie said that if his children came out as gay , he would still love them but his views on same-sex marriage would remain unchanged . In a Quinnipiac poll earlier this month , New Jerseyans said they preferred Christie drop the challenge by a nearly two-to-one margin . A slight plurality of Republican voters said Christie should continue to pursue the challenge , 49 % to 42 % . Christie ’ s decision to drop the legal challenge comes two weeks before he will face Buono at the ballots . Favored to win reelection by double digit margins in public opinion polls , Christie has worked hard to present himself as a political moderate in a blue-state race widely considered to be a test-run for a possible 2016 presidential bid . Buono released a statement describing Christie 's views as `` bigoted. `` `` Despite Governor Christie 's efforts to block the rights of gays and lesbians at every turn , it took a determined effort by brave individuals and a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court to force the Governor to drop his appeal , '' she said . `` I am thrilled the court ended his ability to enforce his bigoted views that are contrary to the values of our state . '' The conservative-values organization Family Research Council released a statement Monday expressing `` disappointment '' with Christie 's decision not to pursue the case . `` We are glad that Gov . Christie vetoed the legislature 's attempt to redefine marriage , and that he was initially willing to defend the state 's marriage law in court , '' Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg said in the statement . `` However , conservatives are looking for leaders who will sustain their commitment to unchanging principles . Combined with his signing of a radical bill to outlaw even voluntary sexual orientation change efforts with minors , today 's action has given conservatives serious pause about Gov . Christie 's reliability . '' Gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey started getting married 12:01 a.m. Monday , the moment the lower court 's ruling went into effect . The decision was based in large part on the summer 's U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited discrimination against same-sex couples . In her decision , the New Jersey judge argued that the state 's continuing allowance only of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples was discriminatory . Among those granting the early-morning marriages was Democratic Senator-elect Cory Booker , the Newark , New Jersey mayor who overwhelmingly won his bid last week to fill out the remainder of the term of the late Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg , who died in June . New Jersey 's Assembly Speaker , Democrat Sheila Oliver , who had urged Christie to drop his fight , praised the governor 's decision in a statement Monday . `` This will long be remembered as a great day for equality in New Jersey , '' Oliver said .

6 years ago Updated 10/21/2013 at 3:54 p.m. ET (CNN) - New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie is dropping a legal challenge to a court ruling abolishing the state's ban on same-sex marriages. "Although the Governor strongly disagrees with the Court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the Court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law," Christie's office said Monday morning in a statement. Follow @politicalticker "The Governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his Administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court." Friday, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to temporarily block a lower court ruling knocking down the state's same-sex marriage ban. The state's highest court had been scheduled to hear further arguments in January. With that case dropped, same-sex weddings in New Jersey became legal starting at 12:01 a.m. Monday. Christie has long said he opposes weddings for gay and lesbian couples. In his first reelection debate earlier this month, he called for a state referendum to decide the issue, although the governor said he would accept legalized same-sex marriages were a majority of Garden State voters to approve it. In the second debate against state Sen. Barbara Buono, the Democratic challenger, Christie said that if his children came out as gay, he would still love them but his views on same-sex marriage would remain unchanged. In a Quinnipiac poll earlier this month, New Jerseyans said they preferred Christie drop the challenge by a nearly two-to-one margin. A slight plurality of Republican voters said Christie should continue to pursue the challenge, 49% to 42%. Christie’s decision to drop the legal challenge comes two weeks before he will face Buono at the ballots. Favored to win reelection by double digit margins in public opinion polls, Christie has worked hard to present himself as a political moderate in a blue-state race widely considered to be a test-run for a possible 2016 presidential bid. Buono released a statement describing Christie's views as "bigoted. " "Despite Governor Christie's efforts to block the rights of gays and lesbians at every turn, it took a determined effort by brave individuals and a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court to force the Governor to drop his appeal," she said. "I am thrilled the court ended his ability to enforce his bigoted views that are contrary to the values of our state." The conservative-values organization Family Research Council released a statement Monday expressing "disappointment" with Christie's decision not to pursue the case. "We are glad that Gov. Christie vetoed the legislature's attempt to redefine marriage, and that he was initially willing to defend the state's marriage law in court," Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg said in the statement. "However, conservatives are looking for leaders who will sustain their commitment to unchanging principles. Combined with his signing of a radical bill to outlaw even voluntary sexual orientation change efforts with minors, today's action has given conservatives serious pause about Gov. Christie's reliability." Gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey started getting married 12:01 a.m. Monday, the moment the lower court's ruling went into effect. The decision was based in large part on the summer's U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited discrimination against same-sex couples. In her decision, the New Jersey judge argued that the state's continuing allowance only of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples was discriminatory. Among those granting the early-morning marriages was Democratic Senator-elect Cory Booker, the Newark, New Jersey mayor who overwhelmingly won his bid last week to fill out the remainder of the term of the late Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who died in June. New Jersey's Assembly Speaker, Democrat Sheila Oliver, who had urged Christie to drop his fight, praised the governor's decision in a statement Monday. "This will long be remembered as a great day for equality in New Jersey," Oliver said.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

BqNSxIbZjXO55oa8

test

YaIHwAEZqUfkaAKm

politics

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/27/barack-obama-launches-initiative-to-shape-redistricting-efforts/

Barack Obama Launches ‘Redistricting U’ Campaign for ‘Fair Maps’

2019-08-27

Joshua Caplan

Former President Barack Obama on Monday unveiled a new initiative to influence redistricting efforts across the United States . The initiative , Redistricting U , will send activists to provide free training and tools to volunteers involved in redistricting efforts and guide groups on how to “ be leaders in the movement for fair maps . ” “ Training is at the heart of organizing . It ’ s why I ’ ve always made it a priority – from my 2008 campaign until now , ” Obama wrote in a tweet announcing Redistricting U , which is part of the All On The Line campaign . In February , Obama ’ s Organizing For Action and former Attorney General Eric Holder ’ s National Redistricting Action Fund joined forces to create the All On The Line campaign — aimed at thwarting the use of so-called gerrymandering across the country . Training is at the heart of organizing . It ’ s why I ’ ve always made it a priority – from my 2008 campaign until now . And it ’ s why I ’ m proud to announce @ allontheline ’ s in-person training initiative , Redistricting U . Join us : https : //t.co/yrWJ50wSdE pic.twitter.com/HiKvGd2XyE — Barack Obama ( @ BarackObama ) August 26 , 2019 “ The movement for fair maps will determine the course of progress on every issue we care about for the next decade , ” Obama said . “ And we can ’ t wait to begin organizing when the redistricting process starts in 2021 . We need to build this movement from the ground up – right now . ” “ The movement for fair maps will determine the course of progress on every issue we care about for the next decade . And we can ’ t wait to begin organizing when the redistricting process starts in 2021 . We need to build this movement from the ground up — right now , ” Obama said in a statement on the initiative ’ s website . “ It ’ s why I made it a priority in my 2008 campaign and throughout our larger movement for change in the years since , ” the former president added . The initiative is part of a larger push by the Obamas for voting reform . In 2018 , former first lady Michelle Obama created the When We All Vote initiative aimed at increasing voter turnout across the country .

Former President Barack Obama on Monday unveiled a new initiative to influence redistricting efforts across the United States. The initiative, Redistricting U, will send activists to provide free training and tools to volunteers involved in redistricting efforts and guide groups on how to “be leaders in the movement for fair maps.” “Training is at the heart of organizing. It’s why I’ve always made it a priority – from my 2008 campaign until now,” Obama wrote in a tweet announcing Redistricting U, which is part of the All On The Line campaign. In February, Obama’s Organizing For Action and former Attorney General Eric Holder’s National Redistricting Action Fund joined forces to create the All On The Line campaign — aimed at thwarting the use of so-called gerrymandering across the country. Training is at the heart of organizing. It’s why I’ve always made it a priority – from my 2008 campaign until now. And it’s why I’m proud to announce @allontheline’s in-person training initiative, Redistricting U. Join us: https://t.co/yrWJ50wSdE pic.twitter.com/HiKvGd2XyE — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 26, 2019 “The movement for fair maps will determine the course of progress on every issue we care about for the next decade,” Obama said. “And we can’t wait to begin organizing when the redistricting process starts in 2021. We need to build this movement from the ground up – right now.” “The movement for fair maps will determine the course of progress on every issue we care about for the next decade. And we can’t wait to begin organizing when the redistricting process starts in 2021. We need to build this movement from the ground up — right now,” Obama said in a statement on the initiative’s website. “It’s why I made it a priority in my 2008 campaign and throughout our larger movement for change in the years since,” the former president added. The initiative is part of a larger push by the Obamas for voting reform. In 2018, former first lady Michelle Obama created the When We All Vote initiative aimed at increasing voter turnout across the country.

www.breitbart.com

right

YaIHwAEZqUfkaAKm

test

4mNsFzl87kQ6z6Jt

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/29/unskew_this_desperate_gop_obamacare_ploy_fails_again/

Unskew this! Desperate GOP Obamacare ploy fails, again

2014-04-29

Paul Rosenberg

`` Counterintuitive but true : In HuffPollster 's averages , GOP not leading in a single Senate race , '' Greg Sargent tweeted prophetically on April 17 . His point did not immediately sweep through the Beltway Press — though it did get reposted at the end of a sober analysis by Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos , “ Win the Senate ? Not as easy as Republicans think . '' By the next week , though , the New York Times was getting on board , with a Times/Kaiser Family Foundation poll showing Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor ahead by a whopping 10 points in his reelection race , and tight , but clearly winnable races in Kentucky , Louisiana and North Carolina . Naturally , the President Romney crowd responded with a resurgence of unskewing , but that was just their backhanded way of acknowledging the suddenly altered reality : The old conventional wisdom is dead , long live the new conventional wisdom ... as soon as we figure out what it is . At the same time , adding to the shakeup in thinking , it 's suddenly starting to dawn on people that Obamacare is working — and the Republicans have nothing to respond with as a result . Not only was it announced that Obamacare sign-ups hit 8 million , almost simultaneously , Gallup reported that states that fully embraced Obamacare — setting up exchanges and expanding Medicaid — reduced their percentage of uninsured residents by 2.5 percent , compared to just 0.8 percent for states that resisted on one or both counts . The success of the law and the failure of opposition to it came as a one-two punch . And now we 're even starting to see Democratic healthcare ads . An independent expenditure ad by the pro-Begich group Put Alaska First [ video here ] featured breast cancer survivor Lisa Keller , and stresses Obamacare 's coverage for people with preexisting conditions . `` I was lucky I beat cancer , but the insurance companies still denied me health insurance just because of a preexisting condition , '' Keller says in the ad . `` I now have health insurance again because of Mark Begich . Because he fought the insurance companies , so that we no longer have to . '' It 's been known all along that the individual features of Obamacare are far more popular than “ Obamacare ” itself . Finally , it seems , the law 's supporters are starting to figure out how to use that to their advantage . The same sort of thing is happening in Arkansas , where Mark Pryor 's challenger , Tom Cotton , wants to repeal Obamacare , but has n't figured out how to square that with kicking hundreds of thousands of folks off of insurance . So the Arkansas Democratic Party tweeted out the image , along with the message , “ Over 155,000 of Arkansans now have private health insurance . Tom Cotton wants to take it away from them . ” It 's long been a truism that there would come a point where anti-Obamacare politics would become toxic — when too many people would lose too much with the law 's repeal . But truisms have turned out to be false before . The GOP 's superior spin machine and dogged determination have strung things out far longer than anyone initially imagined . Now , all of the sudden , it seems like that turning point has finally come -- not solely because of the reality on the ground , but in part because Democratic political actors have freed themselves from their reactive crouch , and have started taking some easy layups , which they could have been scoring for some time now . It 's just the sort of shift that could easily become catching , and spread like wildfire — though it has n't happened yet . The results of a survey of congressional Democratic websites written up by Sam Stein and Sabrina Siddiqui for Huffington Post “ tell the story of a party still skeptical of the law 's political benefits , but overwhelmingly committed to upholding President Barack Obama 's signature piece of legislation , ” they wrote . House Democrats were much more eager to express support , “ with many members overstating the critical role they played in its passage , ” while Senate candidates preferred to stay mum : “ the majority of Senate candidates avoid mentioning Obamacare at all. ” But that could mean that these new , more savvy , more specific and more popular arguments could rapidly spread — if anyone 's paying attention . As well they should . It could n't be clearer that things have started to change , although how much , and in what direction is still rather murky , with months and months ahead of us before the campaigns even shift into high gear . Instead of prematurely trying to predict the content of things to come , let 's take this moment in flux to consider the forces potentially shaping the context of things to come . We 've already looked at some of the new winds at the Democrats ' backs , but what about the GOP ? There are still four main factors favoring the GOP , the first three of which are well-known : 1 ) They have a good map this year . 2 ) Their base voters show up in off-year elections far more reliably than Democratic voters do . 3 ) For most of the GOP base voters , it does n't much matter that Obamacare is working . All this means that the GOP very well might not change anything much , even with weaker polls and the increasingly evident success of Obamacare . And a further reason for this last factor : 4 ) Republicans are more intensely tribal than Democrats are . This is not simply a matter of group loyalty or identification , but a question of how they understand the world and their place within it . We can best understand what this means in terms of `` mythos '' and `` logos , '' two distinctly different ways of knowing , which bestselling author Karen Armstrong has masterfully explained in the introduction to `` The Battle for God . '' Logos was `` the rational , pragmatic and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world , '' she explained , while mythos had to do with ultimate meanings and purpose : Myth was not concerned with practical matters , but with meaning . Unless we find some significance in our lives , we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair . The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives ; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal . Moreover , mythos is not just a logos with a different focus , she explained ; it 's something experienced and made real in an entirely different way . Myth only became a reality when it was embodied in cult , rituals and ceremonies , which worked aesthetically upon worshipers , evoking within them a sense of sacred significance and enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence . My point is not that Democrats use logos and Republicans use mythos . That would be far too simplistic . We all use both of them in our lives , but in varying degrees and different ways . What 's relevant here is that conservative tend to use mythos much more in shaping their political identities and activities , while liberals use logos much more in the political realm . The reason all that matters here is simple : The public opinion shifts and data about Obamacare 's success I cited seem to provide a straightforward rationale for making changes in the campaign . That 's what logos would obviously dictate . But the conservative mythos does n't handle change well , and their “ unskewing polls ” exercise needs to be seen , in part , as a ritual reinforcement of their system of meanings . From a ( typically liberal ) logos-based perspective , this probably wo n't help them win more seats this cycle , though other mythos-sustaining activities very well might . But even if unskewing polls does n't help them directly , it could still help them compared to the alternative — by staving off uncertainty , doubt , profound ideological confusions and higher levels of internal discord , all of which could be even more damaging to their chances . The GOP 's de facto collective rejection of last year 's autopsy recommendations clearly shows a preference for staying the course , so it should n't be surprising to see it prevail here as well . Besides , irrationally resisting change — is n't that the very essence of conservatism ? There 's more , of course . Even if Republicans do n't win control of the Senate , resisting the evidence of logos could still serve them well when it comes to influencing the political climate and the shaping of conventional wisdom — particularly if Democrats do n't take the initiative themselves . At the New Republic , Brian Beutler has a story explaining why Republicans would want to pretend this election is a referendum on Obamacare . They `` want the media to be primed to adopt one narrative in particular : that a GOP victory in November will be synonymous with a mandate to reopen the legislative debate over Obamacare . '' Even if the odds are shifting against them , it still makes sense to keep the chance of this prize alive . After all , if they let go of running against Obamacare , then that further opens up the possibility that the Democrats might start running for something . And that 's what the Republicans are really afraid of . There are already growing signs of what that could be . Start with the newly recognized ways of running for the most popular aspects of Obamacare , and then add on different ways of weaving together multiple strands of the anti-economic inequality argument : Support for hiking the minimum wage , gender pay equity , and cracking down on wage theft , just to name a few . Those are n't Senate issues , you say ? Perhaps they would n't be in a Senate where the GOP did n't spend so much time trying to cripple the executive branch , and thwart its every more . By waging an all-out war against Obama , the GOP has inadvertently invited the Democrats to run a mythos-based campaign of their own : support us in supporting the president to fight for a fairer economy for all . There are already people out there writing ads in that spirit . It only takes one to strike the right chord . And once things start to definitively shift , the conventional wisdom will have to adjust once again .

"Counterintuitive but true: In HuffPollster's averages, GOP not leading in a single Senate race," Greg Sargent tweeted prophetically on April 17. His point did not immediately sweep through the Beltway Press — though it did get reposted at the end of a sober analysis by Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos, “Win the Senate? Not as easy as Republicans think." By the next week, though, the New York Times was getting on board, with a Times/Kaiser Family Foundation poll showing Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor ahead by a whopping 10 points in his reelection race, and tight, but clearly winnable races in Kentucky, Louisiana and North Carolina. Naturally, the President Romney crowd responded with a resurgence of unskewing, but that was just their backhanded way of acknowledging the suddenly altered reality: The old conventional wisdom is dead, long live the new conventional wisdom ... as soon as we figure out what it is. At the same time, adding to the shakeup in thinking, it's suddenly starting to dawn on people that Obamacare is working — and the Republicans have nothing to respond with as a result. Advertisement: Not only was it announced that Obamacare sign-ups hit 8 million, almost simultaneously, Gallup reported that states that fully embraced Obamacare — setting up exchanges and expanding Medicaid — reduced their percentage of uninsured residents by 2.5 percent, compared to just 0.8 percent for states that resisted on one or both counts. The success of the law and the failure of opposition to it came as a one-two punch. And now we're even starting to see Democratic healthcare ads. An independent expenditure ad by the pro-Begich group Put Alaska First [video here] featured breast cancer survivor Lisa Keller, and stresses Obamacare's coverage for people with preexisting conditions. "I was lucky I beat cancer, but the insurance companies still denied me health insurance just because of a preexisting condition," Keller says in the ad. "I now have health insurance again because of Mark Begich. Because he fought the insurance companies, so that we no longer have to." It's been known all along that the individual features of Obamacare are far more popular than “Obamacare” itself. Finally, it seems, the law's supporters are starting to figure out how to use that to their advantage. The same sort of thing is happening in Arkansas, where Mark Pryor's challenger, Tom Cotton, wants to repeal Obamacare, but hasn't figured out how to square that with kicking hundreds of thousands of folks off of insurance. So the Arkansas Democratic Party tweeted out the image, along with the message, “Over 155,000 of Arkansans now have private health insurance. Tom Cotton wants to take it away from them.” Advertisement: It's long been a truism that there would come a point where anti-Obamacare politics would become toxic — when too many people would lose too much with the law's repeal. But truisms have turned out to be false before. The GOP's superior spin machine and dogged determination have strung things out far longer than anyone initially imagined. Now, all of the sudden, it seems like that turning point has finally come -- not solely because of the reality on the ground, but in part because Democratic political actors have freed themselves from their reactive crouch, and have started taking some easy layups, which they could have been scoring for some time now. It's just the sort of shift that could easily become catching, and spread like wildfire — though it hasn't happened yet. The results of a survey of congressional Democratic websites written up by Sam Stein and Sabrina Siddiqui for Huffington Post “tell the story of a party still skeptical of the law's political benefits, but overwhelmingly committed to upholding President Barack Obama's signature piece of legislation,” they wrote. House Democrats were much more eager to express support, “with many members overstating the critical role they played in its passage,” while Senate candidates preferred to stay mum: “the majority of Senate candidates avoid mentioning Obamacare at all.” But that could mean that these new, more savvy, more specific and more popular arguments could rapidly spread — if anyone's paying attention. As well they should. It couldn't be clearer that things have started to change, although how much, and in what direction is still rather murky, with months and months ahead of us before the campaigns even shift into high gear. Instead of prematurely trying to predict the content of things to come, let's take this moment in flux to consider the forces potentially shaping the context of things to come. We've already looked at some of the new winds at the Democrats' backs, but what about the GOP? Advertisement: There are still four main factors favoring the GOP, the first three of which are well-known: 1) They have a good map this year. 2) Their base voters show up in off-year elections far more reliably than Democratic voters do. 3) For most of the GOP base voters, it doesn't much matter that Obamacare is working. All this means that the GOP very well might not change anything much, even with weaker polls and the increasingly evident success of Obamacare. And a further reason for this last factor: 4) Republicans are more intensely tribal than Democrats are. This is not simply a matter of group loyalty or identification, but a question of how they understand the world and their place within it. We can best understand what this means in terms of "mythos" and "logos," two distinctly different ways of knowing, which bestselling author Karen Armstrong has masterfully explained in the introduction to "The Battle for God." Logos was "the rational, pragmatic and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world," she explained, while mythos had to do with ultimate meanings and purpose: Advertisement: Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning. Unless we find some significance in our lives, we mortal men and women fall very easily into despair. The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal. Moreover, mythos is not just a logos with a different focus, she explained; it's something experienced and made real in an entirely different way. Myth only became a reality when it was embodied in cult, rituals and ceremonies, which worked aesthetically upon worshipers, evoking within them a sense of sacred significance and enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence. Advertisement: My point is not that Democrats use logos and Republicans use mythos. That would be far too simplistic. We all use both of them in our lives, but in varying degrees and different ways. What's relevant here is that conservative tend to use mythos much more in shaping their political identities and activities, while liberals use logos much more in the political realm. The reason all that matters here is simple: The public opinion shifts and data about Obamacare's success I cited seem to provide a straightforward rationale for making changes in the campaign. That's what logos would obviously dictate. But the conservative mythos doesn't handle change well, and their “unskewing polls” exercise needs to be seen, in part, as a ritual reinforcement of their system of meanings. From a (typically liberal) logos-based perspective, this probably won't help them win more seats this cycle, though other mythos-sustaining activities very well might. But even if unskewing polls doesn't help them directly, it could still help them compared to the alternative — by staving off uncertainty, doubt, profound ideological confusions and higher levels of internal discord, all of which could be even more damaging to their chances. The GOP's de facto collective rejection of last year's autopsy recommendations clearly shows a preference for staying the course, so it shouldn't be surprising to see it prevail here as well. Besides, irrationally resisting change — isn't that the very essence of conservatism? There's more, of course. Even if Republicans don't win control of the Senate, resisting the evidence of logos could still serve them well when it comes to influencing the political climate and the shaping of conventional wisdom — particularly if Democrats don't take the initiative themselves. At the New Republic, Brian Beutler has a story explaining why Republicans would want to pretend this election is a referendum on Obamacare. They "want the media to be primed to adopt one narrative in particular: that a GOP victory in November will be synonymous with a mandate to reopen the legislative debate over Obamacare." Even if the odds are shifting against them, it still makes sense to keep the chance of this prize alive. After all, if they let go of running against Obamacare, then that further opens up the possibility that the Democrats might start running for something. And that's what the Republicans are really afraid of. Advertisement: There are already growing signs of what that could be. Start with the newly recognized ways of running for the most popular aspects of Obamacare, and then add on different ways of weaving together multiple strands of the anti-economic inequality argument: Support for hiking the minimum wage, gender pay equity, and cracking down on wage theft, just to name a few. Those aren't Senate issues, you say? Perhaps they wouldn't be in a Senate where the GOP didn't spend so much time trying to cripple the executive branch, and thwart its every more. By waging an all-out war against Obama, the GOP has inadvertently invited the Democrats to run a mythos-based campaign of their own: support us in supporting the president to fight for a fairer economy for all. There are already people out there writing ads in that spirit. It only takes one to strike the right chord. And once things start to definitively shift, the conventional wisdom will have to adjust once again.

www.salon.com

left

4mNsFzl87kQ6z6Jt

test

b0EnO92UPh2UfTIC

fbi

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/10/william-barr-donald-trump-russia-investigation-fbi-sabotage

Barr claims Trump-Russia investigation was FBI attempt to 'sabotage' the president

2020-04-10

Guardian Staff

Attorney general asserts that investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia was ‘ without basis ’ , despite evidence William Barr has said without evidence that he believes the Russia investigation that shadowed Donald Trump for the first two years of his administration was started without any basis and amounted to an effort to “ sabotage the presidency ” , he said in an interview with Fox News Channel that aired on Thursday . The attorney general offered no support for his assertion that the FBI lacked a basis for opening the investigation and made no mention of the fact that the bureau began its investigation after a Trump campaign adviser purported to have early knowledge that Russia had dirt on his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton . Barr , who has appointed a US attorney to scrutinize the origins of the Russia investigation , said the justice department has evidence there was “ something far more troubling ” than just mistakes during the investigation that was eventually taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller . “ I think the president has every right to be frustrated , because I think what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history , ” Barr said in the interview with Fox News Channel ’ s Laura Ingraham . The attorney general asserted that the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia “ without any basis ” . “ Even more concerning , actually , is what happened after the campaign , a whole pattern of events while he was president , ” Barr said . “ To sabotage the presidency , and I think that – or at least have the effect of sabotaging the presidency . ” The justice department ’ s inspector general found in a December report that the FBI was justified in opening the investigation to protect against a potential national security threat . It did not find any evidence that the decision to start the investigation was motivated by political bias . Barr has faced previous calls to step down after he was accused of politicizing the position of attorney general , “ doing the president ’ s personal bidding ” and damaging the reputation of the department for “ integrity and the rule of law ” . FBI 's Trump-Russia inquiry was n't biased against president , watchdog finds Read more Trump and his supporters are counting on different conclusions from the investigation led by John Durham , the US attorney Barr selected to examine the early days of the Russia investigation . Durham ’ s investigation is ongoing , and Barr did not provide any evidence about what Durham has found so far . Mueller concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election , but his investigation didn ’ t find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump ’ s campaign and Russia . Mueller also examined about a dozen possible instances of obstruction of justice and has pointedly said he could not exonerate the president . The inspector general ’ s report identified significant problems with applications for warrants to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016 and 2017 . Investigators were concerned about Page ’ s ties to Russia , but never charged him with any wrongdoing . The inspector general , Michael Horowitz , has said the FBI failed to follow its own standards for accuracy and completeness in wiretap applications provided to the secretive foreign intelligence surveillance court . The report detailed 17 errors and omissions in the application process , including failing to tell the court when questions were raised about the reliability of some of the information it had presented to receive the warrants . Those mistakes prompted internal changes within the FBI and spurred a congressional debate over whether the bureau ’ s surveillance tools should be reined in . But Barr said he believes they were more than just mistakes , offering a personal view of the investigation , a highly unusual move for a prosecutor during an ongoing investigation . “ My own view is that the evidence shows that we ’ re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness , ” he said . “ There is something far more troubling here , and we ’ re going to get to the bottom of it . The FBI began investigating on 31 July 2016 whether the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia to sway the outcome of the presidential election . By that point , Russian hackers had broken into the Clinton campaign and other Democratic email accounts and George Papadopoulos , a Trump campaign adviser , had boasted to a diplomat that he was aware that Russia had derogatory information on Clinton . Though Trump and Barr have seized on errors made during the surveillance of Page , the investigation had already been under way for months by the time the first application was filed .

Attorney general asserts that investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia was ‘without basis’, despite evidence William Barr has said without evidence that he believes the Russia investigation that shadowed Donald Trump for the first two years of his administration was started without any basis and amounted to an effort to “sabotage the presidency”, he said in an interview with Fox News Channel that aired on Thursday. The attorney general offered no support for his assertion that the FBI lacked a basis for opening the investigation and made no mention of the fact that the bureau began its investigation after a Trump campaign adviser purported to have early knowledge that Russia had dirt on his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Barr, who has appointed a US attorney to scrutinize the origins of the Russia investigation, said the justice department has evidence there was “something far more troubling” than just mistakes during the investigation that was eventually taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller. “I think the president has every right to be frustrated, because I think what happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history,” Barr said in the interview with Fox News Channel’s Laura Ingraham. The attorney general asserted that the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia “without any basis”. “Even more concerning, actually, is what happened after the campaign, a whole pattern of events while he was president,” Barr said. “To sabotage the presidency, and I think that – or at least have the effect of sabotaging the presidency.” The justice department’s inspector general found in a December report that the FBI was justified in opening the investigation to protect against a potential national security threat. It did not find any evidence that the decision to start the investigation was motivated by political bias. Barr has faced previous calls to step down after he was accused of politicizing the position of attorney general, “doing the president’s personal bidding” and damaging the reputation of the department for “integrity and the rule of law”. FBI's Trump-Russia inquiry wasn't biased against president, watchdog finds Read more Trump and his supporters are counting on different conclusions from the investigation led by John Durham, the US attorney Barr selected to examine the early days of the Russia investigation. Durham’s investigation is ongoing, and Barr did not provide any evidence about what Durham has found so far. Mueller concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election, but his investigation didn’t find sufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Mueller also examined about a dozen possible instances of obstruction of justice and has pointedly said he could not exonerate the president. The inspector general’s report identified significant problems with applications for warrants to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016 and 2017. Investigators were concerned about Page’s ties to Russia, but never charged him with any wrongdoing. The inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has said the FBI failed to follow its own standards for accuracy and completeness in wiretap applications provided to the secretive foreign intelligence surveillance court. The report detailed 17 errors and omissions in the application process, including failing to tell the court when questions were raised about the reliability of some of the information it had presented to receive the warrants. Those mistakes prompted internal changes within the FBI and spurred a congressional debate over whether the bureau’s surveillance tools should be reined in. But Barr said he believes they were more than just mistakes, offering a personal view of the investigation, a highly unusual move for a prosecutor during an ongoing investigation. “My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness,” he said. “There is something far more troubling here, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it. The FBI began investigating on 31 July 2016 whether the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia to sway the outcome of the presidential election. By that point, Russian hackers had broken into the Clinton campaign and other Democratic email accounts and George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, had boasted to a diplomat that he was aware that Russia had derogatory information on Clinton. Though Trump and Barr have seized on errors made during the surveillance of Page, the investigation had already been under way for months by the time the first application was filed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

www.theguardian.com

left

b0EnO92UPh2UfTIC

test

4xAZmuBbWn5f0fV1

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/01/chris_christies_latest_big_lie_bankrupt_scare_tactics_and_phony_bipartisanship/

Chris Christie’s latest big lie: Bankrupt scare tactics and phony bipartisanship

2014-08-01

Bob Hennelly

As New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie visits Iowa and New Hampshire , he continues to insist that if he does not get concessions from the state ’ s public workers his state will go bankrupt like Detroit . Back in the spring in an edition of his monthly radio show “ Ask the Governor , ” Christie challenged the Democratically controlled Legislature to undertake a second round of pension reforms to stave off the doomsday scenario of state insolvency . “ So until the Legislature can come to grips with the idea that to control property taxes , to control income taxes , to control sales taxes , and to provide services , we can ’ t continue to sustain a pension and health benefits system that is going to bankrupt us , '' he said . `` And if you need any proof of that , look at the City of Detroit — just went bankrupt — $ 11 billion in debt versus just $ 2 billion in cash , and of the $ 11 billion in debt , $ 9.5 billion was for pension and retiree health benefits . ” There is only one problem : Under existing law and our federal system , New Jersey , or any other state , can ’ t go bankrupt . While such over-the-top rhetoric ensures the governor holds the spotlight , it brings more heat than light to a debate that needs less bombast and more finesse . It is much harder than just throwing up your hands and invoking the fiscal apocalypse . The reality is that the state , with or without Chris Christie , will have to sort this out politically , without the help of a federal bankruptcy judge . “ The states are sovereign entities . Each state has its own constitution , ” says Paul S. Maco , a partner with the law firm Bracewell and Giuliani . As Maco reads the law , making states eligible for federal bankruptcy would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution . Maco is one of the nation ’ s leading experts on public finance and served as the first director of the Securities and Exchange Commission ’ s Office of Municipal Securities that led the SEC ’ s response to the 1994 Orange County bankruptcy . Professor J. Fred Giertz , director of the University of Illinois ’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs , agrees states can ’ t file for federal bankruptcy protections . “ States do not have that option even though bankruptcy does allow an orderly process to insure equity in who gets paid and who doesn ’ t , ” Giertz says . To be sure , the New Jersey public pension debacle pre-dates Christie ’ s tenure . Under governors from both political parties , benefits were expanded while the state regularly missed payments . Things happened that probably deserved the attention of a grand jury , but no consequences ensued except a slap on the wrist for the state . Back in 2010 the Securities and Exchange Commission took the unprecedented step of charging the state of New Jersey with materially misrepresenting the status of the state ’ s pension system in 79 bond offerings valued at $ 26 billion from 2001 until 2007 . Such an act of blatant fraud by a mere mortal would be an indictable offense . In Jersey , it was just part of our landscape . When Christie , working with Democratic Senate president Stephen Sweeney and former Speaker Shelia Olivier , produced the bipartisan pension reset , which raised the public employee retirement age , increased what workers paid in for their benefits as well as ended the robo cost-of-living increases , there was a sense the state could move forward by finding common ground and shared sacrifice . In the process the collaboration reduced the state ’ s long-term liabilities by $ 122 billion . But this spring Christie invoked the Detroit bankruptcy scenario as political cover for his decision to renege on his pledge to contribute the full $ 3.8 billion to the public employee pension system that was the linchpin of the deal he cut with the Democrats . Christie cut the pension payment to $ 1.38 billion and used the balance to fill a budget gap that was the direct result of his own wildly unrealistic revenue projections . As an alternative , Sweeney offered a budget plan that generated an additional $ 1.57 billion in revenue realized by raising taxes on the state ’ s wealthiest households and corporations while maintaining the pension payment as previously required . Christie dismissed it . In Christie ’ s many national appearances and his reelection bid , he hailed the bipartisan pension reform package he negotiated as evidence that Trenton had something to teach a dysfunctional Washington . But when his own budget projections came in so short this year he felt it more important to reject any tax hike rather than keep his part of the pension reform deal . With that choice , Christie undermined his carefully crafted image as a transformational national leader the country so badly needs . The fate of public employee pensions and their healthcare benefits must be part of the 2016 national conversation . While New Jersey is still looking at more than $ 100 billion in combined unfunded public worker benefit commitments , it is not alone . Most states are also struggling to meet these obligations . Only 15 states have remained current on making their required annual contributions toward their public employee pension systems , according to the Pew Charitable Trusts . In a sobering 2013 report from the GAO , the fiscal picture for the states and local governments was projected to remain bleak through most of this century . “ That is , absent any intervention or policy changes , state and local governments would face an increasing gap between receipts and expenditures in the coming years , ” the GAO concluded . For the states , unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities loom large even as the federal government continues to reduce its role as a backstop with its robo cuts to domestic spending and local grants that in the past have helped the states get by . Experts concede it still is not clear what impact President Obama 's Affordable Care Act will have on the millions of public sector retirees . How much the states are in the hole for both unfunded pension and health benefits ranges from $ 1.5 trillion to $ 5 trillion depending on which nonpartisan think tank you reference . The key to divining these numbers are varying assumptions the fund managers make about the rate of return they will generate . State Budget Solutions , a conservative nonprofit think tank , assumes an annual rate of return of 3.225 percent -- which produces that scary $ 5 trillion number . The Pew Charitable Trusts uses the assumptions the states use , which can range between 7 to 8 percent . Dozens of states have taken significant steps to reduce their long-term liabilities , but the hit they took in the Great Recession did structural damage that Washington is ignoring . The grim reality is that all these social contracts are coming due , whether with public employees or with future Social Security recipients , just as our corporations are figuring out how they can avoid paying U.S. taxes by incorporating overseas . Christie 's decision to not keep his part of the pension deal meant missing a unique opportunity to preside over a pension system turnaround . It could have been a template for a nation very much in need of one . He now says he will unveil another set of proposed reforms by the end of this summer . But had he kept the faith with the first round , he would have been in a much better position to press for additional reforms . Now , no matter what he comes up with , he ’ s just another ambitious pol angling for his next job .

As New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie visits Iowa and New Hampshire, he continues to insist that if he does not get concessions from the state’s public workers his state will go bankrupt like Detroit. Back in the spring in an edition of his monthly radio show “Ask the Governor,” Christie challenged the Democratically controlled Legislature to undertake a second round of pension reforms to stave off the doomsday scenario of state insolvency. “So until the Legislature can come to grips with the idea that to control property taxes, to control income taxes, to control sales taxes, and to provide services, we can’t continue to sustain a pension and health benefits system that is going to bankrupt us," he said. "And if you need any proof of that, look at the City of Detroit — just went bankrupt — $11 billion in debt versus just $2 billion in cash, and of the $11 billion in debt, $9.5 billion was for pension and retiree health benefits.” Advertisement: There is only one problem: Under existing law and our federal system, New Jersey, or any other state, can’t go bankrupt. While such over-the-top rhetoric ensures the governor holds the spotlight, it brings more heat than light to a debate that needs less bombast and more finesse. It is much harder than just throwing up your hands and invoking the fiscal apocalypse. The reality is that the state, with or without Chris Christie, will have to sort this out politically, without the help of a federal bankruptcy judge. “The states are sovereign entities. Each state has its own constitution,” says Paul S. Maco, a partner with the law firm Bracewell and Giuliani. As Maco reads the law, making states eligible for federal bankruptcy would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Maco is one of the nation’s leading experts on public finance and served as the first director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities that led the SEC’s response to the 1994 Orange County bankruptcy. Advertisement: Professor J. Fred Giertz, director of the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs, agrees states can’t file for federal bankruptcy protections. “States do not have that option even though bankruptcy does allow an orderly process to insure equity in who gets paid and who doesn’t,” Giertz says. To be sure, the New Jersey public pension debacle pre-dates Christie’s tenure. Under governors from both political parties, benefits were expanded while the state regularly missed payments. Things happened that probably deserved the attention of a grand jury, but no consequences ensued except a slap on the wrist for the state. Back in 2010 the Securities and Exchange Commission took the unprecedented step of charging the state of New Jersey with materially misrepresenting the status of the state’s pension system in 79 bond offerings valued at $26 billion from 2001 until 2007. Such an act of blatant fraud by a mere mortal would be an indictable offense. In Jersey, it was just part of our landscape. When Christie, working with Democratic Senate president Stephen Sweeney and former Speaker Shelia Olivier, produced the bipartisan pension reset, which raised the public employee retirement age, increased what workers paid in for their benefits as well as ended the robo cost-of-living increases, there was a sense the state could move forward by finding common ground and shared sacrifice. In the process the collaboration reduced the state’s long-term liabilities by $122 billion. Advertisement: But this spring Christie invoked the Detroit bankruptcy scenario as political cover for his decision to renege on his pledge to contribute the full $3.8 billion to the public employee pension system that was the linchpin of the deal he cut with the Democrats. Christie cut the pension payment to $1.38 billion and used the balance to fill a budget gap that was the direct result of his own wildly unrealistic revenue projections. Advertisement: As an alternative, Sweeney offered a budget plan that generated an additional $1.57 billion in revenue realized by raising taxes on the state’s wealthiest households and corporations while maintaining the pension payment as previously required. Christie dismissed it. In Christie’s many national appearances and his reelection bid, he hailed the bipartisan pension reform package he negotiated as evidence that Trenton had something to teach a dysfunctional Washington. But when his own budget projections came in so short this year he felt it more important to reject any tax hike rather than keep his part of the pension reform deal. With that choice, Christie undermined his carefully crafted image as a transformational national leader the country so badly needs. The fate of public employee pensions and their healthcare benefits must be part of the 2016 national conversation. While New Jersey is still looking at more than $100 billion in combined unfunded public worker benefit commitments, it is not alone. Most states are also struggling to meet these obligations. Only 15 states have remained current on making their required annual contributions toward their public employee pension systems, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. Advertisement: In a sobering 2013 report from the GAO, the fiscal picture for the states and local governments was projected to remain bleak through most of this century. “That is, absent any intervention or policy changes, state and local governments would face an increasing gap between receipts and expenditures in the coming years,” the GAO concluded. For the states, unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities loom large even as the federal government continues to reduce its role as a backstop with its robo cuts to domestic spending and local grants that in the past have helped the states get by. Experts concede it still is not clear what impact President Obama's Affordable Care Act will have on the millions of public sector retirees. How much the states are in the hole for both unfunded pension and health benefits ranges from $1.5 trillion to $ 5 trillion depending on which nonpartisan think tank you reference. The key to divining these numbers are varying assumptions the fund managers make about the rate of return they will generate. State Budget Solutions, a conservative nonprofit think tank, assumes an annual rate of return of 3.225 percent -- which produces that scary $ 5 trillion number. The Pew Charitable Trusts uses the assumptions the states use, which can range between 7 to 8 percent. Advertisement: Dozens of states have taken significant steps to reduce their long-term liabilities, but the hit they took in the Great Recession did structural damage that Washington is ignoring. The grim reality is that all these social contracts are coming due, whether with public employees or with future Social Security recipients, just as our corporations are figuring out how they can avoid paying U.S. taxes by incorporating overseas. Christie's decision to not keep his part of the pension deal meant missing a unique opportunity to preside over a pension system turnaround. It could have been a template for a nation very much in need of one. He now says he will unveil another set of proposed reforms by the end of this summer. But had he kept the faith with the first round, he would have been in a much better position to press for additional reforms. Now, no matter what he comes up with, he’s just another ambitious pol angling for his next job.

www.salon.com

left

4xAZmuBbWn5f0fV1

test

r6HXR3SxphbAagSG

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/06/breaking-security-situation-reported-at-iowa-gop-event/

Bomb Threat Called Into GOP "Roast and Ride" Iowa Event

2015-06-06

Alex Swoyer

UPDATE , 11:13 PM : “ After we heard that there wasn ’ t a bomb , everyone had fun , ” said Iowa state Sen. Mark Chelgren , according to USA Today . UPDATE , 9:33 PM : ███ contacted the FBI ’ s Omaha division , which oversees Iowa , for comment on the bomb threats . “ No comment at this time and if there is a press release it ’ ll be distributed by the Media Coordinator as soon as possible . ” UPDATE , 7:46 PM : “ Iowa state police headquarters did not handle this , ” a spokesperson from the Iowa State Police Headquarters told ███ , adding that Boone County Sheriffs Department handled the Boone County threat , and the Polk County Sheriffs Department handled the Polk County threat . UPDATE , 7:31 PM : Polk County Police Department Spokesperson Brandon Bracelin told ███ exclusively more information about the “ security breach ” in Iowa Saturday . He said at 3:23 p.m. that “ we got a call from a male that there was five bombs in or near Big Barn Harley Davidson Dealership ” in Des Moines , Iowa , where Senator Joni Ernst ’ s ( R-IA ) Roast and Ride event kicked off earlier Saturday . Bracelin said the building was evacuated and searched and “ nothing seemed out of place ” but after that the business was closed for the day . He told ███ the threat was a voice over call through the internet to “ west com dispatch , ” which is a radio dispatch for western suburbs . Bracelin said officials attempted to track where the call came from , but since it was over the internet , officials aren ’ t able to pinpoint the exact location , but do know the area . He told ███ the report will be turned over to detectives for further investigation . The FBI and Homeland Security Departments were not called or their assistance was not requested . “ They were not involved that we know of… I don ’ t know if they are going to follow up with the threat or not , ” Bracelin said . He said from his understanding the same individual made the threat to both Polk County and Boone . He did not yet identify that individual . Bracelin heard about the call to Boone after officials informed him about the call to Polk County , so he believed the threat made to Boone was similar to the one in Polk . ███ circled back with Chief Deputy R.D . Lampe with the Boone , Iowa police department who originally notified ███ about the bomb threat in Polk County . “ We have not received any new information on that , ” he said . Lampe said about the bomb threat call was made to a non-emergency number and said there was supposed to be an “ explosive device ” at the Iowa State Expo where the GOP presidential candidates were gathered . “ He called the Iowa State Patrol radio system ” which dispatches to state troopers , and sine three state troopers were already escorting Ernst up to the event in Boone from the Big Barn Harley Davidson dealership in Des Moines , “ went to work secured the candidates like I said and searched the area , ” said Lampe . “ Someone had said they dropped some bag bombs—and they spread them throughout the event , ” one source who was on scene at the Boone event told ███ , adding that ’ s it unclear if any bombs were found on scene . “ Within an hour they gave the all clear . So I don ’ t know . ” At this point , it ’ s unclear if any bombs were found and cleared—or if it was just an entirely false alarm . It ’ s also still unclear who made the threats and why . UPDATE , 7:16 PM : A witness on scene at the event told ███ that former Arkansas Gov . Mike Huckabee—who was giving a taped interview to Fox News ’ John Roberts about Obamatrade , which Huckabee opposes , and other matters—was whisked away by an aide in the middle of the interview . “ I was sitting there and the governor was giving an interview about TPP and about Hillary Clinton to John Roberts at Fox News , and as soon as he got done security came over and grabbed the governor and said ‘ we got to get you out of here , we ’ ve got a security situation , ’ ” the witness said . “ They just pulled him out of there and that was the end of it . It wasn ’ t live , but they were taping it . ” This happened around 12:50 p.m. CT on Saturday , and was previously unreported until now . UPDATE , 6:39 PM : ███ spoke to Lucy Nashed , Gov . Rick Perry ’ s communications director . According to Nashed , the event went smoothly from the campaign ’ s perspective , with any security issues not having an obvious effect . “ This was a great event hosted by Sen. Ernst , and Gov . Perry appreciated the opportunity to raise money for an important veterans ’ cause and share his optimistic vision for America with Iowans . ” ███ also confirmed with Sen. Marco Rubio ’ s campaign that the event went well from their perspective , without any perceived interference or inconvenience from the bomb threats . UPDATE , 6:15 PM : Joni Ernst spokeswoman Brook Hogueson emailed to ███ to say she ’ s referring reporters to the Iowa State Police for comment . “ I ’ d refer you to Iowa State Patrol , ” Hogueson said in an email . State police , when reached , referred ███ back to the local police — who referred ███ back to the state police . The situation with regard to information flow seems to be out of control and several federal law enforcement agencies including the FBI , Secret Service , Capitol Police and more have not returned calls for comment from ███ . It ’ s unclear if anyone is taking the string of at least two bomb threats around Republican presidential candidates seriously . It ’ s also unknown who made the bomb threats and if the two calls are related . Which authorities are investigating , if any , remains to be seen . None of the presidential campaigns on site are agreeing to speak on record about the matter , although several have confirmed the details of this report to ███ anonymously . R.D . Lampe with the Boone , Iowa police department confirms exclusively to ███ that a bomb threat was called in to the Iowa Roast and Ride with a voice recorder . He later added that as that event was ending , a second bomb threat was called to authorities in Polk county . Lampe says that when bomb threats are made , it ’ s usually difficult to track down the caller . He says a number can be traced , but it ’ s usually a throw-away phone . The potential security breach prevented candidates getting to their tents and greeting voters for a time on Saturday . At least seven GOP candidates were at the event . Two separate campaign officials had confirmed to ███ candidates were held for security reasons due to a security breach . A third campaign confirmed to ███ that it was in fact a “ bomb threat . ” “ They had to move principles ( candidates and major speakers ) to one of the side buildings , ” one staffer for a third campaign told ███ . One source , for example , had reported seeing former Texas Gov . Rick Perry arrive on a motorcycle , then be escorted away from the crowd to a secure area . Sen. Joni Ernst told ███ she can ’ t confirm anything about the situation . No official staff organizing the event would confirm , or even comment on the breach to ███ . But the site has been secured , event speakers have taken to the stage and all appears to be fine .

UPDATE, 11:13 PM: “After we heard that there wasn’t a bomb, everyone had fun,” said Iowa state Sen. Mark Chelgren, according to USA Today. UPDATE, 9:33 PM: Breitbart News contacted the FBI’s Omaha division, which oversees Iowa, for comment on the bomb threats. “No comment at this time and if there is a press release it’ll be distributed by the Media Coordinator as soon as possible.” UPDATE, 7:46 PM: “Iowa state police headquarters did not handle this,” a spokesperson from the Iowa State Police Headquarters told Breitbart News, adding that Boone County Sheriffs Department handled the Boone County threat, and the Polk County Sheriffs Department handled the Polk County threat. UPDATE, 7:31 PM: Polk County Police Department Spokesperson Brandon Bracelin told Breitbart News exclusively more information about the “security breach” in Iowa Saturday. He said at 3:23 p.m. that “we got a call from a male that there was five bombs in or near Big Barn Harley Davidson Dealership” in Des Moines, Iowa, where Senator Joni Ernst’s (R-IA) Roast and Ride event kicked off earlier Saturday. Bracelin said the building was evacuated and searched and “nothing seemed out of place” but after that the business was closed for the day. He told Breitbart News the threat was a voice over call through the internet to “west com dispatch,” which is a radio dispatch for western suburbs. Bracelin said officials attempted to track where the call came from, but since it was over the internet, officials aren’t able to pinpoint the exact location, but do know the area. He told Breitbart News the report will be turned over to detectives for further investigation. The FBI and Homeland Security Departments were not called or their assistance was not requested. “They were not involved that we know of… I don’t know if they are going to follow up with the threat or not,” Bracelin said. He said from his understanding the same individual made the threat to both Polk County and Boone. He did not yet identify that individual. Bracelin heard about the call to Boone after officials informed him about the call to Polk County, so he believed the threat made to Boone was similar to the one in Polk. Breitbart News circled back with Chief Deputy R.D. Lampe with the Boone, Iowa police department who originally notified Breitbart News about the bomb threat in Polk County. “We have not received any new information on that,” he said. Lampe said about the bomb threat call was made to a non-emergency number and said there was supposed to be an “explosive device” at the Iowa State Expo where the GOP presidential candidates were gathered. “He called the Iowa State Patrol radio system” which dispatches to state troopers, and sine three state troopers were already escorting Ernst up to the event in Boone from the Big Barn Harley Davidson dealership in Des Moines, “went to work secured the candidates like I said and searched the area,” said Lampe. “Someone had said they dropped some bag bombs—and they spread them throughout the event,” one source who was on scene at the Boone event told Breitbart News, adding that’s it unclear if any bombs were found on scene. “Within an hour they gave the all clear. So I don’t know.” At this point, it’s unclear if any bombs were found and cleared—or if it was just an entirely false alarm. It’s also still unclear who made the threats and why. UPDATE, 7:16 PM: A witness on scene at the event told Breitbart News that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee—who was giving a taped interview to Fox News’ John Roberts about Obamatrade, which Huckabee opposes, and other matters—was whisked away by an aide in the middle of the interview. “I was sitting there and the governor was giving an interview about TPP and about Hillary Clinton to John Roberts at Fox News, and as soon as he got done security came over and grabbed the governor and said ‘we got to get you out of here, we’ve got a security situation,’” the witness said. “They just pulled him out of there and that was the end of it. It wasn’t live, but they were taping it.” This happened around 12:50 p.m. CT on Saturday, and was previously unreported until now. UPDATE, 6:39 PM: Breitbart News spoke to Lucy Nashed, Gov. Rick Perry’s communications director. According to Nashed, the event went smoothly from the campaign’s perspective, with any security issues not having an obvious effect. “This was a great event hosted by Sen. Ernst, and Gov. Perry appreciated the opportunity to raise money for an important veterans’ cause and share his optimistic vision for America with Iowans.” Breitbart News also confirmed with Sen. Marco Rubio’s campaign that the event went well from their perspective, without any perceived interference or inconvenience from the bomb threats. UPDATE, 6:15 PM: Joni Ernst spokeswoman Brook Hogueson emailed to Breitbart News to say she’s referring reporters to the Iowa State Police for comment. “I’d refer you to Iowa State Patrol,” Hogueson said in an email. State police, when reached, referred Breitbart News back to the local police — who referred Breitbart News back to the state police. The situation with regard to information flow seems to be out of control and several federal law enforcement agencies including the FBI, Secret Service, Capitol Police and more have not returned calls for comment from Breitbart News. It’s unclear if anyone is taking the string of at least two bomb threats around Republican presidential candidates seriously. It’s also unknown who made the bomb threats and if the two calls are related. Which authorities are investigating, if any, remains to be seen. None of the presidential campaigns on site are agreeing to speak on record about the matter, although several have confirmed the details of this report to Breitbart News anonymously. Original text appears below. R.D. Lampe with the Boone, Iowa police department confirms exclusively to Breitbart News that a bomb threat was called in to the Iowa Roast and Ride with a voice recorder. He later added that as that event was ending, a second bomb threat was called to authorities in Polk county. Lampe says that when bomb threats are made, it’s usually difficult to track down the caller. He says a number can be traced, but it’s usually a throw-away phone. The potential security breach prevented candidates getting to their tents and greeting voters for a time on Saturday. At least seven GOP candidates were at the event. Two separate campaign officials had confirmed to Breitbart News candidates were held for security reasons due to a security breach. A third campaign confirmed to Breitbart News that it was in fact a “bomb threat.” “They had to move principles (candidates and major speakers) to one of the side buildings,” one staffer for a third campaign told Breitbart News. One source, for example, had reported seeing former Texas Gov. Rick Perry arrive on a motorcycle, then be escorted away from the crowd to a secure area. Sen. Joni Ernst told Breitbart News she can’t confirm anything about the situation. No official staff organizing the event would confirm, or even comment on the breach to Breitbart News. But the site has been secured, event speakers have taken to the stage and all appears to be fine. Matthew Boyle and Sarah Rumpf contributed to this report.

www.breitbart.com

right

r6HXR3SxphbAagSG

test

5T1XcI6oUzSsPwLA

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/july/could-democratic-socialism-take-control-of-the-democratic-party

Could Democratic Socialism Take Control of the Democratic Party?

2018-07-22

PORTLAND , Maine ( AP ) — A week ago , Maine Democrat Zak Ringelstein wasn ’ t quite ready to consider himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America , even if he appreciated the organization ’ s values and endorsement in his bid to become a U.S. senator . Three days later , he told The Associated Press it was time to join up . He ’ s now the only major-party Senate candidate in the nation to be a dues-paying democratic socialist . Ringelstein ’ s leap is the latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization that , until recently , operated on the fringes of the liberal movement ’ s farthest left flank . As Donald Trump ’ s presidency stretches into its second year , democratic socialism has become a significant force in Democratic politics . Its rise comes as Democrats debate whether moving too far left will turn off voters . “ I stand with the democratic socialists , and I have decided to become a dues-paying member , ” Ringelstein told AP . “ It ’ s time to do what ’ s right , even if it ’ s not easy . ” There are 42 people running for offices at the federal , state and local levels this year with the formal endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America , the organization says . They span 20 states , including Florida , Hawaii , Kansas , and Michigan . The most ambitious Democrats in Washington have been reluctant to embrace the label , even as they embrace the policies defining modern-day democratic socialism : Medicare for all , a $ 15 minimum wage , free college tuition and the abolition of the federal department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement , also known as ICE . Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , Congress ’ only self-identified democratic socialist , campaigned Friday with the movement ’ s newest star , New York City congressional candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez , a 28-year-old former bartender who defeated one of the most powerful House Democrats last month . Her victory fed a flame that was already beginning to burn brighter . The DSA ’ s paid membership has hovered around 6,000 in the years before Trump ’ s election , said Allie Cohn , a member of the group ’ s national political team . There is little distinction made between the terms “ democratic socialism ” and “ socialism ” in the group ’ s literature . While Ringelstein and other DSA-backed candidates promote a “ big-tent ” philosophy , the group ’ s constitution describes its members as socialists who “ reject an economic order based on private profit ” and “ share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production , economic planning , equitable distribution , feminism , racial equality and non-oppressive relationships . ” Members during public meetings often refer to each other as “ comrades , ” wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx . The common association with the failed Soviet Union has made it difficult for sympathetic liberals to explain their connection . “ I don ’ t like the term socialist , because people do associate that with bad things in history , ” said Kansas congressional candidate James Thompson , who is endorsed by the DSA and campaigned alongside Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez , but is not a dues-paying democratic socialist . “ There ’ s definitely a lot of their policies that closely align with mine . ” Thompson , an Army veteran turned civil rights attorney , is running again after narrowly losing a special election last year to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo . Even in deep-red Kansas , he embraces policies like “ Medicare for all ” and is openly critical of capitalism . In Hawaii , 29-year-old state Rep. Kaniela Ing isn ’ t shy about promoting his status as a democratic socialist in his bid for Congress . He said he was encouraged to run for higher office by the same activist who recruited Ocasio-Cortez . “ We figured just lean in hard , ” Ing told the AP of the democratic socialist label . He acknowledged some baby boomers may be scared away , but said the policies democratic socialists promote — like free health care and economic equality — aren ’ t extreme . Republicans , meanwhile , are encouraged by the rise of democratic socialism — for a far different reason . They have seized on what they view as a leftward lurch by Democrats they predict will alienate voters this fall and in the 2020 presidential race . The Republican National Committee eagerly notes that Sanders ’ plan to provide free government-sponsored health care for all Americans had no co-sponsors in 2013 . Today , more than one-third of Senate Democrats and two-thirds of House Democrats have signed onto the proposal , which by one estimate could cost taxpayers as much as $ 32 trillion . The co-sponsors include some 2020 presidential prospects , such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker , New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and California Sen. Kamala Harris . Those senators aren ’ t calling themselves democratic socialists but also not disassociating themselves from the movement ’ s priorities . Most support the push to abolish ICE , which enforces immigration laws and led the Trump administration ’ s recent push to separate immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border . Of the group , only Booker hasn ’ t called for ICE to be abolished , replaced or rebuilt . Yet Booker ’ s office notes that he ’ s among the few senators backing a plan to guarantee government-backed jobs to unemployed adults in high-unemployment communities across America . “ Embracing socialist policies like government-run health care , a guaranteed jobs program and open borders will only make Democrats more out of touch , ” RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said . Gayle McLaughlin finished eighth in last month ’ s Democratic primary to become California ’ s lieutenant governor , earning just 4 percent of the vote . All three endorsed candidates for Maryland ’ s Montgomery County Council lost last month as well . And Ryan Fenwick was blown out by 58 points in his run to become mayor of Louisville , Kentucky . Ringelstein , a 32-year-old political neophyte , is expected to struggle in his campaign to unseat Maine Sen. Angus King , an independent who caucuses with Democrats . He is refusing to accept donations from lobbyists or corporate political action committees , which has made fundraising a grind . At the end of June , King ’ s campaign reported $ 2.4 million cash on hand while Ringelstein had just $ 23,000 . He has tapped into the party ’ s national progressive movement and the southern Maine chapter of the DSA for the kind of grassroots support that fueled Ocasio-Cortez ’ s victory . As he has done almost every month this year , Ringelstein attended the group ’ s monthly meeting at Portland ’ s city hall last Monday . More than 60 people packed into the room . The group ’ s chairman , 25-year-old union organizer Meg Reilly , wore a T-shirt featuring three roses . She cheered the “ comrades ” softball team ’ s recent season before moving to an agenda that touched on climate change legislation , a book share program “ to further your socialist education , ” and an exchange program that lets community members swap favors such as jewelry repair , pet sitting or cooking . Near the end of the two-hour gathering , Ringelstein thanked the group for “ standing shoulder to shoulder with us throughout this entire campaign . ” “ We could win a U.S. Senate seat ! ” he said . “ I want to say that over and over . We could win a U.S. Senate seat ! So , let ’ s do this . ”

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A week ago, Maine Democrat Zak Ringelstein wasn’t quite ready to consider himself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, even if he appreciated the organization’s values and endorsement in his bid to become a U.S. senator. Three days later, he told The Associated Press it was time to join up. He’s now the only major-party Senate candidate in the nation to be a dues-paying democratic socialist. Ringelstein’s leap is the latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization that, until recently, operated on the fringes of the liberal movement’s farthest left flank. As Donald Trump’s presidency stretches into its second year, democratic socialism has become a significant force in Democratic politics. Its rise comes as Democrats debate whether moving too far left will turn off voters. “I stand with the democratic socialists, and I have decided to become a dues-paying member,” Ringelstein told AP. “It’s time to do what’s right, even if it’s not easy.” There are 42 people running for offices at the federal, state and local levels this year with the formal endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization says. They span 20 states, including Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, and Michigan. The most ambitious Democrats in Washington have been reluctant to embrace the label, even as they embrace the policies defining modern-day democratic socialism: Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition and the abolition of the federal department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Congress’ only self-identified democratic socialist, campaigned Friday with the movement’s newest star, New York City congressional candidate Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former bartender who defeated one of the most powerful House Democrats last month. Her victory fed a flame that was already beginning to burn brighter. The DSA’s paid membership has hovered around 6,000 in the years before Trump’s election, said Allie Cohn, a member of the group’s national political team. Last week, its paid membership hit 45,000 nationwide. There is little distinction made between the terms “democratic socialism” and “socialism” in the group’s literature. While Ringelstein and other DSA-backed candidates promote a “big-tent” philosophy, the group’s constitution describes its members as socialists who “reject an economic order based on private profit” and “share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.” Members during public meetings often refer to each other as “comrades,” wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx. The common association with the failed Soviet Union has made it difficult for sympathetic liberals to explain their connection. “I don’t like the term socialist, because people do associate that with bad things in history,” said Kansas congressional candidate James Thompson, who is endorsed by the DSA and campaigned alongside Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, but is not a dues-paying democratic socialist. “There’s definitely a lot of their policies that closely align with mine.” Thompson, an Army veteran turned civil rights attorney, is running again after narrowly losing a special election last year to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Even in deep-red Kansas, he embraces policies like “Medicare for all” and is openly critical of capitalism. In Hawaii, 29-year-old state Rep. Kaniela Ing isn’t shy about promoting his status as a democratic socialist in his bid for Congress. He said he was encouraged to run for higher office by the same activist who recruited Ocasio-Cortez. “We figured just lean in hard,” Ing told the AP of the democratic socialist label. He acknowledged some baby boomers may be scared away, but said the policies democratic socialists promote — like free health care and economic equality — aren’t extreme. Republicans, meanwhile, are encouraged by the rise of democratic socialism — for a far different reason. They have seized on what they view as a leftward lurch by Democrats they predict will alienate voters this fall and in the 2020 presidential race. The Republican National Committee eagerly notes that Sanders’ plan to provide free government-sponsored health care for all Americans had no co-sponsors in 2013. Today, more than one-third of Senate Democrats and two-thirds of House Democrats have signed onto the proposal, which by one estimate could cost taxpayers as much as $32 trillion. The co-sponsors include some 2020 presidential prospects, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and California Sen. Kamala Harris. Those senators aren’t calling themselves democratic socialists but also not disassociating themselves from the movement’s priorities. Most support the push to abolish ICE, which enforces immigration laws and led the Trump administration’s recent push to separate immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border. Of the group, only Booker hasn’t called for ICE to be abolished, replaced or rebuilt. Yet Booker’s office notes that he’s among the few senators backing a plan to guarantee government-backed jobs to unemployed adults in high-unemployment communities across America. “Embracing socialist policies like government-run health care, a guaranteed jobs program and open borders will only make Democrats more out of touch,” RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said. Despite Ocasio-Cortez’s recent success, most DSA-endorsed candidates have struggled. Gayle McLaughlin finished eighth in last month’s Democratic primary to become California’s lieutenant governor, earning just 4 percent of the vote. All three endorsed candidates for Maryland’s Montgomery County Council lost last month as well. And Ryan Fenwick was blown out by 58 points in his run to become mayor of Louisville, Kentucky. Ringelstein, a 32-year-old political neophyte, is expected to struggle in his campaign to unseat Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. He is refusing to accept donations from lobbyists or corporate political action committees, which has made fundraising a grind. At the end of June, King’s campaign reported $2.4 million cash on hand while Ringelstein had just $23,000. He has tapped into the party’s national progressive movement and the southern Maine chapter of the DSA for the kind of grassroots support that fueled Ocasio-Cortez’s victory. As he has done almost every month this year, Ringelstein attended the group’s monthly meeting at Portland’s city hall last Monday. More than 60 people packed into the room. The group’s chairman, 25-year-old union organizer Meg Reilly, wore a T-shirt featuring three roses. She cheered the “comrades” softball team’s recent season before moving to an agenda that touched on climate change legislation, a book share program “to further your socialist education,” and an exchange program that lets community members swap favors such as jewelry repair, pet sitting or cooking. Near the end of the two-hour gathering, Ringelstein thanked the group for “standing shoulder to shoulder with us throughout this entire campaign.” “We could win a U.S. Senate seat!” he said. “I want to say that over and over. We could win a U.S. Senate seat! So, let’s do this.” Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

www1.cbn.com

right

5T1XcI6oUzSsPwLA

test

ozkpfWnkShNdlet7

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/27/release-jfk-files-fbi-warning-oswald-soviet-missile-fears

JFK files reveal FBI warning on Oswald and Soviets' missile fears

2017-10-27

Alan Yuhas, Tom Dart

Publication of nearly 3,000 documents sheds more light on response to assassination of US president – but so far no smoking gun The publication of nearly 3,000 previously classified files relating to the assassination of John F Kennedy in 1963 reveals that the FBI had warned Dallas police about a threat to kill Lee Harvey Oswald , and claims that Soviet officials feared an “ irresponsible ” US general could launch a missile strike in the wake of the crisis . JFK documents : what we have learned so far Read more The US government released 2,891 documents on Thursday , but President Donald Trump delayed the release of others , saying he had “ no choice ” but to consider “ national security , law enforcement and foreign affairs concerns ” raised mostly by the FBI and CIA . One of the first interesting documents to be unearthed , as journalists , scholars and the public pored over them , was a memo written by director J Edgar Hoover that said the FBI had warning of a potential death threat to Oswald , who was then in police custody . “ There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead , ” Hoover said on 24 November 1963 . “ Last night we received a call in our Dallas office from a man talking in a calm voice and saying he was a member of a committee organized to kill Oswald . “ We at once notified the chief of police and he assured us Oswald would be given sufficient protection . This morning we called the chief of police again warning of the possibility of some effort against Oswald and again he assured us adequate protection would be given . President John F Kennedy is shot dead by a sniper while his motorcade moved through Dallas . Lee Harvey Oswald , a former US marine and Soviet defector , is arrested . Oswald is shot dead by a Dallas nightclub owner , Jack Ruby . The newly sworn in president , Lyndon Johnson , orders an investigation of the assassination , named after its leader , chief justice Earl Warren . The Warren Commission determines that Oswald acted alone , without help from Cuba or Russia . The panel also finds that Ruby acted alone . A new investigation by four medical experts reaffirms the commission 's finding that two bullets killed Kennedy from behind . Clay Shaw , a New Orleans businessman , is acquitted of charges of conspiracy in Kennedy 's murder , after 50 minutes of deliberation . He is the only person prosecuted over the assassination . After two years of investigation , a House committee accuses previous investigators of failing to explore sufficient leads . The panel found it `` likely '' that conspiracies were behind Kennedy 's murder , including a possible second gunman on `` the grassy knoll '' in Dallas . The committee also believed organized crime was `` probably '' involved . Oliver Stone premieres JFK , his film about the Shaw trial and the possibility of a CIA conspiracy , motivated in part to keep the US in Vietnam . A few months later , Seinfeld parodies the elaborate conspiracy theorizing around the Zapruder film and `` magic bullet '' theory . Congress enacts the JFK Records Collection Act and orders the release of 3,100 secret documents in an attempt to quash conspiracy theories . The documents are ordered released with a 25-year deadline . Donald Trump accuses the father of Ted Cruz of involvement in the assassination . He cites the National Enquirer , a tabloid , as his source . Hoover admitted he did not have “ firm ” information about Jack Ruby , the man who shot Oswald dead . But he elaborated on the nightclub owner anyway , saying his real name was Rubenstein and noting rumors of “ underworld activity ” . The FBI sent an agent to Oswald ’ s deathbed in the hopes of a confession , to no success . Ruby denied making any phone call to the bureau . In the same memo , Hoover said he and Nicholas Katzenbach , the deputy attorney general , already feared the spread of conspiracy theories . He noted that Oswald had visited Mexico City , called the Cuban embassy there , and sent a letter to the Soviet embassy about a visa . “ The thing I am concerned about , and so is Mr Katzenbach , is having something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin , ” Hoover wrote . The files amounts to nearly the final 1 % of records held by the federal government and their publication follows a release in July when the National Archives posted 3,801 documents online , mostly formerly released documents with previously redacted portions . An administration official told reporters on Thursday that the files that remain secret have information that “ remains sensitive depending on its context ” . Trump ordered the agencies to review those redactions over the course of six months , the official said , to ensure more documents reach the public . The next deadline for documents is 26 April 2018 . According to the National Archives , 88 % of records related to Kennedy ’ s murder were already fully open and another 11 % released but partially redacted . In total , that makes for about 5m pages . JFK files : British paper got anonymous call just before assassination Read more The newly released documents also reveal that Soviet Union leaders considered Oswald a “ neurotic maniac who was disloyal to his own country and everything else ” , according to an FBI memo documenting reactions in the USSR to the assassination . The Soviet officials feared a conspiracy was behind the death of Kennedy , perhaps organised by a rightwing coup or JFK ’ s successor , Lyndon Johnson . They also feared a war in the aftermath of Kennedy ’ s death , according to the memo : “ Our source further stated that Soviet officials were fearful that without leadership , some irresponsible general in the United States might launch a missile at the Soviet Union . ” The documents include details of various CIA attempts to assassinate foreign leaders , most frequently Cuban leader Castro . He told American lawmakers in 1978 that his country was not involved in the plot to kill Kennedy . In 1963 , however , the Cuban ambassador to the US reacted with “ happy delight ” to the murder , according to a CIA memo . Oswald spoke to a member of a KGB assassination unit in Mexico City in September 1963 . A CIA memo calls the consul there , Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov , “ an identified KGB officer ” and a member of Department 13 , a unit “ responsible for sabotage and assassination ” . The Dallas division of the FBI was already trying to track Oswald in October 1963 , according to memos by the New Orleans division . Jack Ruby had a “ good in ” with Dallas police , according to an FBI informant in a memo dated shortly after Ruby shot Oswald dead . A reporter on the UK ’ s Cambridge Evening News received an anonymous call telling him to ring the US embassy for some big news , 25 minutes before the assassination of JFK in Dallas . We ’ d like your help too . The JFK files have been published online here . If you ’ re reading through the documents and you spot an interesting fact or snippet you think we ’ ve missed , it would be great if you could let us know . We ’ ve set up a form here for contributions .

Publication of nearly 3,000 documents sheds more light on response to assassination of US president – but so far no smoking gun This article is more than 2 years old This article is more than 2 years old The publication of nearly 3,000 previously classified files relating to the assassination of John F Kennedy in 1963 reveals that the FBI had warned Dallas police about a threat to kill Lee Harvey Oswald, and claims that Soviet officials feared an “irresponsible” US general could launch a missile strike in the wake of the crisis. JFK documents: what we have learned so far Read more The US government released 2,891 documents on Thursday, but President Donald Trump delayed the release of others, saying he had “no choice” but to consider “national security, law enforcement and foreign affairs concerns” raised mostly by the FBI and CIA. One of the first interesting documents to be unearthed, as journalists, scholars and the public pored over them, was a memo written by director J Edgar Hoover that said the FBI had warning of a potential death threat to Oswald, who was then in police custody. “There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead,” Hoover said on 24 November 1963. “Last night we received a call in our Dallas office from a man talking in a calm voice and saying he was a member of a committee organized to kill Oswald. “We at once notified the chief of police and he assured us Oswald would be given sufficient protection. This morning we called the chief of police again warning of the possibility of some effort against Oswald and again he assured us adequate protection would be given. “However, this was not done.” Timeline JFK's assassination Show Hide President John F Kennedy is shot dead by a sniper while his motorcade moved through Dallas. Lee Harvey Oswald, a former US marine and Soviet defector, is arrested. Oswald is shot dead by a Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby. The newly sworn in president, Lyndon Johnson, orders an investigation of the assassination, named after its leader, chief justice Earl Warren. The Warren Commission determines that Oswald acted alone, without help from Cuba or Russia. The panel also finds that Ruby acted alone. A new investigation by four medical experts reaffirms the commission's finding that two bullets killed Kennedy from behind. Clay Shaw, a New Orleans businessman, is acquitted of charges of conspiracy in Kennedy's murder, after 50 minutes of deliberation. He is the only person prosecuted over the assassination. After two years of investigation, a House committee accuses previous investigators of failing to explore sufficient leads. The panel found it "likely" that conspiracies were behind Kennedy's murder, including a possible second gunman on "the grassy knoll" in Dallas. The committee also believed organized crime was "probably" involved. Oliver Stone premieres JFK, his film about the Shaw trial and the possibility of a CIA conspiracy, motivated in part to keep the US in Vietnam. A few months later, Seinfeld parodies the elaborate conspiracy theorizing around the Zapruder film and "magic bullet" theory. Congress enacts the JFK Records Collection Act and orders the release of 3,100 secret documents in an attempt to quash conspiracy theories. The documents are ordered released with a 25-year deadline. Donald Trump accuses the father of Ted Cruz of involvement in the assassination. He cites the National Enquirer, a tabloid, as his source. Hoover admitted he did not have “firm” information about Jack Ruby, the man who shot Oswald dead. But he elaborated on the nightclub owner anyway, saying his real name was Rubenstein and noting rumors of “underworld activity”. The FBI sent an agent to Oswald’s deathbed in the hopes of a confession, to no success. Ruby denied making any phone call to the bureau. In the same memo, Hoover said he and Nicholas Katzenbach, the deputy attorney general, already feared the spread of conspiracy theories. He noted that Oswald had visited Mexico City, called the Cuban embassy there, and sent a letter to the Soviet embassy about a visa. “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr Katzenbach, is having something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin,” Hoover wrote. The files amounts to nearly the final 1% of records held by the federal government and their publication follows a release in July when the National Archives posted 3,801 documents online, mostly formerly released documents with previously redacted portions. An administration official told reporters on Thursday that the files that remain secret have information that “remains sensitive depending on its context”. Trump ordered the agencies to review those redactions over the course of six months, the official said, to ensure more documents reach the public. The next deadline for documents is 26 April 2018. According to the National Archives, 88% of records related to Kennedy’s murder were already fully open and another 11% released but partially redacted. In total, that makes for about 5m pages. JFK files: British paper got anonymous call just before assassination Read more The newly released documents also reveal that Soviet Union leaders considered Oswald a “neurotic maniac who was disloyal to his own country and everything else”, according to an FBI memo documenting reactions in the USSR to the assassination. The Soviet officials feared a conspiracy was behind the death of Kennedy, perhaps organised by a rightwing coup or JFK’s successor, Lyndon Johnson. They also feared a war in the aftermath of Kennedy’s death, according to the memo: “Our source further stated that Soviet officials were fearful that without leadership, some irresponsible general in the United States might launch a missile at the Soviet Union.” The documents include details of various CIA attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, most frequently Cuban leader Castro. He told American lawmakers in 1978 that his country was not involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. In 1963, however, the Cuban ambassador to the US reacted with “happy delight” to the murder, according to a CIA memo. Other information so far uncovered includes: Oswald spoke to a member of a KGB assassination unit in Mexico City in September 1963. A CIA memo calls the consul there, Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov, “an identified KGB officer” and a member of Department 13, a unit “responsible for sabotage and assassination”. The Dallas division of the FBI was already trying to track Oswald in October 1963, according to memos by the New Orleans division. Jack Ruby had a “good in” with Dallas police, according to an FBI informant in a memo dated shortly after Ruby shot Oswald dead. A reporter on the UK’s Cambridge Evening News received an anonymous call telling him to ring the US embassy for some big news, 25 minutes before the assassination of JFK in Dallas. We’d like your help too. The JFK files have been published online here. If you’re reading through the documents and you spot an interesting fact or snippet you think we’ve missed, it would be great if you could let us know. We’ve set up a form here for contributions.

www.theguardian.com

left

ozkpfWnkShNdlet7

test

F31PVPcq5FkoaNYP

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50554162

Trump impeachment: White House aides can be made to testify

A federal judge has ruled that White House staff can be made to testify before Congress , rejecting the Trump administration 's claims of immunity . The ruling specifically compels former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify to an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US election . But it also has major implications for the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump . The justice department says it will appeal against the ruling . The impeachment inquiry is trying to establish whether Mr Trump pressured Ukraine 's president to investigate his political rival Joe Biden . The Trump administration has refused to co-operate with the impeachment inquiry and other Democrat-led investigations , directing current and former White House officials to defy subpoenas for testimony and documents . Mr McGahn , who left his post in October 2018 , was called to appear before the House Judiciary Committee in May to answer questions about the president 's alleged attempts to impede the now-concluded Mueller investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election . But in her ruling , US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that `` no one is above the law '' . `` Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process - no matter how many times the executive branch has asserted as much over the years - even if the president expressly directs such officials ' noncompliance , '' she wrote . Judge Jackson also explicitly said the president `` does not have the power '' to stop his aides from responding to subpoenas from Congress - adding that `` presidents are not kings '' . `` No one , not even the head of the Executive branch , is above the law , '' Judge Jackson said . But she did say that Mr McGahn could invoke executive privilege `` where appropriate '' , to protect potentially sensitive information . Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler said that he expects Mr McGahn to `` follow his legal obligations and promptly appear before the Committee '' . `` Presidents are not kings . '' Those words from a 120-page decision by US District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson are likely to be repeated like a mantra by Democrats in Congress . With members seeking to impeach President Trump for obstructing their impeachment inquiry by blocking witnesses and discovery , the timing and language of the opinion could not have been better . Ms Jackson at times allowed the rhetoric to outpace the analysis in declaring , for example , that `` presidents are not kings '' and `` this means that they do not have subjects , bound by loyalty or blood , whose destiny they are entitled to control . Rather , in this land of liberty , it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States ... '' I am not sure that seeking review on a claim of immunity is the same as a president declaring oneself king or former presidential aides effective vassals . However , while Republicans are attacking Jackson as a liberal Obama appointee , the ultimate holding is clearly correct . I have written previously that the White House was wrong in claiming that it can block even the appearance of such witnesses - as opposed to allowing an appearance while instructing the witness not to answer certain questions on privileged matter . It is the difference between immunity and privilege . Nevertheless , I fail to see the good-faith basis for the extreme position stated by the White House - a criticism that I have had with a number of current cases moving through the courts . These cases seem crafted with a greater interest in the ultimate delay rather than the decision in the litigation . That strategy however continues to pile up losses for the White House - precedent that will bind future presidents . Jonathan Turley is a legal analyst for the BBC . He testified as a constitutional expert during the Clinton impeachment . Monday 's ruling could have an effect on who testifies during the current impeachment hearings in Congress . Democrats may use it to summon figures such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo . The impeachment case centres on whether President Trump used the threat of withholding US military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a domestic political rival . At the heart of the impeachment inquiry is a phone call on 25 July this year between Mr Trump and Ukraine 's newly elected president , Volodymyr Zelensky . During the call , Mr Trump urged his counterpart to look into unsubstantiated corruption claims against Democratic White House contender Joe Biden . Mr Trump 's critics say this alleged political pressure on a vulnerable US ally amounted to abuse of power . The president has denied any wrongdoing and has called the inquiry a `` witch hunt '' . The Judiciary Committee is expected to begin drafting articles of impeachment - which are the charges of wrongdoing against the president - in early December . After a vote in the Democratic-controlled House , a trial would be held in the Republican-run Senate . If Mr Trump was convicted by a two-thirds majority - an outcome deemed highly unlikely - he would become the first US president to be removed from office through impeachment . The White House and some Republicans want the trial to be limited to two weeks .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption Don McGahn must testify in the impeachment inquiry, a judge has ruled A federal judge has ruled that White House staff can be made to testify before Congress, rejecting the Trump administration's claims of immunity. The ruling specifically compels former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify to an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US election. But it also has major implications for the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. The justice department says it will appeal against the ruling. The impeachment inquiry is trying to establish whether Mr Trump pressured Ukraine's president to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. The Trump administration has refused to co-operate with the impeachment inquiry and other Democrat-led investigations, directing current and former White House officials to defy subpoenas for testimony and documents. Mr McGahn, who left his post in October 2018, was called to appear before the House Judiciary Committee in May to answer questions about the president's alleged attempts to impede the now-concluded Mueller investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. But in her ruling, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that "no one is above the law". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What does it take to impeach a president? "Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process - no matter how many times the executive branch has asserted as much over the years - even if the president expressly directs such officials' noncompliance," she wrote. Judge Jackson also explicitly said the president "does not have the power" to stop his aides from responding to subpoenas from Congress - adding that "presidents are not kings". "No one, not even the head of the Executive branch, is above the law," Judge Jackson said. But she did say that Mr McGahn could invoke executive privilege "where appropriate", to protect potentially sensitive information. Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler said that he expects Mr McGahn to "follow his legal obligations and promptly appear before the Committee". What are the legal implications? By Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University "Presidents are not kings." Those words from a 120-page decision by US District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson are likely to be repeated like a mantra by Democrats in Congress. With members seeking to impeach President Trump for obstructing their impeachment inquiry by blocking witnesses and discovery, the timing and language of the opinion could not have been better. Ms Jackson at times allowed the rhetoric to outpace the analysis in declaring, for example, that "presidents are not kings" and "this means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States..." I am not sure that seeking review on a claim of immunity is the same as a president declaring oneself king or former presidential aides effective vassals. However, while Republicans are attacking Jackson as a liberal Obama appointee, the ultimate holding is clearly correct. I have written previously that the White House was wrong in claiming that it can block even the appearance of such witnesses - as opposed to allowing an appearance while instructing the witness not to answer certain questions on privileged matter. It is the difference between immunity and privilege. Nevertheless, I fail to see the good-faith basis for the extreme position stated by the White House - a criticism that I have had with a number of current cases moving through the courts. These cases seem crafted with a greater interest in the ultimate delay rather than the decision in the litigation. That strategy however continues to pile up losses for the White House - precedent that will bind future presidents. Jonathan Turley is a legal analyst for the BBC. He testified as a constitutional expert during the Clinton impeachment. Why is Congress investigating Trump? Monday's ruling could have an effect on who testifies during the current impeachment hearings in Congress. Democrats may use it to summon figures such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The impeachment case centres on whether President Trump used the threat of withholding US military aid to pressure Ukraine into investigating a domestic political rival. At the heart of the impeachment inquiry is a phone call on 25 July this year between Mr Trump and Ukraine's newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Image copyright Reuters Image caption A phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky is at the centre of the impeachment inquiry During the call, Mr Trump urged his counterpart to look into unsubstantiated corruption claims against Democratic White House contender Joe Biden. Mr Trump's critics say this alleged political pressure on a vulnerable US ally amounted to abuse of power. The president has denied any wrongdoing and has called the inquiry a "witch hunt". What next with the impeachment inquiry? The Judiciary Committee is expected to begin drafting articles of impeachment - which are the charges of wrongdoing against the president - in early December. After a vote in the Democratic-controlled House, a trial would be held in the Republican-run Senate. If Mr Trump was convicted by a two-thirds majority - an outcome deemed highly unlikely - he would become the first US president to be removed from office through impeachment. The White House and some Republicans want the trial to be limited to two weeks. Learn more about the impeachment inquiry

www.bbc.com

center

F31PVPcq5FkoaNYP

test

L3zPMT4wpvP9qux9

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/from-publishing-the-pentagon-papers-to-suppressing-the-nunes-memo/

From Publishing the Pentagon Papers to Suppressing the Nunes Memo

George Neumayr, Jed Babbin, Scott Mckay, George Parry

In anticipation of the release of the Nunes memo , the media ’ s servile and sanctimonious treatment of objecting government agencies grows more and more absurd . Suddenly , the admirers of Daniel Ellsberg are shills for suppressing government secrets . These are the same pundits who told everyone to go see The Post , Hollywood ’ s nostalgic tribute to the release of the Pentagon Papers . Have they changed their minds ? Do they now think the real villains in the movie were the publishers and leakers of classified information ? To hear the anchors and pundits today on MSNBC and CNN — hysterically itemizing all the potential damage to the functioning of the FBI and Justice Department the release of the Nunes memo might cause , quoting reverentially government officials censuring the memo — perhaps the real hero of the film should have been John Mitchell . It all depends on whose ox is being gored , of course . If the release of government secrets hurts Republicans or some cherished conservative cause , journalists support it . If the release hurts Democrats or some cherished liberal cause , they oppose it . Daniel Ellsberg , good . Devin Nunes , bad . But unlike Ellsberg , Nunes has broken no laws . No matter ; the media will treat him as a traitor while exonerating real ones . In the New York Times , retrospectives on the Pentagon Papers will often appear , invariably portraying government officials as self-interested crooks or boobs and concluding with a windy quote or two from Hugo Black about the supreme importance of publication . Don ’ t let “ national security ” or other stated government interests trump the people ’ s right to know about government misdeeds — that ’ s the upshot of these pieces . But that ’ s the argument the Times is using against the Nunes memo . It quotes very piously and uncritically the “ grave concerns ” of FBI officials who argue “ not to publish . ” The ostensible scourges of stonewalling government officials are acting in this case as apologists for them . Journalists who wax nostalgic about the Church Committee now say intelligence agencies can do no wrong . Academics who affect a “ question everything ” skepticism on campus appear on TV and argue for docility . Trump ’ s mere disagreement with this or that government assessment is treated as automatically irrational . The long and the short of it is that the FBI and Justice Department have been caught out working with Hillary ’ s presidential campaign against Trump ’ s , and they don ’ t want the public to know it . Hillary bought a dossier and the FBI and Justice Department drew upon it to wiretap the Trump campaign . The media will spend the ensuing days telling its audience that such espionage is perfectly normal and that the real scandal is its exposure . The propaganda has already started up : Christopher Steele was a “ trusted source , ” the FBI had “ other ” reasons to spy on Carter Page , it had investigated him before , and so on . Every story peddled in recent days — Rosenstein doesn ’ t want the memo released , Wray may quit over its release , this or that white-hatted ruling class darling “ fears ” compromised sources and methods — is in service to the memo ’ s suppression . But the media , sensing that it needs a plan B , has hit upon another line of attack : the memo proves nothing . It is “ underwhelming , ” say reporters , citing anonymous White House sources . The media ’ s favorite word these days is “ reportedly ” : the memo “ reportedly ” reveals too much , it “ reportedly ” reveals too little . It is amusing to see all the old Nixon haters in the press sanitize and excuse political espionage and defend the FBI ’ s year-long attempt to hide it . ACLU-style liberals , usually so attentive to FISA warrant abuse , tell us to give the government the benefit of the doubt and stop whining about the civil liberties of goofball campaign volunteers . Watergate started with a third-rate burglary ; Obamagate originated in third-rate “ intelligence. ” Hillary partisans such as John Brennan and Loretta Lynch , assuming the worst about the Trump campaign , sent the FBI down the sorry trail that led to Steele and Hillary ’ s financed dossier . From this debacle came the next outrage , an outgoing administration spying on an incoming one , which in turn produced another one : an embittered campaign by the ruling class to hobble and impeach a president . To unravel it all would require a study as unsparing as the Pentagon Papers . But if it ever came , Ellsberg ’ s acolytes in the media would be the first to bury it .

In anticipation of the release of the Nunes memo, the media’s servile and sanctimonious treatment of objecting government agencies grows more and more absurd. Suddenly, the admirers of Daniel Ellsberg are shills for suppressing government secrets. These are the same pundits who told everyone to go see The Post, Hollywood’s nostalgic tribute to the release of the Pentagon Papers. Have they changed their minds? Do they now think the real villains in the movie were the publishers and leakers of classified information? To hear the anchors and pundits today on MSNBC and CNN — hysterically itemizing all the potential damage to the functioning of the FBI and Justice Department the release of the Nunes memo might cause, quoting reverentially government officials censuring the memo — perhaps the real hero of the film should have been John Mitchell. It all depends on whose ox is being gored, of course. If the release of government secrets hurts Republicans or some cherished conservative cause, journalists support it. If the release hurts Democrats or some cherished liberal cause, they oppose it. Daniel Ellsberg, good. Devin Nunes, bad. But unlike Ellsberg, Nunes has broken no laws. No matter; the media will treat him as a traitor while exonerating real ones. In the New York Times, retrospectives on the Pentagon Papers will often appear, invariably portraying government officials as self-interested crooks or boobs and concluding with a windy quote or two from Hugo Black about the supreme importance of publication. Don’t let “national security” or other stated government interests trump the people’s right to know about government misdeeds — that’s the upshot of these pieces. But that’s the argument the Times is using against the Nunes memo. It quotes very piously and uncritically the “grave concerns” of FBI officials who argue “not to publish.” The ostensible scourges of stonewalling government officials are acting in this case as apologists for them. Journalists who wax nostalgic about the Church Committee now say intelligence agencies can do no wrong. Academics who affect a “question everything” skepticism on campus appear on TV and argue for docility. Trump’s mere disagreement with this or that government assessment is treated as automatically irrational. The long and the short of it is that the FBI and Justice Department have been caught out working with Hillary’s presidential campaign against Trump’s, and they don’t want the public to know it. Hillary bought a dossier and the FBI and Justice Department drew upon it to wiretap the Trump campaign. The media will spend the ensuing days telling its audience that such espionage is perfectly normal and that the real scandal is its exposure. The propaganda has already started up: Christopher Steele was a “trusted source,” the FBI had “other” reasons to spy on Carter Page, it had investigated him before, and so on. Every story peddled in recent days — Rosenstein doesn’t want the memo released, Wray may quit over its release, this or that white-hatted ruling class darling “fears” compromised sources and methods — is in service to the memo’s suppression. But the media, sensing that it needs a plan B, has hit upon another line of attack: the memo proves nothing. It is “underwhelming,” say reporters, citing anonymous White House sources. The media’s favorite word these days is “reportedly”: the memo “reportedly” reveals too much, it “reportedly” reveals too little. It is amusing to see all the old Nixon haters in the press sanitize and excuse political espionage and defend the FBI’s year-long attempt to hide it. ACLU-style liberals, usually so attentive to FISA warrant abuse, tell us to give the government the benefit of the doubt and stop whining about the civil liberties of goofball campaign volunteers. Watergate started with a third-rate burglary; Obamagate originated in third-rate “intelligence.” Hillary partisans such as John Brennan and Loretta Lynch, assuming the worst about the Trump campaign, sent the FBI down the sorry trail that led to Steele and Hillary’s financed dossier. From this debacle came the next outrage, an outgoing administration spying on an incoming one, which in turn produced another one: an embittered campaign by the ruling class to hobble and impeach a president. To unravel it all would require a study as unsparing as the Pentagon Papers. But if it ever came, Ellsberg’s acolytes in the media would be the first to bury it.

www.spectator.org

right

L3zPMT4wpvP9qux9

test

FjO7Ico8DuMf6mAE

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/d36c289f1d5692fea014e5996f19de7a

Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place

2019-12-09

Mark Sherman

FILE - In this Oct. 10 , 2017 , file photo , the Supreme Court in Washington , at sunset . The Supreme Court has left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions . The justices did not comment on Monday , Dec. 9 , 2019 , in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite , File ) FILE - In this Oct. 10 , 2017 , file photo , the Supreme Court in Washington , at sunset . The Supreme Court has left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions . The justices did not comment on Monday , Dec. 9 , 2019 , in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions . The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law . Enforcement of the law had been on hold pending the legal challenge but will begin shortly , said Steve Pitt , general counsel to Kentucky Gov . Matt Bevin . The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law on behalf of Kentucky ’ s lone remaining abortion clinic . The ACLU argued that “ display and describe ” ultrasound laws violate physicians ’ speech rights under the First Amendment . The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the Kentucky law , but its sister court in Richmond , Virginia , struck down a similar measure in North Carolina . The Supreme Court had previously upheld “ informed consent ” laws for women seeking abortions . The court will hear an abortion case in March , over Louisiana ’ s attempt to require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals . Doctors ’ speech also has been an issue in non-abortion cases . The federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients . Under the law , doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients . In Kentucky , doctors must describe the ultrasound in detail while the pregnant woman listens to the fetal heartbeat . Women can avert their eyes and cover their ears to avoid hearing the description or the fetal heartbeat . Doctors failing to comply face fines and can be referred to the state ’ s medical licensing board . The ACLU called the law unconstitutional and unethical . ACLU lawyer Alexa Kolbi-Molinas said that the Supreme Court “ has rubber-stamped extreme political interference in the doctor-patient relationship . ” Pitt painted a different picture of the law . “ It ’ s a five-minute procedure that takes place before the abortion is performed to give women who might have a lack of understanding of what ’ s actually in the womb , that this is a real living human being there , they might change their mind , ” he said . The high court ’ s decision not to review the ultrasound case came on Bevin ’ s final day in office . Bevin , a Republican , is an outspoken abortion opponent . During his term , he signed a series of measures passed by the GOP-led legislature that put limits and conditions on abortion , including the 2017 ultrasound law . Those laws have triggered several legal challenges . Bevin was defeated in last month ’ s election by Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear , but Republicans remain in control of the state legislature . ███ writer Bruce Schreiner contributed to this report from Frankfort , Ky .

FILE - In this Oct. 10, 2017, file photo, the Supreme Court in Washington, at sunset. The Supreme Court has left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions. The justices did not comment on Monday, Dec. 9, 2019, in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) FILE - In this Oct. 10, 2017, file photo, the Supreme Court in Washington, at sunset. The Supreme Court has left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions. The justices did not comment on Monday, Dec. 9, 2019, in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions. The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. Enforcement of the law had been on hold pending the legal challenge but will begin shortly, said Steve Pitt, general counsel to Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law on behalf of Kentucky’s lone remaining abortion clinic. The ACLU argued that “display and describe” ultrasound laws violate physicians’ speech rights under the First Amendment. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the Kentucky law, but its sister court in Richmond, Virginia, struck down a similar measure in North Carolina. The Supreme Court had previously upheld “informed consent” laws for women seeking abortions. The court will hear an abortion case in March, over Louisiana’s attempt to require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Doctors’ speech also has been an issue in non-abortion cases. The federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients. Under the law, doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients. In Kentucky, doctors must describe the ultrasound in detail while the pregnant woman listens to the fetal heartbeat. Women can avert their eyes and cover their ears to avoid hearing the description or the fetal heartbeat. Doctors failing to comply face fines and can be referred to the state’s medical licensing board. The ACLU called the law unconstitutional and unethical. ACLU lawyer Alexa Kolbi-Molinas said that the Supreme Court “has rubber-stamped extreme political interference in the doctor-patient relationship.” Pitt painted a different picture of the law. “It’s a five-minute procedure that takes place before the abortion is performed to give women who might have a lack of understanding of what’s actually in the womb, that this is a real living human being there, they might change their mind,” he said. The high court’s decision not to review the ultrasound case came on Bevin’s final day in office. Bevin, a Republican, is an outspoken abortion opponent. During his term, he signed a series of measures passed by the GOP-led legislature that put limits and conditions on abortion, including the 2017 ultrasound law. Those laws have triggered several legal challenges. Bevin was defeated in last month’s election by Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear, but Republicans remain in control of the state legislature. ___ Associated Press writer Bruce Schreiner contributed to this report from Frankfort, Ky.

www.apnews.com

center

FjO7Ico8DuMf6mAE

test

OP0acP29MEqdNCDt

trade

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-gearing-deliver-stinging-rebuke-trump-trade-talks/story?id=55806676

Congress gearing up to deliver stinging rebuke to Trump over trade talks with China

Ali Rogin

Congress gearing up to deliver stinging rebuke to Trump over trade talks with China The administration has defended its ZTE deal as tougher than the original . As President Donald Trump in Singapore flexed his diplomatic muscles with North Korea , members of his own party back in Washington were gearing up to deliver a stinging rebuke over his efforts to normalize trade with China . Senate Republicans returning to work Monday were also disheartened by the president 's bellicose language toward Canada over the weekend , but their efforts to check his ability to impose the sorts of tariffs that started the tit-for-tat seem likely to fail in the near term . The lead negotiators on the annual defense policy bill added a measure that would essentially reverse the administration ’ s softening of penalties on ZTE , a Chinese telecom company that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community have singled out as a national security threat because it could be using its devices to spy on Americans . Final passage of the bill is likely to come this week . John Cohen , a former acting undersecretary for intelligence at DHS , said ZTE represents a major challenge for US counter intelligence authorities . `` China 's intelligence agencies regularly embed eavesdropping and other collection tools in technologies sold by Chinese tech firms . China 's intelligence services also collaborate with these Chinese tech firms to achieve other intelligence objectives . Allowing ZTE to resume operation will likely cause great concern amongst those intelligence professionals responsible for protecting our national security , '' Cohen , an ABC contributor , said . The amendment , co-sponsored by Sens . Tom Cotton , R-Ark. , Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , Chuck Schumer D-N.Y. , and Chris Van Hollen , D-Md. , prohibits the entire U.S. government from purchasing or leasing equipment from ZTE and a similar telecom also cited for national security risks , Huawei . It would also restore penalties on ZTE imposed in March 2017 after the company was caught selling equipment to Iran and making false statements assuring it had disciplined executives . The punishments included a fine and a seven-year ban on ZTE ’ s ability to purchase U.S. parts . Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced last week that the administration had reached a “ definitive agreement ” with ZTE that he said represented “ the most strict compliance that we ’ ve ever had on any company , American or foreign . ” That deal included a billion-dollar fine and ZTE ’ s agreement to install a new , American-picked compliance board . But ZTE had already agreed to a $ 1.2-billion dollar fine in the 2017 penalty package . In a statement released when the bipartisan group introduced its bill last week , Rubio indicated their measure – essentially reinstating the original penalties , plus additional restrictions on U.S. purchases – was much tougher than what the White House had negotiated . “ On the same day that the Administration announced it had reached a ‘ deal ’ with ZTE , my colleagues advanced this important measure and I encourage Congress to remain clear-eyed and unified on the threat China poses to U.S. interests and national security , ” Rubio said . While the White House has yet to weigh in on this latest development , Trump tweeted late last month that the deal with ZTE was more than what his Democratic predecessors had accomplished . Asked whether he thought Trump would veto the entire National Defense Authorization Act defense policy bill , to which the ZTE amendment has been attached , Van Hollen said that would represent a massive concession to China . “ Veto the bill in order to protect ZTE and Chinese jobs ? I don ’ t think so , ” he told reporters . Senate Republicans were also upset that the administration had publicly , and in many of their minds , unnecessarily , rebuked Canada during the weekend ’ s G7 meeting by refusing to endorse a joint statement and accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of negotiating in bad faith . While Canada had already previously announced retaliatory steel and aluminum tariffs on the U.S. , it seemed to be Trudeau ’ s comments at a press conference , in which he said Canada would not be “ pushed around ” – that upset the president and his advisors . “ There 's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door , '' trade advisor Peter Navarro said on `` Fox News Sunday . '' Republicans largely cried foul at the use of heated language at the United States ’ ally and neighbor . “ It ’ s uncalled for . Just absolutely uncalled for , ” Sen. Cory Gardner , R-Colo. , said . “ I ’ m pretty sure that circles of hell are not reserved for Canadians proposing retaliatory tariffs , ” Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , said . But they do n't seem likely to do anything more than wring their hands over the substance behind those comments , at least at the moment . Sens . Bob Corker , R-Tenn. , and Pat Toomey , R-Pa. , are working on a bill that would check the president ’ s ability to impose tariffs on the basis of national security concerns , as he did in the Canada case , without congressional approval . But while the pair has been trying to add the measure to the NDAA , it appeared Monday as if it would be ineligible because of procedural hurdles related to its economic impact . Any measures having to do with funding would have to originate in the House of Representatives , which has already voted on its version of the NDAA . Some Senate Republicans also have concerns that the bill would violate the president ’ s constitutional authority as head of the executive branch , meaning it likely wouldn ’ t sail through as easily as the ZTE amendment is expected to . Sen. John Thune , R-S.D. , noted that some Republicans are opting to give the administration space to negotiate with Canada and other partners in the near term , and that would be best not to try to rein in the president ’ s authority at the same time . “ There ’ s clearly a concern with a lot of sort of free trade conservatives in our conference about the present track that we ’ re on and where it could end up going . But I think at the moment everybody is giving the president the benefit of the doubt , ” Thune said .

Congress gearing up to deliver stinging rebuke to Trump over trade talks with China The administration has defended its ZTE deal as tougher than the original. As President Donald Trump in Singapore flexed his diplomatic muscles with North Korea, members of his own party back in Washington were gearing up to deliver a stinging rebuke over his efforts to normalize trade with China. Senate Republicans returning to work Monday were also disheartened by the president's bellicose language toward Canada over the weekend, but their efforts to check his ability to impose the sorts of tariffs that started the tit-for-tat seem likely to fail in the near term. The lead negotiators on the annual defense policy bill added a measure that would essentially reverse the administration’s softening of penalties on ZTE, a Chinese telecom company that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community have singled out as a national security threat because it could be using its devices to spy on Americans. Final passage of the bill is likely to come this week. John Cohen, a former acting undersecretary for intelligence at DHS, said ZTE represents a major challenge for US counter intelligence authorities. "China's intelligence agencies regularly embed eavesdropping and other collection tools in technologies sold by Chinese tech firms. China's intelligence services also collaborate with these Chinese tech firms to achieve other intelligence objectives. Allowing ZTE to resume operation will likely cause great concern amongst those intelligence professionals responsible for protecting our national security," Cohen, an ABC contributor, said. The ZTE logo is seen on a building in Beijing, May 2, 2018. Wang Zhao/AFP/Getty Images The amendment, co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Chuck Schumer D-N.Y., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., prohibits the entire U.S. government from purchasing or leasing equipment from ZTE and a similar telecom also cited for national security risks, Huawei. It would also restore penalties on ZTE imposed in March 2017 after the company was caught selling equipment to Iran and making false statements assuring it had disciplined executives. The punishments included a fine and a seven-year ban on ZTE’s ability to purchase U.S. parts. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced last week that the administration had reached a “definitive agreement” with ZTE that he said represented “the most strict compliance that we’ve ever had on any company, American or foreign.” That deal included a billion-dollar fine and ZTE’s agreement to install a new, American-picked compliance board. But ZTE had already agreed to a $1.2-billion dollar fine in the 2017 penalty package. In a statement released when the bipartisan group introduced its bill last week, Rubio indicated their measure – essentially reinstating the original penalties, plus additional restrictions on U.S. purchases – was much tougher than what the White House had negotiated. “On the same day that the Administration announced it had reached a ‘deal’ with ZTE, my colleagues advanced this important measure and I encourage Congress to remain clear-eyed and unified on the threat China poses to U.S. interests and national security,” Rubio said. While the White House has yet to weigh in on this latest development, Trump tweeted late last month that the deal with ZTE was more than what his Democratic predecessors had accomplished. Asked whether he thought Trump would veto the entire National Defense Authorization Act defense policy bill, to which the ZTE amendment has been attached, Van Hollen said that would represent a massive concession to China. “Veto the bill in order to protect ZTE and Chinese jobs? I don’t think so,” he told reporters. Senate Republicans were also upset that the administration had publicly, and in many of their minds, unnecessarily, rebuked Canada during the weekend’s G7 meeting by refusing to endorse a joint statement and accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of negotiating in bad faith. While Canada had already previously announced retaliatory steel and aluminum tariffs on the U.S., it seemed to be Trudeau’s comments at a press conference, in which he said Canada would not be “pushed around” – that upset the president and his advisors. “There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door," trade advisor Peter Navarro said on "Fox News Sunday." Republicans largely cried foul at the use of heated language at the United States’ ally and neighbor. “It’s uncalled for. Just absolutely uncalled for,” Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., said. “I’m pretty sure that circles of hell are not reserved for Canadians proposing retaliatory tariffs,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said. But they don't seem likely to do anything more than wring their hands over the substance behind those comments, at least at the moment. Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., are working on a bill that would check the president’s ability to impose tariffs on the basis of national security concerns, as he did in the Canada case, without congressional approval. But while the pair has been trying to add the measure to the NDAA, it appeared Monday as if it would be ineligible because of procedural hurdles related to its economic impact. Any measures having to do with funding would have to originate in the House of Representatives, which has already voted on its version of the NDAA. Some Senate Republicans also have concerns that the bill would violate the president’s constitutional authority as head of the executive branch, meaning it likely wouldn’t sail through as easily as the ZTE amendment is expected to. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., noted that some Republicans are opting to give the administration space to negotiate with Canada and other partners in the near term, and that would be best not to try to rein in the president’s authority at the same time. “There’s clearly a concern with a lot of sort of free trade conservatives in our conference about the present track that we’re on and where it could end up going. But I think at the moment everybody is giving the president the benefit of the doubt,” Thune said.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

OP0acP29MEqdNCDt

test

nLEwZJrujOumXuPT

lgbt_rights

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/03/republicans_vs_the_constitution_would_be_presidents_endorse_kim_davis_brazen_illegality/

Republicans vs. the Constitution: Would-be presidents endorse Kim Davis’ brazen illegality

2015-09-03

Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis will appear in federal court today to explain why she believes that God and her personal convictions empower her to break the law and deny gay people their constitutionally protected rights . Ever since this summer ’ s Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges , which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide , Davis has been refusing to issue marriage licenses – to any couple , gay or straight – citing her religious beliefs . She was ordered by the governor to do her job , but she refused . She was ordered by a federal judge to do her job , but she refused . This week , the Supreme Court rejected her appeal of the federal judge ’ s decision , which should have been the final word on the matter , but she ’ s still refusing to the job she was elected by the people of Kentucky to do . And so now she ’ s being hauled before a judge to determine whether she ’ s in contempt of court . There is no debate on that question : Davis is flagrantly in contempt and should be punished for what she ’ s done . After the Supreme Court rejected her appeal , a gay couple confronted Davis and asked her to explain what authority she had to continue denying them their rights . “ God ’ s authority , ” she shot back , which is the absolute wrong answer for a government employee to provide . The Constitution is the governing power in Kim Davis ’ office , and she is bound by oath to adhere to the law . She is breaking that oath , defying the Constitution , abusing her authority , and insisting that she suffer no consequences for her behavior . Davis ’ illegal and morally dubious stand against gay marriage does appeal , however , to the slice of the conservative movement that is hell bent on restoring the good old days of godly virtue when you had the state ’ s blessing to discriminate against gay people . It just so happens that there are a number of Republican presidential candidates who are trying to motivate that highly politically active segment of the population to get behind their campaigns , and that ’ s led us to a situation in which people running for the nation ’ s highest elected office are cheering on a rogue government employee ’ s defiance of the Constitution . If you were forced to guess which 2016 Republican candidate would line up behind Davis , you would of course choose Mike Huckabee , because Mike Huckabee is a crazy person who says things like “ the Supreme Court is not the supreme being , and they can not overturn the laws of nature or of nature ’ s god . ” And you would be 100 percent correct . Here ’ s Huckabee in South Carolina calling Kim Davis a hero for defying the tyrants of the Supreme Court : “ I salute her today , and I stand with her , ” Huckabee said , explaining that he called her up to thank her for standing up to “ judicial tyranny. ” Huckabee added : “ I thank God for Kim Davis , and I hope more Americans will stand with her . ” Davis also got an attagirl from her home state senator and increasingly hopeless presidential contender , Rand Paul . Rand wasn ’ t quite so effusive in his praise of Davis as Huckabee , but he did say : “ I think people who do stand up and are making a stand to say that they believe in something is an important part of the American way. ” He is correct that American history is full of people who left their mark by controversially standing up for their beliefs in defiance of the law – people like Orval Faubus , and George Wallace . Rand explained that his preferred policy would be to get states out of the marriage business altogether , which would potentially resolve the issue but doesn ’ t really speak to the immediacy of the problem at hand . Davis also got a hearty endorsement from Bobby Jindal , who is somehow still running for president despite polling in the mid to low zeroes . “ I do n't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions , ” Jindal said in a statement to the Huffington Post . Not every Republican candidate is behind Davis – Carly Fiorina , for example , has urged Davis to either give up or resign . But the situation could be complicated further depending on how harshly Davis is punished by the courts . It ’ s possible that Davis could land in jail for contempt , and as ThinkProgress ’ Ian Millhiser notes , as a prisoner she “ could inspire others to defy the Constitution if she is perceived as a martyr. ” Were that to happen , we could see more would-be Republican presidents championing brazen illegality in the service of anti-gay discrimination .

Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis will appear in federal court today to explain why she believes that God and her personal convictions empower her to break the law and deny gay people their constitutionally protected rights. Ever since this summer’s Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, Davis has been refusing to issue marriage licenses – to any couple, gay or straight – citing her religious beliefs. She was ordered by the governor to do her job, but she refused. She was ordered by a federal judge to do her job, but she refused. This week, the Supreme Court rejected her appeal of the federal judge’s decision, which should have been the final word on the matter, but she’s still refusing to the job she was elected by the people of Kentucky to do. And so now she’s being hauled before a judge to determine whether she’s in contempt of court. There is no debate on that question: Davis is flagrantly in contempt and should be punished for what she’s done. After the Supreme Court rejected her appeal, a gay couple confronted Davis and asked her to explain what authority she had to continue denying them their rights. “God’s authority,” she shot back, which is the absolute wrong answer for a government employee to provide. The Constitution is the governing power in Kim Davis’ office, and she is bound by oath to adhere to the law. She is breaking that oath, defying the Constitution, abusing her authority, and insisting that she suffer no consequences for her behavior. Advertisement: Davis’ illegal and morally dubious stand against gay marriage does appeal, however, to the slice of the conservative movement that is hell bent on restoring the good old days of godly virtue when you had the state’s blessing to discriminate against gay people. It just so happens that there are a number of Republican presidential candidates who are trying to motivate that highly politically active segment of the population to get behind their campaigns, and that’s led us to a situation in which people running for the nation’s highest elected office are cheering on a rogue government employee’s defiance of the Constitution. If you were forced to guess which 2016 Republican candidate would line up behind Davis, you would of course choose Mike Huckabee, because Mike Huckabee is a crazy person who says things like “the Supreme Court is not the supreme being, and they cannot overturn the laws of nature or of nature’s god.” And you would be 100 percent correct. Here’s Huckabee in South Carolina calling Kim Davis a hero for defying the tyrants of the Supreme Court: “I salute her today, and I stand with her,” Huckabee said, explaining that he called her up to thank her for standing up to “judicial tyranny.” Huckabee added: “I thank God for Kim Davis, and I hope more Americans will stand with her.” Davis also got an attagirl from her home state senator and increasingly hopeless presidential contender, Rand Paul. Rand wasn’t quite so effusive in his praise of Davis as Huckabee, but he did say: “I think people who do stand up and are making a stand to say that they believe in something is an important part of the American way.” He is correct that American history is full of people who left their mark by controversially standing up for their beliefs in defiance of the law – people like Orval Faubus, and George Wallace. Rand explained that his preferred policy would be to get states out of the marriage business altogether, which would potentially resolve the issue but doesn’t really speak to the immediacy of the problem at hand. Advertisement: Davis also got a hearty endorsement from Bobby Jindal, who is somehow still running for president despite polling in the mid to low zeroes. “I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions,” Jindal said in a statement to the Huffington Post. Not every Republican candidate is behind Davis – Carly Fiorina, for example, has urged Davis to either give up or resign. But the situation could be complicated further depending on how harshly Davis is punished by the courts. It’s possible that Davis could land in jail for contempt, and as ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser notes, as a prisoner she “could inspire others to defy the Constitution if she is perceived as a martyr.” Were that to happen, we could see more would-be Republican presidents championing brazen illegality in the service of anti-gay discrimination.

www.salon.com

left

nLEwZJrujOumXuPT

test

wknY6Mpwjm5Id7Qo

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/02/bikers-for-trump-support-laconia-motorcycle-week

'He's their man': why do bikers love Trump so much?

2019-07-02

Josh Wood

At New Hampshire ’ s Laconia Motorcycle Week , the language is foul , the wardrobe is leather , and it is among these holdout rebels that Trump has found support There he is , the president of the United States , sitting astride a motorcycle in a leather jacket in front of the Capitol , a rifle in hand . There he is again , once more leather-clad , both of his middle fingers extended as he stands on the southern border . Democrats divided as pressure to impeach builds : ‘ What are you waiting for ? ’ Read more The words written on the T-shirts and denim vests alongside the imaginary biker version of Donald Trump exude similar vibes . “ Finally someone with balls. ” “ Talk shit , spit blood. ” “ Trump 2020 the wall is coming . ” At Laconia , New Hampshire ’ s annual motorcycle week – the oldest such rally in the nation – apparel supporting Trump is on sale everywhere you look . Liam Andrews , an 18-year-old who was working at a vendor tent that had perhaps the most formidable showcase of Trump shirts , doesn ’ t care much for politics . But he does know one thing : the Trump shirts sell more than anything else . By the time Laconia ’ s bike week came to an end last month , his store had sold out of its most popular shirt , which read : “ Trump 2020 – because f * ck your feelings . ” At its core , American biker subculture is rooted in the idea of rebellion – against society ’ s norms and against authority . It is about brash individualism , of saying and doing what you want , despite what others may think . In Trump , many bikers have found an unlikely idol : a non-biker real estate billionaire who nonetheless paints himself as a rebel , outsider and disruptor . “ I think they like his crudeness , his rudeness , ” said Bill Thompson , a lifelong biker who is and professor of sociology at Texas A & M University Commerce , where he studies motorcycle culture . At rallies like Laconia , where tens of thousands gather along the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee every June , support for Trump is easy to find . For most of the summer , Laconia ’ s Weirs Beach is a family friendly destination , a time capsule of nostalgia replete with arcades , a lakeside boardwalk and one of the nation ’ s few remaining drive-in movie theatres . But for a week every June , Weirs beach is transformed as bikers descend here for the largest motorcycle rally in the north-east . The language is foul . The wardrobe is leather . Engines are loud , as is the music . Booze flows freely . Tents sell chaps and vests with gun pockets . You can smoke where you like for the most part . There are daily wet T-shirt contests . In the most raucous bar , men pay women in lingerie to spank their bare bottoms with a paddle . And for a state so far north that it borders Canada , there are a surprising number of Confederate flags on clothing , a sign of the links some bikers have with white supremacy . By and large , bikers are an aging demographic and at times , it can feel like spring break for baby boomers , a time and place where the generally accepted rules of society do not apply . It is among these holdout rebels that Trump has found a wellspring of support . “ Personally , I think it ’ s because he ’ s for the commoner , he wants to make sure everybody gets a fair shake , ” says Vince Kenyon , 53 , who was wearing a leather Bikers for Trump vest while smoking a cigar . “ When they see somebody doing good , bikers will come together and support that person . ” “ I don ’ t think he ’ s one of the bikers , ” said Gail , a 59-year-old Harley rider from Massachusetts who was browsing Trump apparel and asked that her surname not be used for fear of losing business in her blue home state . “ He ’ s just in touch with the blue-collar people . ” While Thompson sees reasons as to why bikers are attracted to Trump , he says the overall support still seems somewhat baffling . “ I would almost guarantee you [ Trump ] has never even sat on a motorcycle in his life , ” he said . “ Yet you go to a rally and these badass bikers are wearing T-shirts , they ’ ve got stickers , caps and decals . He ’ s their man . ” Back when he was still the host of The Apprentice , Donald Trump actually did sit on a bike when the bike makers from the Discovery channel show American Chopper made him a custom motorcycle ( predictably , it was gold and had his name on it ) . However , Trump is admittedly not a biker and in 2017 recounted how he turned down an offer to ride Harley-Davidson bikes brought to the White House by the manufacturer . Other politicians have more actively engaged the biker lifestyle . Trump ’ s former rival , the late Arizona senator John McCain , addressed bikers at the Sturgis rally during his 2008 presidential run . Trump ’ s vice-president , Mike Pence , has frequently taken part in motorcycle rides and even named his dog Harley . But none saw the worship from bikers that Trump does . “ It ’ s all about attitude , ” said Randy McBee , an associate professor of history at Texas Tech University and the author of Born to Be Wild : The Rise of the American Motorcyclist . “ He ’ s got this sort of ‘ no shit-taking ’ kind of attitude that fits in with the image of the outlaw biker . ” Rightwing ideas , he added , have been popular in biker circles for a long time . But in Trump , they found somebody to personify those ideas . Bill Hayes , a California biker who has written a number of books on motorcycle culture and outlaw motorcycle clubs , says conservative candidates have always been attractive to bikers , but that Trump ’ s flamboyance has resulted in an equally flamboyant embrace . He ’ s got this sort of ‘ no shit-taking ’ kind of attitude that fits in with the image of the outlaw biker Randy McBee “ A lower-key politician that embraces the ideals , would we like him or her ? Yeah , ” he said . “ But in this case it ’ s all so over the top that the support is over the top . ” The biker love has not gone unreturned : Trump has repeatedly hailed the Bikers for Trump group , which is now a political action committee , and painted them as key allies . “ I have the support of the police , the support of the military , the support of Bikers for Trump , ” he told the conservative website Breitbart in March . “ I have the tough people , but they don ’ t play it tough until they get to a certain point , and then it would be very bad , very bad . ” Trump ’ s statement was read by many as a threat of potential violence against opponents if his administration were cornered . He has also weighed in on biker issues , calling for a boycott of Harley-Davidson last year after the company announced it was shifting some production overseas to avoid tariffs . This spring , Trump reversed course on the company , calling EU taxes on the bike manufacturer “ unfair ” and vowing retaliation . But at Laconia ’ s rally , a world away from trade disputes , Trump remains popular despite his seesawing on the country ’ s most beloved bike brand . “ The Trump shirts sell everywhere we go , ” said Rita Farhat , who immigrated to the US from Lebanon nearly 20 years ago and sells biker apparel across the country . Outside her tent on the sidewalk , two topless women – their breasts only slightly obscured with paint and pasties – were offering to pose for photos with passersby for tips . A stall next door was selling bongs . Engines revved and tattoo guns whined .

At New Hampshire’s Laconia Motorcycle Week, the language is foul, the wardrobe is leather, and it is among these holdout rebels that Trump has found support There he is, the president of the United States, sitting astride a motorcycle in a leather jacket in front of the Capitol, a rifle in hand. There he is again, once more leather-clad, both of his middle fingers extended as he stands on the southern border. Democrats divided as pressure to impeach builds: ‘What are you waiting for?’ Read more The words written on the T-shirts and denim vests alongside the imaginary biker version of Donald Trump exude similar vibes. “Finally someone with balls.” “Talk shit, spit blood.” “Trump 2020 the wall is coming.” At Laconia, New Hampshire’s annual motorcycle week – the oldest such rally in the nation – apparel supporting Trump is on sale everywhere you look. Liam Andrews, an 18-year-old who was working at a vendor tent that had perhaps the most formidable showcase of Trump shirts, doesn’t care much for politics. But he does know one thing: the Trump shirts sell more than anything else. By the time Laconia’s bike week came to an end last month, his store had sold out of its most popular shirt, which read: “Trump 2020 – because f*ck your feelings.” “Most of the bikers here hate liberals,” he said. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Passersby look at a wall of Trump T-shirts for sale at Laconia, New Hampshire’s bike week. Photograph: Josh Wood At its core, American biker subculture is rooted in the idea of rebellion – against society’s norms and against authority. It is about brash individualism, of saying and doing what you want, despite what others may think. In Trump, many bikers have found an unlikely idol: a non-biker real estate billionaire who nonetheless paints himself as a rebel, outsider and disruptor. “I think they like his crudeness, his rudeness,” said Bill Thompson, a lifelong biker who is and professor of sociology at Texas A&M University Commerce, where he studies motorcycle culture. At rallies like Laconia, where tens of thousands gather along the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee every June, support for Trump is easy to find. For most of the summer, Laconia’s Weirs Beach is a family friendly destination, a time capsule of nostalgia replete with arcades, a lakeside boardwalk and one of the nation’s few remaining drive-in movie theatres. But for a week every June, Weirs beach is transformed as bikers descend here for the largest motorcycle rally in the north-east. The language is foul. The wardrobe is leather. Engines are loud, as is the music. Booze flows freely. Tents sell chaps and vests with gun pockets. You can smoke where you like for the most part. There are daily wet T-shirt contests. In the most raucous bar, men pay women in lingerie to spank their bare bottoms with a paddle. And for a state so far north that it borders Canada, there are a surprising number of Confederate flags on clothing, a sign of the links some bikers have with white supremacy. By and large, bikers are an aging demographic and at times, it can feel like spring break for baby boomers, a time and place where the generally accepted rules of society do not apply. Facebook Twitter Pinterest On pro-Trump T-shirts sold at bike week, the president is often portrayed as a biker and slogans are often divisive. Photograph: Josh Wood It is among these holdout rebels that Trump has found a wellspring of support. “Personally, I think it’s because he’s for the commoner, he wants to make sure everybody gets a fair shake,” says Vince Kenyon, 53, who was wearing a leather Bikers for Trump vest while smoking a cigar. “When they see somebody doing good, bikers will come together and support that person.” Others echoed that sentiment. “I don’t think he’s one of the bikers,” said Gail, a 59-year-old Harley rider from Massachusetts who was browsing Trump apparel and asked that her surname not be used for fear of losing business in her blue home state. “He’s just in touch with the blue-collar people.” While Thompson sees reasons as to why bikers are attracted to Trump, he says the overall support still seems somewhat baffling. “I would almost guarantee you [Trump] has never even sat on a motorcycle in his life,” he said. “Yet you go to a rally and these badass bikers are wearing T-shirts, they’ve got stickers, caps and decals. He’s their man.” Back when he was still the host of The Apprentice, Donald Trump actually did sit on a bike when the bike makers from the Discovery channel show American Chopper made him a custom motorcycle (predictably, it was gold and had his name on it). However, Trump is admittedly not a biker and in 2017 recounted how he turned down an offer to ride Harley-Davidson bikes brought to the White House by the manufacturer. Other politicians have more actively engaged the biker lifestyle. Trump’s former rival, the late Arizona senator John McCain, addressed bikers at the Sturgis rally during his 2008 presidential run. Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence, has frequently taken part in motorcycle rides and even named his dog Harley. But none saw the worship from bikers that Trump does. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Trump bandannas for sale at Laconia, New Hampshire’s annual bike week. Photograph: Josh Wood “It’s all about attitude,” said Randy McBee, an associate professor of history at Texas Tech University and the author of Born to Be Wild: The Rise of the American Motorcyclist. “He’s got this sort of ‘no shit-taking’ kind of attitude that fits in with the image of the outlaw biker.” Rightwing ideas, he added, have been popular in biker circles for a long time. But in Trump, they found somebody to personify those ideas. Bill Hayes, a California biker who has written a number of books on motorcycle culture and outlaw motorcycle clubs, says conservative candidates have always been attractive to bikers, but that Trump’s flamboyance has resulted in an equally flamboyant embrace. He’s got this sort of ‘no shit-taking’ kind of attitude that fits in with the image of the outlaw biker Randy McBee “A lower-key politician that embraces the ideals, would we like him or her? Yeah,” he said. “But in this case it’s all so over the top that the support is over the top.” The biker love has not gone unreturned: Trump has repeatedly hailed the Bikers for Trump group, which is now a political action committee, and painted them as key allies. “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of Bikers for Trump,” he told the conservative website Breitbart in March. “I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough until they get to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.” Trump’s statement was read by many as a threat of potential violence against opponents if his administration were cornered. He has also weighed in on biker issues, calling for a boycott of Harley-Davidson last year after the company announced it was shifting some production overseas to avoid tariffs. This spring, Trump reversed course on the company, calling EU taxes on the bike manufacturer “unfair” and vowing retaliation. But at Laconia’s rally, a world away from trade disputes, Trump remains popular despite his seesawing on the country’s most beloved bike brand. “The Trump shirts sell everywhere we go,” said Rita Farhat, who immigrated to the US from Lebanon nearly 20 years ago and sells biker apparel across the country. Outside her tent on the sidewalk, two topless women – their breasts only slightly obscured with paint and pasties – were offering to pose for photos with passersby for tips. A stall next door was selling bongs. Engines revved and tattoo guns whined. The Trump T-shirts continued to sell.

www.theguardian.com

left

wknY6Mpwjm5Id7Qo

test

DymCqvsUMV9cbMVg

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/02/georgia-republians-political-opponents-voter-intimidation

Revealed: Georgia Republicans use power of state to suppress minority vote

2019-09-02

Jordan Wilkie

Top Republicans Brad Raffensperger and David Emadi are issuing subpoenas to opponents without showing evidence of wrongdoing Top Georgia Republicans continue to use the power of the state to investigate political rivals , executing a strategy that voting rights activists say is designed to intimidate voting rights organizations and activists serving minority communities . Brad Raffensperger , the secretary of state , and David Emadi , executive secretary of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission , are investigating and issuing subpoenas to political opponents , without publicly showing evidence there was wrongdoing by those parties . 'Rigging the game ' : Stacey Abrams kicks off campaign to fight voter suppression Read more Georgia ’ s governor , Brian Kemp , pioneered the tactic as secretary of state , where he used his authority to investigate political opponents , liberal political groups and get out the vote ( GOTV ) organizers working in racial minority communities . To date , none of the investigations , subpoenas , arrests or prosecutions against political opponents and minority GOTV organizers have led to convictions , meaning that Kemp ’ s – and now Raffensperger and Emadi ’ s – political rivals remain innocent of charges brought against them . But voting rights activists say there is a trend in Georgia of Republicans using the power of an elected office to investigate political opponents as a voter intimidation tactic . Voter intimidation has changed its nature since the billy club and water hose violence of the 1960s , according to Carol Anderson , a historian studying public policy and race at Emory University . Because voter intimidation is no longer exercised through violence , and is instead exercised through subpoenas and investigations , Anderson argues the practice does not register as strongly with the public . Voter intimidation by the state , however , remains closely tied to race . In today ’ s politics , race and party are almost indistinguishable , Anderson said , blurring the lines between what is politically or racially motivated . “ Because we don ’ t see the night stick , because we don ’ t see the teargas , it doesn ’ t register for us as intimidation . But it is just as powerful , just as malignant , just as malevolent … the whole point is that blacks get hurt worse than whites , ” said Anderson . The governor ’ s and secretary of state ’ s offices have not responded to requests for comment . In 2019 , after Kemp won the gubernatorial election , the state ’ s campaign finance commission appointed Emadi , a political ally who contributed $ 600 to Kemp ’ s campaign . Emadi quickly opened an investigation into Stacey Abrams ’ campaign , alleging Kemp ’ s rival exceeded maximum contribution limits . Emadi issued subpoenas seeking banking and financial records . The subpoenas also seek extensive communications between the campaign and a network of political groups that are run by or are focused on people of color , which has sparked accusations of racial and political motivations behind the investigation . ███ obtained communications between attorneys for the campaign and Emadi which show that the commission did not provide any evidence of their allegations , or the “ basis for the finding of probable cause ” , as required in the commission rules . In 2019 , Raffensperger opened an investigation into an alleged 4,700 missing absentee ballot requests in DeKalb county , coming from voters the Abrams campaign targeted , from November ’ s midterm elections . Using absentee ballots as a way to increase voter turnout among unlikely or first-time voters was a primary strategy of the Abrams campaign , which led to Abrams outperforming Kemp in mail-in ballots by 53,709 votes . One of the first calls from investigators was to the mail-processing vendor the Abrams campaign used , according to Lauren Groh-Wargo , Abrams ’ former campaign manager . She now runs Fair Fight , an organization started by Abrams to challenge current voting laws and procedures in Georgia . The investigation remains open , with no conclusion as to what happened to the ballot applications . Opening investigations against Democratic candidates , the state Democratic party or liberal political groups that report issues to the secretary of state ’ s office , only to have the mechanism of the state turned against them , has become a political trend in Georgia . These types of investigations could have a chilling effect on people or groups interested in organizing in their communities . “ If you ’ re going to open up a shop organizing Latinos or Asian Americans or whatever the group may be , you need to be prepared in Georgia for the power of the state to come down on you and your folks , ” Groh-Wargo said . “ Your folks need to be ready that they could be literally criminalized for this type of activity , and that you need to have lawyers on the ready . ” The power of opening investigations and keeping them open for years has a big impact , Groh-Wargo said . It shuts the work of organizers down – which has not yet happened due to any of the investigations – and shuts the funding of the organization down . It is more difficult , Groh-Wargo said , to raise money when your organization is being investigated for a crime . “ To show that there is actually no wrongdoing is an incredible burden for an organization to have to manage a board through that , or for the board to have to explain it to its funders , ” Groh-Wargo said . Raffensperger ’ s office is also exercising the power of the subpoena . Secretary of state lawyers used a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Georgia ’ s election system to issue subpoenas for extensive financial and communication records from a number of left-leaning civil rights groups and churches – when none of those organizations are party to the case . Responding to the subpoenas will cost each organization time and thousands of dollars . The most extreme example of an investigation on false pretenses came on 4 November 2018 , two days before the midterm election . The secretary of state ’ s office knowingly falsely accused the Democratic party of Georgia of attempting to hack the election . The initial round of media coverage reflected the accusation , before the facts were available that the accusation was fabricated . “ That was weaponizing and using the office of the secretary of state to accuse the political party , ” said Sara Ghazal , the voter protection director for the Democratic party of Georgia . ███ interviewed voter registration organizers in Asian American and black communities , and leaders from Fair Fight and the Democratic party of Georgia . Each independently asserted the investigations were politically motivated . “ These weaponized investigations are used to change the entire political narrative , not only around political campaigns and individuals , but around issues , ” Ghazal said . “ Voter protection , voter integrity , election integrity , should never be a political issue . And yet , you ’ ve got debates now that are wholly politicized . ” That investigation into the Democratic party of Georgia has not concluded . No officials have been questioned or related subpoenas issued . Like each of the others , it has yet to produce any prosecutions , additional evidence , or convictions . Ghazal runs the largest voter protection project in the country and has records of tens of thousands of voter complaints over the last couple years . Given the recent history of investigations being turned against political opponents , Ghazal is purposely avoiding the secretary of state ’ s office for fear of “ inadvertently giving them something else that can be weaponized against an individual voter or against the party ” .

Top Republicans Brad Raffensperger and David Emadi are issuing subpoenas to opponents without showing evidence of wrongdoing This article is more than 2 months old This article is more than 2 months old Top Georgia Republicans continue to use the power of the state to investigate political rivals, executing a strategy that voting rights activists say is designed to intimidate voting rights organizations and activists serving minority communities. Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state, and David Emadi, executive secretary of the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, are investigating and issuing subpoenas to political opponents, without publicly showing evidence there was wrongdoing by those parties. 'Rigging the game': Stacey Abrams kicks off campaign to fight voter suppression Read more Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, pioneered the tactic as secretary of state, where he used his authority to investigate political opponents, liberal political groups and get out the vote (GOTV) organizers working in racial minority communities. To date, none of the investigations, subpoenas, arrests or prosecutions against political opponents and minority GOTV organizers have led to convictions, meaning that Kemp’s – and now Raffensperger and Emadi’s – political rivals remain innocent of charges brought against them. But voting rights activists say there is a trend in Georgia of Republicans using the power of an elected office to investigate political opponents as a voter intimidation tactic. Voter intimidation has changed its nature since the billy club and water hose violence of the 1960s, according to Carol Anderson, a historian studying public policy and race at Emory University. Because voter intimidation is no longer exercised through violence, and is instead exercised through subpoenas and investigations, Anderson argues the practice does not register as strongly with the public. Voter intimidation by the state, however, remains closely tied to race. In today’s politics, race and party are almost indistinguishable, Anderson said, blurring the lines between what is politically or racially motivated. “Because we don’t see the night stick, because we don’t see the teargas, it doesn’t register for us as intimidation. But it is just as powerful, just as malignant, just as malevolent … the whole point is that blacks get hurt worse than whites,” said Anderson. The governor’s and secretary of state’s offices have not responded to requests for comment. In 2019, after Kemp won the gubernatorial election, the state’s campaign finance commission appointed Emadi, a political ally who contributed $600 to Kemp’s campaign. Emadi quickly opened an investigation into Stacey Abrams’ campaign, alleging Kemp’s rival exceeded maximum contribution limits. Emadi issued subpoenas seeking banking and financial records. The subpoenas also seek extensive communications between the campaign and a network of political groups that are run by or are focused on people of color, which has sparked accusations of racial and political motivations behind the investigation. Emadi has denied any racial or political motivations. The Guardian obtained communications between attorneys for the campaign and Emadi which show that the commission did not provide any evidence of their allegations, or the “basis for the finding of probable cause”, as required in the commission rules. Emadi said he could not comment on open investigations. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp at a debate in Atlanta, Georgia, on 23 October 2018. Photograph: POOL New/Reuters In 2019, Raffensperger opened an investigation into an alleged 4,700 missing absentee ballot requests in DeKalb county, coming from voters the Abrams campaign targeted, from November’s midterm elections. Using absentee ballots as a way to increase voter turnout among unlikely or first-time voters was a primary strategy of the Abrams campaign, which led to Abrams outperforming Kemp in mail-in ballots by 53,709 votes. One of the first calls from investigators was to the mail-processing vendor the Abrams campaign used, according to Lauren Groh-Wargo, Abrams’ former campaign manager. She now runs Fair Fight, an organization started by Abrams to challenge current voting laws and procedures in Georgia. The investigation remains open, with no conclusion as to what happened to the ballot applications. Opening investigations against Democratic candidates, the state Democratic party or liberal political groups that report issues to the secretary of state’s office, only to have the mechanism of the state turned against them, has become a political trend in Georgia. These types of investigations could have a chilling effect on people or groups interested in organizing in their communities. “If you’re going to open up a shop organizing Latinos or Asian Americans or whatever the group may be, you need to be prepared in Georgia for the power of the state to come down on you and your folks,” Groh-Wargo said. “Your folks need to be ready that they could be literally criminalized for this type of activity, and that you need to have lawyers on the ready.” The power of opening investigations and keeping them open for years has a big impact, Groh-Wargo said. It shuts the work of organizers down – which has not yet happened due to any of the investigations – and shuts the funding of the organization down. It is more difficult, Groh-Wargo said, to raise money when your organization is being investigated for a crime. “To show that there is actually no wrongdoing is an incredible burden for an organization to have to manage a board through that, or for the board to have to explain it to its funders,” Groh-Wargo said. Raffensperger’s office is also exercising the power of the subpoena. Secretary of state lawyers used a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Georgia’s election system to issue subpoenas for extensive financial and communication records from a number of left-leaning civil rights groups and churches – when none of those organizations are party to the case. Responding to the subpoenas will cost each organization time and thousands of dollars. The most extreme example of an investigation on false pretenses came on 4 November 2018, two days before the midterm election. The secretary of state’s office knowingly falsely accused the Democratic party of Georgia of attempting to hack the election. The initial round of media coverage reflected the accusation, before the facts were available that the accusation was fabricated. “That was weaponizing and using the office of the secretary of state to accuse the political party,” said Sara Ghazal, the voter protection director for the Democratic party of Georgia. The Guardian interviewed voter registration organizers in Asian American and black communities, and leaders from Fair Fight and the Democratic party of Georgia. Each independently asserted the investigations were politically motivated. “These weaponized investigations are used to change the entire political narrative, not only around political campaigns and individuals, but around issues,” Ghazal said. “Voter protection, voter integrity, election integrity, should never be a political issue. And yet, you’ve got debates now that are wholly politicized.” That investigation into the Democratic party of Georgia has not concluded. No officials have been questioned or related subpoenas issued. Like each of the others, it has yet to produce any prosecutions, additional evidence, or convictions. Ghazal runs the largest voter protection project in the country and has records of tens of thousands of voter complaints over the last couple years. Given the recent history of investigations being turned against political opponents, Ghazal is purposely avoiding the secretary of state’s office for fear of “inadvertently giving them something else that can be weaponized against an individual voter or against the party”.

www.theguardian.com

left

DymCqvsUMV9cbMVg

test

h1XxfQaXR4ziYCDB

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/census-citizenship-question/2019/07/03/id/923110/

Census Bureau Begins Printing Without Citizenship Question

2019-07-03

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court halted the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census , the U.S. Census Bureau has started the process of printing the questionnaire without the controversial query . Trump administration attorneys notified parties in lawsuits challenging the question that the printing of the hundreds of millions of documents for the 2020 counts would be starting , said Kristen Clarke , executive director of the National Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law . Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco confirmed Tuesday there would be “ no citizenship question on 2020 census . ” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that while he respected the Supreme Court ’ s decision , he strongly disagreed with it . “ The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question , ” Ross said in a statement . “ My focus , and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census . ” President Donald Trump had said after the high court ’ s decision last week that he would ask his attorneys about possibly delaying next spring ’ s decennial census until the Supreme Court could revisit the matter , raising questions about whether printing of the census materials would start as planned this month . For months , the Trump administration had argued that the courts needed to decide quickly whether the citizenship question could be added because of the deadline to starting printing materials this week . On Twitter Tuesday night , Trump wrote that the Supreme Court ruling marked a “ very sad time for America. ” He also said he had asked the Commerce and Justice departments “ to do whatever is necessary to bring this most vital of questions , and this very important case , to a successful conclusion. ” He did not elaborate . Even though the Census Bureau is relying on most respondents to answer the questionnaire by Internet next year , hundreds of millions of printed postcards and letters will be sent out next March reminding residents about the census , and those who don ’ t respond digitally will be mailed paper questionnaires . “ The Supreme Court ’ s ruling left little opportunity for the administration to cure the defects with its decision to add a citizenship question and , most importantly , they were simply out of time given the deadline for printing forms , ” Clarke said in an email . Opponents of the citizenship question said it would discourage participation by immigrants and residents who are in the country illegally , resulting in inaccurate figures for a count that determines the distribution of some $ 675 billion in federal spending and how many congressional districts each state gets . The Trump administration had said the question was being added to aid in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act , which protects minority voters ’ access to the ballot box . But in the Supreme Court ’ s decision , Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court ’ s four more liberal members in saying the administration ’ s current justification for the question “ seems to have been contrived . ” Democratic mayors and governors opposed to the question argued that they ’ d get less federal money and fewer representatives in Congress if the question was asked because it would discourage the participation of minorities , primarily Hispanics , who tend to support Democrats . Attorneys general for two of the largest states controlled by Democrats praised the decision to abandon the citizenship question . “ While the Trump Administration may have attempted to politicize the census and punish cities and states across the nation , justice prevailed , and the census will continue to remain a tool for obtaining an accurate count of our population , ” said New York Attorney General Letitia James . While praising the question ’ s disappearance , California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned that the Trump administration had underfunded the Census Bureau , making it difficult to count hard-to-reach communities . “ It ’ s an investment of time and resources that we have not seen , and this administration is dragging its feet , ” Becerra said . Top congressional Democrats hailed Tuesday ’ s news . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it “ a welcome development for our democracy , ” while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer promised his party “ will be watching the Trump administration like a hawk to ensure there is no wrong-doing throughout this process and that every single person is counted . ” Dale Ho , who argued the Supreme Court case as director of the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Voting Rights Project , said , “ Everyone in America counts in the census , and today ’ s decision means we all will . ”

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court halted the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau has started the process of printing the questionnaire without the controversial query. Trump administration attorneys notified parties in lawsuits challenging the question that the printing of the hundreds of millions of documents for the 2020 counts would be starting, said Kristen Clarke, executive director of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco confirmed Tuesday there would be “no citizenship question on 2020 census.” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that while he respected the Supreme Court’s decision, he strongly disagreed with it. “The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question,” Ross said in a statement. “My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census.” President Donald Trump had said after the high court’s decision last week that he would ask his attorneys about possibly delaying next spring’s decennial census until the Supreme Court could revisit the matter, raising questions about whether printing of the census materials would start as planned this month. For months, the Trump administration had argued that the courts needed to decide quickly whether the citizenship question could be added because of the deadline to starting printing materials this week. On Twitter Tuesday night, Trump wrote that the Supreme Court ruling marked a “very sad time for America.” He also said he had asked the Commerce and Justice departments “to do whatever is necessary to bring this most vital of questions, and this very important case, to a successful conclusion.” He did not elaborate. Even though the Census Bureau is relying on most respondents to answer the questionnaire by Internet next year, hundreds of millions of printed postcards and letters will be sent out next March reminding residents about the census, and those who don’t respond digitally will be mailed paper questionnaires. “The Supreme Court’s ruling left little opportunity for the administration to cure the defects with its decision to add a citizenship question and, most importantly, they were simply out of time given the deadline for printing forms,” Clarke said in an email. Opponents of the citizenship question said it would discourage participation by immigrants and residents who are in the country illegally, resulting in inaccurate figures for a count that determines the distribution of some $675 billion in federal spending and how many congressional districts each state gets. The Trump administration had said the question was being added to aid in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters’ access to the ballot box. But in the Supreme Court’s decision, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal members in saying the administration’s current justification for the question “seems to have been contrived.” Democratic mayors and governors opposed to the question argued that they’d get less federal money and fewer representatives in Congress if the question was asked because it would discourage the participation of minorities, primarily Hispanics, who tend to support Democrats. Attorneys general for two of the largest states controlled by Democrats praised the decision to abandon the citizenship question. “While the Trump Administration may have attempted to politicize the census and punish cities and states across the nation, justice prevailed, and the census will continue to remain a tool for obtaining an accurate count of our population,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. While praising the question’s disappearance, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned that the Trump administration had underfunded the Census Bureau, making it difficult to count hard-to-reach communities. “It’s an investment of time and resources that we have not seen, and this administration is dragging its feet,” Becerra said. Top congressional Democrats hailed Tuesday’s news. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it “a welcome development for our democracy,” while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer promised his party “will be watching the Trump administration like a hawk to ensure there is no wrong-doing throughout this process and that every single person is counted.” Dale Ho, who argued the Supreme Court case as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, said, “Everyone in America counts in the census, and today’s decision means we all will.”

www.newsmax.com

right

h1XxfQaXR4ziYCDB

test

6qFbyVPsDflQluJY

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/28/this_is_war_sarah_palin_slams_quasi_conservative_oreilly_for_not_taking_her_fake_2016_candidacy_seriously/

“This is war”: Sarah Palin slams “quasi-conservative” O’Reilly for not taking her fake 2016 candidacy seriously

2015-01-28

Luke Brinker

Former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin came out swinging against her Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday , ripping the anchor for not taking her latest flirtation with a presidential bid seriously and lumping O'Reilly in with dreaded `` quasi- or assumed conservative '' elements in the media . During an appearance on last night 's `` Hannity , '' Palin brushed off the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the bizarre spectacle of a speech she delivered before King 's summit this weekend . The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee then resorted to one of her favorite standbys -- a visceral attack on the lamestream media , who must be vanquished heading into next year 's elections . `` Knowing what the media is going to do throughout 2016 — and my prediction , Hillary will be running and she will be , you know , the knighted candidate on the left and with the media — knowing what the media is going to do , it ’ s going to take more than a village to beat Hillary , '' Palin told host Sean Hannity . Palin -- who served half her single term as Alaska governor , flopped as Sen. John McCain 's 2008 presidential running mate , and has spent much of her post-political career backing unsuccessful Tea Party primary challengers -- proceeded to outline what a GOP victory next year would require . `` There needs to be unity , understanding , '' she said . `` Conservatives have that strike against us right off the bat , that being the media . Even there on Fox , you know , kind of a quasi- or assumed conservative outlet '' -- here we pause to remind you that the litmus test of true , undiluted conservatism is unquestioning loyalty to one particular hockey mom from Wasilla -- '' and soon we have all day listening to the tease of Bill O ’ Reilly ’ s , '' she added . `` He ’ s talking about the guests on his show tonight , the commentary on his show , and that would be , ‘ All these GOP contenders thinking about running for president , like Donald Trump , Sarah Palin , ’ and he named some others — and he said , ‘ Oh , what a reality show that would be , yuck yuck , ' '' Palin said . `` Well the left doesn ’ t do that , okay ? They take this serious [ sic ] — because this is war . And hopefully the media — even the quasi-right side of the media — won ’ t be looking at this as some kind of reality show , a joke . '' Right on , Sarah ! If she 's anything , the host of such programs as TLC 's `` Sarah Palin 's Alaska '' and the Sportsman Channel 's `` Amazing America with Sarah Palin '' is most certainly not some kind of reality show candidate .

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin came out swinging against her Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday, ripping the anchor for not taking her latest flirtation with a presidential bid seriously and lumping O'Reilly in with dreaded "quasi- or assumed conservative" elements in the media. During an appearance on last night's "Hannity," Palin brushed off the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the bizarre spectacle of a speech she delivered before King's summit this weekend. The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee then resorted to one of her favorite standbys -- a visceral attack on the lamestream media, who must be vanquished heading into next year's elections. Advertisement: "Knowing what the media is going to do throughout 2016 — and my prediction, Hillary will be running and she will be, you know, the knighted candidate on the left and with the media — knowing what the media is going to do, it’s going to take more than a village to beat Hillary," Palin told host Sean Hannity. Palin -- who served half her single term as Alaska governor, flopped as Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential running mate, and has spent much of her post-political career backing unsuccessful Tea Party primary challengers -- proceeded to outline what a GOP victory next year would require. "There needs to be unity, understanding," she said. "Conservatives have that strike against us right off the bat, that being the media. Even there on Fox, you know, kind of a quasi- or assumed conservative outlet" -- here we pause to remind you that the litmus test of true, undiluted conservatism is unquestioning loyalty to one particular hockey mom from Wasilla --" and soon we have all day listening to the tease of Bill O’Reilly’s," she added. Advertisement: "He’s talking about the guests on his show tonight, the commentary on his show, and that would be, ‘All these GOP contenders thinking about running for president, like Donald Trump, Sarah Palin,’ and he named some others — and he said, ‘Oh, what a reality show that would be, yuck yuck,'" Palin said. "Well the left doesn’t do that, okay? They take this serious [sic] — because this is war. And hopefully the media — even the quasi-right side of the media — won’t be looking at this as some kind of reality show, a joke." Right on, Sarah! If she's anything, the host of such programs as TLC's "Sarah Palin's Alaska" and the Sportsman Channel's "Amazing America with Sarah Palin" is most certainly not some kind of reality show candidate. Watch Palin rip into O'Reilly below, via Media Matters:

www.salon.com

left

6qFbyVPsDflQluJY

test

UwzkdSJlEZ8GHY8H

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-trump/facebook-takes-down-trump-ads-over-organized-hate-policy-idUSKBN23P3AH

Facebook takes down Trump ads over 'organized hate' policy

2020-06-18

Elizabeth Culliford

( ███ ) - Facebook Inc ( FB.O ) said on Thursday it took down posts and ads run by the re-election campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump for violating its policy against organized hate . The ads showed a red inverted triangle , a symbol the Nazis used to identify political prisoners , with text asking Facebook users to sign a petition against antifa , a loosely organized anti-fascist movement . Trump and Attorney General William Barr have repeatedly singled out antifa as a major instigator of recent unrest during nationwide anti-racism protests , with little evidence . “ Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group ’ s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol , ” said a Facebook company spokesperson . A screenshot from Facebook ’ s ad library shows an ad run by Republican President Donald Trump ’ s campaign , one of many using the same symbol that Facebook took down on Thursday for violating its policy against organized hate . Facebook via ███ The symbol was in Facebook ads run on pages belonging to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence , as well as on ads and organic posts on the “ Team Trump ” page . “ Whether aware of the history or meaning , for the Trump campaign to use a symbol – one which is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps – to attack his opponents is offensive and deeply troubling , ” the Anti-Defamation League ’ s CEO , Jonathan Greenblatt , said in a statement . “ The inverted red triangle is a symbol used by Antifa , so it was included in an ad about Antifa , ” Tim Murtaugh , a spokesman for the Trump campaign , said in an email . “ We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use , which looks exactly the same , so it ’ s curious that they would target only this ad . The image is also not included in the Anti-Defamation League ’ s database of symbols of hate . ” A spokesman for the ADL said its database was not one of historical Nazi symbols but of those “ commonly used by modern extremists and white supremacists in the United States . ” He also said that there have been some antifa who have used the red triangle , but that it was not a particularly common symbol used by the group . Mark Bray , a historian at Rutgers University and the author of “ Antifa : The Anti-Fascist Handbook , ” said that the red triangle had been reclaimed by some leftist groups in the United Kingdom and Germany after World War Two but that he had never come across any use of it by anti-fascists in the United States . A ███ tally counted 88 versions of the ad using the symbol from the three Facebook pages . Ads from Trump ’ s page had gained at least 800,000 impressions , according to Facebook ’ s ad library . Asked about the ads ’ removal at a U.S. House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday , Facebook ’ s head of security policy , Nathaniel Gleicher , said the company would be consistent in taking the same actions if the symbol appeared in other places on the platform . Facebook has previously removed Trump campaign ads , including ones that violated the company ’ s policy against misinformation on the government ’ s census .

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc (FB.O) said on Thursday it took down posts and ads run by the re-election campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump for violating its policy against organized hate. The ads showed a red inverted triangle, a symbol the Nazis used to identify political prisoners, with text asking Facebook users to sign a petition against antifa, a loosely organized anti-fascist movement. Trump and Attorney General William Barr have repeatedly singled out antifa as a major instigator of recent unrest during nationwide anti-racism protests, with little evidence. “Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group’s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol,” said a Facebook company spokesperson. A screenshot from Facebook’s ad library shows an ad run by Republican President Donald Trump’s campaign, one of many using the same symbol that Facebook took down on Thursday for violating its policy against organized hate. Facebook via REUTERS The symbol was in Facebook ads run on pages belonging to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, as well as on ads and organic posts on the “Team Trump” page. “Whether aware of the history or meaning, for the Trump campaign to use a symbol – one which is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps – to attack his opponents is offensive and deeply troubling,” the Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, said in a statement. “The inverted red triangle is a symbol used by Antifa, so it was included in an ad about Antifa,” Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said in an email. “We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use, which looks exactly the same, so it’s curious that they would target only this ad. The image is also not included in the Anti-Defamation League’s database of symbols of hate.” A spokesman for the ADL said its database was not one of historical Nazi symbols but of those “commonly used by modern extremists and white supremacists in the United States.” He also said that there have been some antifa who have used the red triangle, but that it was not a particularly common symbol used by the group. Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University and the author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” said that the red triangle had been reclaimed by some leftist groups in the United Kingdom and Germany after World War Two but that he had never come across any use of it by anti-fascists in the United States. Slideshow (3 Images) A Reuters tally counted 88 versions of the ad using the symbol from the three Facebook pages. Ads from Trump’s page had gained at least 800,000 impressions, according to Facebook’s ad library. Asked about the ads’ removal at a U.S. House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday, Facebook’s head of security policy, Nathaniel Gleicher, said the company would be consistent in taking the same actions if the symbol appeared in other places on the platform. Facebook has previously removed Trump campaign ads, including ones that violated the company’s policy against misinformation on the government’s census.

www.reuters.com

center

UwzkdSJlEZ8GHY8H

test

nqRsSloE2siYyoDD

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/24/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-first-year-congress

‘Try to keep up’: how Ocasio-Cortez upended politics her first year in office

2019-12-24

Lauren Gambino

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the youngest woman ever elected to Congress , did not come to play by the old rules – and she has pushed the party to the left ‘ Try to keep up ’ : how Ocasio-Cortez upended politics in her first year in office ‘ Try to keep up ’ : how Ocasio-Cortez upended politics in her first year in office Freshman orientation in November 2018 had only just begun when the most high-profile member of the incoming House Democratic class broke away from her new colleagues to join climate activists for a protest – inside House speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s office . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the youngest woman ever elected to Congress , did not come to play by the old rules of Washington . While she hasn ’ t achieved everything she set out to do – far from it – allies and rivals agree that Ocasio-Cortez has upended Democratic politics , pushing the party inexorably to the left . And all before her 30th birthday , which she celebrated in October . When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg : 'Hope is contagious ' Read more “ Her presence in Congress has been seismic , ” said Alexandra Rojas , the executive director of Justice Democrats , a progressive political organization that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for office . “ She has changed the whole ecosystem and expanded the idea of what ’ s possible in the minds of voters . That kind of change is on a scale that ’ s almost immeasurable . ” Few knew her name before the evening of 26 June 2018 , when she stunned the political establishment – and herself – by soundly defeating Joe Crowley , a 10-term incumbent and the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House . Now she ’ s known universally by her initials : AOC . In the year since her arrival on Capitol Hill , Ocasio-Cortez has convinced every major 2020 presidential candidate to support her Green New Deal , galvanized opposition to a deal with Amazon in New York and turned a tedious congressional hearing on money in politics into must-see TV . Last cycle , she raised more money than any other House Democrat , including Pelosi . And across the country , waves of Democratic insurgents are challenging long-serving incumbents in what has been called the “ AOC effect ” . “ She ’ s gotten a lot done by challenging the status quo – by taking on politics as usual in Washington , ” said Caroline Fredrickson , the president emerita of the American Constitution Society and author of the upcoming book The AOC Way . Fredrickson says Ocasio-Cortez has defied long-standing expectations about how young women , and especially women of color , behave in the corridors of power . At the same time she ’ s surprised critics who once dismissed her as merely a “ bright and shiny new object ” . “ A lot of people expected a show pony . But it turns out she ’ s a workhorse , ” Fredrickson said , pointing to her skillful questioning of witnesses during congressional hearings . Ocasio-Cortez doesn ’ t mind being underestimated . ( “ That ’ s how I won my primary , ” she quipped on CNN . ) But she said her refusal to accept corporate Pac donations means that unlike many of her colleagues she spends no time on the phone asking donors for money – freeing up her schedule to pore over briefing books , study policy proposals and , on occasion , canvas her followers for questions to ask witnesses at hearings . But the congresswoman has said the heavy workload and constant scrutiny can take a toll . “ Like many other women + working people , I occasionally suffer from impostor syndrome : those small moments , especially on hard days , where you wonder if the haters are right . But then they do things like this to clear it right up , ” she wrote on Twitter , mocking a Republican senator for his bizarre riposte to her climate plan . Her playful repartee on social media , mixing the personal with the political , has helped her build a loyal following far beyond her New York district , which includes parts of the Bronx and Queens . Ocasio-Cortez has emerged as a symbol of a Democratic party that is younger , more diverse and increasingly wary of the excesses of capitalism . She believes voters are tired of pragmatism and consensus-building . Her campaign resonated , she argues , because of her uncompromising clarity of vision . It ’ s a contested theory of change that she shares with the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders , whom she endorsed in October . “ If you ’ re a one-term Congress member , so what ? ” Ocasio-Cortez said in a video produced by Justice Democrats earlier this year . “ You can make 10 years ’ worth of change in one term if you ’ re not afraid . ” She stridently , and often wittily , counters internet trolls . She made huge waves on a visit to the migrant detention facilities at the US-Mexico border in July 2019 , and helped expose appalling conditions for adults , children and even babies there . A political and cultural icon on the progressive left , she has also transfixed the right : Fox News covers her religiously while Trump and Republicans have eagerly promoted her as the face of the Democratic party . Trump has labeled her a “ communist ” and a “ nightmare for America ” . He has also said that she and three other liberal congresswomen of color who form a group that Ocasio-Cortez named “ the Squad ” – Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts , Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan – should “ go back ” to their countries . Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx , not far from the Trump family home in Queens . Ocasio-Cortez was raised in a working-class family : her father owned a small business as an architect and her mother , who was born in Puerto Rico , cleaned houses . She studied international relations and economics at Boston University . When she was a sophomore in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis , her father died of lung cancer and plunged the family into economic hardship . She has said that this ordeal helped shape her views on healthcare and economic reform . “ When you ’ re from a working-class background it often feels like you ’ re just one disaster away from everything falling apart , ” she said in an emotional Instagram story titled You can do it pinned to the top of her feed . “ And that ’ s kind of what happened when my dad died . ” Her lightning-strike rise from bartender to Democratic dragonslayer to member of Congress – all in the span of little more than a year – has not been an entirely smooth transition . In February , her office botched the rollout of the Green New Deal by distributing an incorrect fact sheet about the proposal that lead to widespread confusion over key details of the plan and lent itself to parody by Republicans . In New York she faced criticism for being slow to open a district office ( she now has two ) . And she stirred fierce backlash when she described migrant detention camps at the border as “ concentration camps ” – a term she has stood by . “ Nobody expects to go from not having health insurance to being on the front page of every major newspaper , literally overnight , ” Rojas said . Many Democrats have griped privately about her outsized celebrity and combative politics , which they fear imperils vulnerable House members running for re-election in conservative districts where her brand is toxic . In the early days of her tenure , she alienated others in the party by aligning with a movement that runs primary challenges against moderate and right-leaning Democrats . Though she has denied reports that a top target was Hakeem Jeffries , the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus , she has endorsed challengers in two prominent House primaries . Those tensions exploded in spectacular fashion this summer after the House passed a border-funding bill that enraged progressives . On Twitter , Ocasio-Cortez ’ s then chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti unloaded on moderates who voted for the legislation , referring to them as the “ New Southern Democrats ” and accusing them of enabling “ a racist system ” . He has since left her office . Play Video 0:56 'Congresswomen dance too ' : Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hits back with new video Pelosi escalated the row when she told the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in an interview that the four members of the Squad had “ their public whatever and their Twitter world ” but they “ didn ’ t have any following ” . It was not the first time Pelosi has dismissed the left ’ s influence – she once referred to the Green New Deal as the “ green dream ” – but this remark drew an unsparing response . Ocasio-Cortez retorted that the ability to shift public sentiment was proof of her power , and later said that Pelosi was “ singling out ... newly elected women of color ” . This infuriated allies of Pelosi , especially members of the Congressional Black Caucus , who said Ocasio-Cortez had gone too far . The dispute ultimately ended with a private , one-on-one meeting between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez to “ clear the air ” . Though deep rifts remain , the bitter infighting has largely subsided in the three months leading up to the House ’ s impeachment of Trump . In a recent tweet , Trump accused Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the party of being so obsessed with his impeachment that they have failed to deliver on their legislative agenda . “ In my first 11 months I ’ ve cosponsored 339 pieces of legislation , authored 15 , took on Big Pharma w/ my colleagues in hearings that brought PreP generic a year early & exposed abuse of power , ” Ocasio-Cortez shot back . “ In 4 years , you ’ ve jailed kids & made corruption the cause celebré , ” she added . “ Try to keep up . ”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, did not come to play by the old rules – and she has pushed the party to the left ‘Try to keep up’: how Ocasio-Cortez upended politics in her first year in office ‘Try to keep up’: how Ocasio-Cortez upended politics in her first year in office Freshman orientation in November 2018 had only just begun when the most high-profile member of the incoming House Democratic class broke away from her new colleagues to join climate activists for a protest – inside House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, did not come to play by the old rules of Washington. While she hasn’t achieved everything she set out to do – far from it – allies and rivals agree that Ocasio-Cortez has upended Democratic politics, pushing the party inexorably to the left. And all before her 30th birthday, which she celebrated in October. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg: 'Hope is contagious' Read more “Her presence in Congress has been seismic,” said Alexandra Rojas, the executive director of Justice Democrats, a progressive political organization that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for office. “She has changed the whole ecosystem and expanded the idea of what’s possible in the minds of voters. That kind of change is on a scale that’s almost immeasurable.” Few knew her name before the evening of 26 June 2018, when she stunned the political establishment – and herself – by soundly defeating Joe Crowley, a 10-term incumbent and the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Now she’s known universally by her initials: AOC. In the year since her arrival on Capitol Hill, Ocasio-Cortez has convinced every major 2020 presidential candidate to support her Green New Deal, galvanized opposition to a deal with Amazon in New York and turned a tedious congressional hearing on money in politics into must-see TV. Last cycle, she raised more money than any other House Democrat, including Pelosi. And across the country, waves of Democratic insurgents are challenging long-serving incumbents in what has been called the “AOC effect”. “She’s gotten a lot done by challenging the status quo – by taking on politics as usual in Washington,” said Caroline Fredrickson, the president emerita of the American Constitution Society and author of the upcoming book The AOC Way. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks at the C40 World Mayors summit in Copenhagen on 11 October. Photograph: Tariq Mikkel Khan/EPA Fredrickson says Ocasio-Cortez has defied long-standing expectations about how young women, and especially women of color, behave in the corridors of power. At the same time she’s surprised critics who once dismissed her as merely a “bright and shiny new object”. “A lot of people expected a show pony. But it turns out she’s a workhorse,” Fredrickson said, pointing to her skillful questioning of witnesses during congressional hearings. Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t mind being underestimated. (“That’s how I won my primary,” she quipped on CNN.) But she said her refusal to accept corporate Pac donations means that unlike many of her colleagues she spends no time on the phone asking donors for money – freeing up her schedule to pore over briefing books, study policy proposals and, on occasion, canvas her followers for questions to ask witnesses at hearings. But the congresswoman has said the heavy workload and constant scrutiny can take a toll. “Like many other women + working people, I occasionally suffer from impostor syndrome: those small moments, especially on hard days, where you wonder if the haters are right. But then they do things like this to clear it right up,” she wrote on Twitter, mocking a Republican senator for his bizarre riposte to her climate plan. Her playful repartee on social media, mixing the personal with the political, has helped her build a loyal following far beyond her New York district, which includes parts of the Bronx and Queens. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders during the Bernie’s Back rally in Queens, New York City, on 19 October. Photograph: Andrew Kelly/Reuters Ocasio-Cortez has emerged as a symbol of a Democratic party that is younger, more diverse and increasingly wary of the excesses of capitalism. She believes voters are tired of pragmatism and consensus-building. Her campaign resonated, she argues, because of her uncompromising clarity of vision. It’s a contested theory of change that she shares with the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, whom she endorsed in October. “If you’re a one-term Congress member, so what?” Ocasio-Cortez said in a video produced by Justice Democrats earlier this year. “You can make 10 years’ worth of change in one term if you’re not afraid.” She stridently, and often wittily, counters internet trolls. She made huge waves on a visit to the migrant detention facilities at the US-Mexico border in July 2019, and helped expose appalling conditions for adults, children and even babies there. A political and cultural icon on the progressive left, she has also transfixed the right: Fox News covers her religiously while Trump and Republicans have eagerly promoted her as the face of the Democratic party. Trump has labeled her a “communist” and a “nightmare for America”. He has also said that she and three other liberal congresswomen of color who form a group that Ocasio-Cortez named “the Squad” – Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan – should “go back” to their countries. Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx, not far from the Trump family home in Queens. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley speak about Donald Trump’s Twitter attacks against them in Washington DC, on 15 July. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA Ocasio-Cortez was raised in a working-class family: her father owned a small business as an architect and her mother, who was born in Puerto Rico, cleaned houses. She studied international relations and economics at Boston University. When she was a sophomore in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, her father died of lung cancer and plunged the family into economic hardship. She has said that this ordeal helped shape her views on healthcare and economic reform. “When you’re from a working-class background it often feels like you’re just one disaster away from everything falling apart,” she said in an emotional Instagram story titled You can do it pinned to the top of her feed. “And that’s kind of what happened when my dad died.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks about the Green New Deal with Ed Markey outside the US Capitol in Washington DC, on 26 March. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Her lightning-strike rise from bartender to Democratic dragonslayer to member of Congress – all in the span of little more than a year – has not been an entirely smooth transition. In February, her office botched the rollout of the Green New Deal by distributing an incorrect fact sheet about the proposal that lead to widespread confusion over key details of the plan and lent itself to parody by Republicans. In New York she faced criticism for being slow to open a district office (she now has two). And she stirred fierce backlash when she described migrant detention camps at the border as “concentration camps” – a term she has stood by. “Nobody expects to go from not having health insurance to being on the front page of every major newspaper, literally overnight,” Rojas said. Many Democrats have griped privately about her outsized celebrity and combative politics, which they fear imperils vulnerable House members running for re-election in conservative districts where her brand is toxic. In the early days of her tenure, she alienated others in the party by aligning with a movement that runs primary challenges against moderate and right-leaning Democrats. Though she has denied reports that a top target was Hakeem Jeffries, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, she has endorsed challengers in two prominent House primaries. Those tensions exploded in spectacular fashion this summer after the House passed a border-funding bill that enraged progressives. On Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez’s then chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti unloaded on moderates who voted for the legislation, referring to them as the “New Southern Democrats” and accusing them of enabling “a racist system”. He has since left her office. Play Video 0:56 'Congresswomen dance too': Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hits back with new video Pelosi escalated the row when she told the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in an interview that the four members of the Squad had “their public whatever and their Twitter world” but they “didn’t have any following”. It was not the first time Pelosi has dismissed the left’s influence – she once referred to the Green New Deal as the “green dream” – but this remark drew an unsparing response. Ocasio-Cortez retorted that the ability to shift public sentiment was proof of her power, and later said that Pelosi was “singling out ... newly elected women of color”. This infuriated allies of Pelosi, especially members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who said Ocasio-Cortez had gone too far. The dispute ultimately ended with a private, one-on-one meeting between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez to “clear the air”. Though deep rifts remain, the bitter infighting has largely subsided in the three months leading up to the House’s impeachment of Trump. In a recent tweet, Trump accused Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the party of being so obsessed with his impeachment that they have failed to deliver on their legislative agenda. “In my first 11 months I’ve cosponsored 339 pieces of legislation, authored 15, took on Big Pharma w/ my colleagues in hearings that brought PreP generic a year early & exposed abuse of power,” Ocasio-Cortez shot back. “In 4 years, you’ve jailed kids & made corruption the cause celebré,” she added. “Try to keep up.”

www.theguardian.com

left

nqRsSloE2siYyoDD

test

rsx8wa4qK1XhxIh6

fbi

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-whacking-of-michael-flynn/

The FBI’s Whacking of Michael Flynn

George Parry, Jeffrey Lord, Wesley J. Smith, Jed Babbin, George Neumayr, R. Emmett Tyrrell

Long ago , when my three wonderful daughters were in grade school , they regularly conversed over the telephone with a rather unique life coach . They called him “ Uncle Al. ” He was , in fact , a member of the Mafia and one of my informants from my days in the Justice Department ’ s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section . Even after I left the Strike Force , he would , on a quite regular basis , call my home to speak with me . In those days , when the phone rang , one of my little girls would always get to it first . On those occasions when Uncle Al was calling , I would lift the extension and hear him in his gruff voice giving my innocent child such useful advice as “ study hard in school ” and “ do what yer mom and dad tell ya ’ to do. ” Such advice would invariably elicit the sweet , squeaky voiced reply , “ Okay , Uncle Al . ” These exchanges always left me with more than a touch of cognitive dissonance . You see , Uncle Al was calling from prison , and I had helped put him there . He had been convicted of a mob murder . But , after his conviction , he flipped and began feeding me valuable information about La Cosa Nostra and governmental corruption . When he first decided to cooperate , he was being held in a county jail awaiting transfer to Attica prison in upstate New York . I promptly yanked him out of the state system and arranged for him to serve his fifteen year to life sentence under a new identity in federal prison . This led to his taking an all-expenses-paid tour of federal prisons throughout the country as , in one facility after another , the inmates would figure out his real name and informant status . These moves were necessary to keep him alive . But , wherever he landed , he somehow always managed to get to a telephone and call me . A lot . And that ’ s how , over the years , Uncle Al befriended my daughters and me . Uncle Al not only provided intelligence about ongoing criminal activity , he also taught me many things about life inside the mob . One fascinating subject had to do with the mob ’ s best practices when it decided to kill one of its own . On this topic , he held the underworld equivalent of a Ph.D. and lectured me many times . I quote him from memory : “ When it ’ s your time to go , they ’ ll send your best friend to do the job . He ’ ll come to you as a pal , get you all relaxed . Maybe drink with you , joke around , and then , while you ’ re laughing and having a good time and all — BAM ! — lights out ! You ’ ll never see it coming . ” He knew what he was talking about . In fact , that was the script for any number of mob murders that I investigated . The victim ’ s killer always came to him as a friend . I ’ ve been reflecting on this scenario ever since General Michael Flynn was charged with making a false statement to the FBI . Let me explain why . Flynn , a decorated thirty year Army man , has pled guilty to the charge and is about to be sentenced by the court . But , despite Flynn ’ s guilty plea , a great deal of mystery surrounds his case . For , in the context of his decades of devotion to duty and honorable service to the country , the charges against him make no sense . Why did he do it ? How could it happen that this decent and courageous man would take this wrong turn so late in his otherwise exemplary life ? How was it that he became a criminal just as he was assuming his new role as President Trump ’ s National Security Adviser ? The sentencing memorandum filed by his lawyers provides some of the answers to these questions , and they aren ’ t pretty . Don ’ t get me wrong . The information in the memorandum doesn ’ t reflect badly on the general . No , the recited facts present a stomach-churning account of James Comey ’ s FBI intentionally targeting and effectively destroying this decent man for base and nakedly partisan political purposes . Recall that , as the president ’ s incoming National Security Adviser , Flynn had communicated on different occasions with the Russian ambassador to the United States . Even though these conversations were entirely legal and appropriate , they had — like every other electronic communication in this country — been intercepted , catalogued , and stored by our omniscient surveillance state . We know now that these intercepts gave Comey ’ s FBI a predicate for the fatal interview that was the means by which Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s band of Hillary Clinton acolytes were able to ruin Flynn . At the direction of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , virulently anti-Trump Special Agent Peter Strzok ( who later joined Team Mueller ) , and another agent were dispatched to the West Wing of the White House to question Flynn about these recorded calls . As set forth in the defense sentencing memorandum , the FBI knew the “ exact words ” spoken by Flynn to the ambassador . In short , Comey and McCabe had no real investigative purpose in having Flynn questioned about his entirely legal , legitimate , and proper conversations with the ambassador . But law enforcement and national security formed no part of their agenda . They were on a mission to undermine Trump ’ s new administration by any means necessary , and the intercepts gave them a way to set a trap for the president ’ s National Security Adviser . The following is taken verbatim from the defense sentencing memorandum which quotes from documents produced by the special counsel ’ s office pursuant to court order : At 12:35 p.m. on January 24 , 2017 , the first Tuesday after the presidential inauguration , General Flynn received a phone call from then-Deputy Director of the FBI , Andrew McCabe , on a secure phone in his office in the West Wing . General Flynn had for many years been accustomed to working in cooperation with the FBI on matters of national security . He and Mr. McCabe briefly discussed a security training session the FBI had recently conducted at the White House before Mr. McCabe , by his own account , stated that he “ felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down ” with General Flynn to talk about his communications with Russian representatives . Mr. McCabe ’ s account states : “ I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [ General Flynn ] and the agents only . I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting , like the White House Counsel for instance , that I would need to involve the Department of Justice . [ General Flynn ] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants. ” Less than two hours later , at 2:15 p.m. , FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and a second FBI agent arrived at the White House to interview General Flynn . By the agents ’ account , General Flynn was “ relaxed and jocular ” and offered to give the agents “ a little tour ” of the area around his West Wing office . The agents did not provide General Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C . § 1001 before , during , or after the interview . Prior to the FBI ’ s interview of General Flynn , Mr. McCabe and other FBI officials “ decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport , ” one of the agents reported . Before the interview , FBI officials had also decided that , if “ Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said , they would use the exact words Flynn used… to try to refresh his recollection . If Flynn still would not confirm what he said… they would not confront him or talk him through it. ” One of the agents reported that General Flynn was “ unguarded ” during the interview and “ clearly saw the FBI agents as allies. ” [ Emphasis added . ] Got that ? Flynn was “ relaxed and jocular ” and the FBI wanted to keep him that way . McCabe sent Strzok to set a trap which , once sprung , would destroy Flynn ’ s life . But they didn ’ t want to warn Flynn that he was facing danger , that he had better choose his words carefully and think long and hard before he answered their questions . It was contrived to be just a friendly , low-key , unguarded , and relaxed chat among “ allies . ” Uncle Al and La Cosa Nostra couldn ’ t have set it up better . This was right out of their playbook . The FBI went to Flynn as friends and then — BAM ! — they figuratively blew his brains out . Now it ’ s one thing for mob hitmen to use this kind of soulless , underhanded treachery , but is it too much to ask that our FBI adhere to a slightly higher standard of conduct ? You know , something ethical and old-fashioned like letting Flynn know that his life and liberty were on the line if he happened not to answer Strzok ’ s questions to McCabe or Comey ’ s satisfaction ? Maybe even letting him know that they already knew the exact contents of the conversation about which he was being questioned ? But none of that happened . Instead , concealing the real reason for the interview and posing as colleagues and allies , the McCabe and Strzok lulled Flynn into a false sense of security and led him down the primrose path to his destruction . In its sentencing memorandum , the special counsel ’ s office has recommended non-incarceration based on Flynn ’ s cooperation . But , even without cooperating , under the federal sentencing guidelines he was never in danger of going to prison . But for Flynn , like anyone targeted by the government , the process is the punishment . As a result of being arrested and charged , he has been bankrupted and forced to sell his home and possessions to pay legal fees as he tries to defend himself and his family . Under these circumstances , whether or not Flynn goes to prison , he and his family have been devastated . Measured by the suffering and financial ruination of Flynn and his loved ones , James Comey , Andrew McCabe , Peter Strzok , and Team Mueller have amply achieved their purpose . By wantonly destroying this good and decent man , they have sent a warning to others who might wish to serve or support our duly elected president and have succeeded in intimidating anyone who would dare to act contrary to the wishes of the politicized , permanent , and immutable deep state cadre that controls the levers of governmental power . So , where does this leave those of us who want our government staffed by honest and capable individuals ? With Flynn ’ s ambush as precedent , how are we to encourage serious people to make the sacrifice of entering government service ? Now that it is no longer safe for public servants to even talk to one another without first engaging legal counsel and conducting all communications through their lawyers , how are they to efficiently conduct the affairs of government ? In short , why would any sane person ever consider stepping into such a snake pit ? Unfortunately for our fragile Republic , the sad , discouraging , appalling and self-evident answers to these and similar questions will be the enduring legacy of the coldly calculated and unwarranted destruction of General Michael Flynn by those who saw fit to use the almost limitless power of the federal government to further their political agenda .

Long ago, when my three wonderful daughters were in grade school, they regularly conversed over the telephone with a rather unique life coach. They called him “Uncle Al.” He was, in fact, a member of the Mafia and one of my informants from my days in the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. Even after I left the Strike Force, he would, on a quite regular basis, call my home to speak with me. In those days, when the phone rang, one of my little girls would always get to it first. On those occasions when Uncle Al was calling, I would lift the extension and hear him in his gruff voice giving my innocent child such useful advice as “study hard in school” and “do what yer mom and dad tell ya’ to do.” Such advice would invariably elicit the sweet, squeaky voiced reply, “Okay, Uncle Al.” These exchanges always left me with more than a touch of cognitive dissonance. You see, Uncle Al was calling from prison, and I had helped put him there. He had been convicted of a mob murder. But, after his conviction, he flipped and began feeding me valuable information about La Cosa Nostra and governmental corruption. When he first decided to cooperate, he was being held in a county jail awaiting transfer to Attica prison in upstate New York. I promptly yanked him out of the state system and arranged for him to serve his fifteen year to life sentence under a new identity in federal prison. This led to his taking an all-expenses-paid tour of federal prisons throughout the country as, in one facility after another, the inmates would figure out his real name and informant status. These moves were necessary to keep him alive. But, wherever he landed, he somehow always managed to get to a telephone and call me. A lot. And that’s how, over the years, Uncle Al befriended my daughters and me. Uncle Al not only provided intelligence about ongoing criminal activity, he also taught me many things about life inside the mob. One fascinating subject had to do with the mob’s best practices when it decided to kill one of its own. On this topic, he held the underworld equivalent of a Ph.D. and lectured me many times. I quote him from memory: “When it’s your time to go, they’ll send your best friend to do the job. He’ll come to you as a pal, get you all relaxed. Maybe drink with you, joke around, and then, while you’re laughing and having a good time and all — BAM! — lights out! You’ll never see it coming.” He knew what he was talking about. In fact, that was the script for any number of mob murders that I investigated. The victim’s killer always came to him as a friend. I’ve been reflecting on this scenario ever since General Michael Flynn was charged with making a false statement to the FBI. Let me explain why. Flynn, a decorated thirty year Army man, has pled guilty to the charge and is about to be sentenced by the court. But, despite Flynn’s guilty plea, a great deal of mystery surrounds his case. For, in the context of his decades of devotion to duty and honorable service to the country, the charges against him make no sense. Why did he do it? How could it happen that this decent and courageous man would take this wrong turn so late in his otherwise exemplary life? How was it that he became a criminal just as he was assuming his new role as President Trump’s National Security Adviser? The sentencing memorandum filed by his lawyers provides some of the answers to these questions, and they aren’t pretty. Don’t get me wrong. The information in the memorandum doesn’t reflect badly on the general. No, the recited facts present a stomach-churning account of James Comey’s FBI intentionally targeting and effectively destroying this decent man for base and nakedly partisan political purposes. Recall that, as the president’s incoming National Security Adviser, Flynn had communicated on different occasions with the Russian ambassador to the United States. Even though these conversations were entirely legal and appropriate, they had — like every other electronic communication in this country — been intercepted, catalogued, and stored by our omniscient surveillance state. We know now that these intercepts gave Comey’s FBI a predicate for the fatal interview that was the means by which Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s band of Hillary Clinton acolytes were able to ruin Flynn. At the direction of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, virulently anti-Trump Special Agent Peter Strzok (who later joined Team Mueller), and another agent were dispatched to the West Wing of the White House to question Flynn about these recorded calls. As set forth in the defense sentencing memorandum, the FBI knew the “exact words” spoken by Flynn to the ambassador. In short, Comey and McCabe had no real investigative purpose in having Flynn questioned about his entirely legal, legitimate, and proper conversations with the ambassador. But law enforcement and national security formed no part of their agenda. They were on a mission to undermine Trump’s new administration by any means necessary, and the intercepts gave them a way to set a trap for the president’s National Security Adviser. The following is taken verbatim from the defense sentencing memorandum which quotes from documents produced by the special counsel’s office pursuant to court order: At 12:35 p.m. on January 24, 2017, the first Tuesday after the presidential inauguration, General Flynn received a phone call from then-Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, on a secure phone in his office in the West Wing. General Flynn had for many years been accustomed to working in cooperation with the FBI on matters of national security. He and Mr. McCabe briefly discussed a security training session the FBI had recently conducted at the White House before Mr. McCabe, by his own account, stated that he “felt that we needed to have two of our agents sit down” with General Flynn to talk about his communications with Russian representatives. Mr. McCabe’s account states: “I explained that I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between [General Flynn] and the agents only. I further stated that if LTG Flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the White House Counsel for instance, that I would need to involve the Department of Justice. [General Flynn] stated that this would not be necessary and agreed to meet with the agents without any additional participants.” Less than two hours later, at 2:15 p.m., FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and a second FBI agent arrived at the White House to interview General Flynn. By the agents’ account, General Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” and offered to give the agents “a little tour” of the area around his West Wing office. The agents did not provide General Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 before, during, or after the interview. Prior to the FBI’s interview of General Flynn, Mr. McCabe and other FBI officials “decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed, and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport,” one of the agents reported. Before the interview, FBI officials had also decided that, if “Flynn said he did not remember something they knew he said, they would use the exact words Flynn used… to try to refresh his recollection. If Flynn still would not confirm what he said… they would not confront him or talk him through it.” One of the agents reported that General Flynn was “unguarded” during the interview and “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies.” [Emphasis added.] Got that? Flynn was “relaxed and jocular” and the FBI wanted to keep him that way. McCabe sent Strzok to set a trap which, once sprung, would destroy Flynn’s life. But they didn’t want to warn Flynn that he was facing danger, that he had better choose his words carefully and think long and hard before he answered their questions. It was contrived to be just a friendly, low-key, unguarded, and relaxed chat among “allies.” Uncle Al and La Cosa Nostra couldn’t have set it up better. This was right out of their playbook. The FBI went to Flynn as friends and then — BAM! — they figuratively blew his brains out. Now it’s one thing for mob hitmen to use this kind of soulless, underhanded treachery, but is it too much to ask that our FBI adhere to a slightly higher standard of conduct? You know, something ethical and old-fashioned like letting Flynn know that his life and liberty were on the line if he happened not to answer Strzok’s questions to McCabe or Comey’s satisfaction? Maybe even letting him know that they already knew the exact contents of the conversation about which he was being questioned? But none of that happened. Instead, concealing the real reason for the interview and posing as colleagues and allies, the McCabe and Strzok lulled Flynn into a false sense of security and led him down the primrose path to his destruction. In its sentencing memorandum, the special counsel’s office has recommended non-incarceration based on Flynn’s cooperation. But, even without cooperating, under the federal sentencing guidelines he was never in danger of going to prison. But for Flynn, like anyone targeted by the government, the process is the punishment. As a result of being arrested and charged, he has been bankrupted and forced to sell his home and possessions to pay legal fees as he tries to defend himself and his family. Under these circumstances, whether or not Flynn goes to prison, he and his family have been devastated. Measured by the suffering and financial ruination of Flynn and his loved ones, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Team Mueller have amply achieved their purpose. By wantonly destroying this good and decent man, they have sent a warning to others who might wish to serve or support our duly elected president and have succeeded in intimidating anyone who would dare to act contrary to the wishes of the politicized, permanent, and immutable deep state cadre that controls the levers of governmental power. So, where does this leave those of us who want our government staffed by honest and capable individuals? With Flynn’s ambush as precedent, how are we to encourage serious people to make the sacrifice of entering government service? Now that it is no longer safe for public servants to even talk to one another without first engaging legal counsel and conducting all communications through their lawyers, how are they to efficiently conduct the affairs of government? In short, why would any sane person ever consider stepping into such a snake pit? Unfortunately for our fragile Republic, the sad, discouraging, appalling and self-evident answers to these and similar questions will be the enduring legacy of the coldly calculated and unwarranted destruction of General Michael Flynn by those who saw fit to use the almost limitless power of the federal government to further their political agenda. George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor who practices law in Philadelphia. He blogs at knowledgeisgood.net and may be reached via email at [email protected].

www.spectator.org

right

rsx8wa4qK1XhxIh6

test

EuBolEGzLDmu4o8X

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/14/jeff-sessions-normal-rules-amnesiac-senate-intelligence-committee

Jeff Sessions: a poor, misunderstood man exempt from normal rules

2017-06-14

Richard Wolffe

Jeff Sessions is an oft-misunderstood man . Time and again , he has found himself the innocent victim of dishonorable accusations that he , a plainly honorable southern gentleman , should never have to suffer . Time and again , he has been afflicted by mysterious memory loss that renders him incapable of recollecting important facts about his own honorable conduct . Jeff Sessions calls accusations of Russia collusion an 'appalling lie ' Read more Time and again , his many critics fail to understand his selfless commitment to the law , to ethics and to the United States itself . Anyone watching Sessions testifying before his former Senate colleagues – as he liked to call them , before they hurled all kinds of calumnies in his direction – was surely shocked by how often the attorney general has had to endure such indignities . Who could expect this fine man to live by the common standards of recusal ? It ’ s quite outrageous to think that recusal from the Russia investigation means he had to recuse himself from firing someone for the Russia investigation . The normal rules do not apply to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III . “ It is absurd , frankly , to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render the attorney general unable to manage the leadership of the various Department of Justice law-enforcement components that conduct thousands of investigations , ” Sessions explained to his plainly clueless former colleagues . So what if one of those investigations included him , his role in the Trump campaign , and his boss , Donald Trump ? “ I recuse myself from any investigation into the campaign for president , but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against false allegations , ” he declared . This isn ’ t the first time our hero has suffered the slings and arrows of what he called so memorably “ an appalling and detestable lie ” on Tuesday . A few decades ago he was denied his rightful appointment as a federal judge because some other former colleagues accused him of racism . His deputy Thomas Figures testified that Sessions called him “ boy ” on multiple occasions and warned him to be careful about what he said to white folks . Figures , who is black , also told how Sessions joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan was “ OK , until he learned that they smoked marijuana ” . Sessions insisted in his confirmation hearings earlier this year that he was plainly misunderstood as a US attorney in Alabama . “ I conducted myself honorably and properly , ” he declared . “ I did not harbor the kind of animosity and race-based discrimination ideas that I was accused of . I did not . ” Now sometimes you just have to take a gentleman ’ s word for what happened . Sessions didn ’ t deny making any of those vile comments , but he did say he ’ d been quoted out of context . Which is exactly what our fine , upstanding attorney general was forced to explain all over again on Tuesday . Senator Al Franken had asked what Sessions called “ a rambling question after some six hours of testimony ” about Trump campaign contacts with Russians . How could Sessions know that Franken meant “ contacts with Russians ” when he used those words ? Once again , this was plainly a confirmation hearing taken out of context . “ I was responding to the allegation that surrogates had been meeting with Russians on a regular basis , ” he said . “ It simply did not occur to me to go further than the context and to list any conversations that I may have had with Russians in routine situations , as I had many routine meetings with other foreign officials . ” For normal folks , meeting with people on a regular basis is the same as meeting with people in routine situations . But not for Jeff Sessions . This isn ’ t the first time Sessions has struggled to tell his side of the story . Back when people were accusing him of racism in Alabama , he admitted he may have called a white civil rights lawyer a “ disgrace to his race ” . “ Trying to recollect on it the best I can recall was , and I say , well , he ’ s not that popular around town , ” Sessions told senators in 1986 . “ I ’ ve heard him referred to as a disgrace to his race . ” A month later , he insisted he had never said any such thing . “ I am absolutely convinced that I did not call [ him ] a disgrace to his race , and I did not acknowledge it in any form . ” Why this great man finds himself so often ensnared in such confusion remains a puzzle . Jeff Sessions on Hawaii gaffe : 'Nobody has a sense of humour any more ' Read more Recently , he told a conservative radio host that it was incredible that some Hawaii judge could overturn his boss ’ s travel ban on Muslims . “ I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power , ” Sessions said . That island in the Pacific may be a state with the same statutory and constitutional position as Alabama . But the words of Jeff Sessions were once again being taken out of context . “ Nobody has a sense of humor any more , ” he told ABC . “ I wasn ’ t criticizing the judge or the island , ” he told CNN . It ’ s almost like you can ’ t tell KKK jokes any more . What is this country coming to ? It ’ s true that Sessions has moments of memory failure , but the good news is that when confronted with reality , he has immense powers of recall . Even though he initially forgot about meeting the Russians a couple of times , when a reporter asked about those meetings , “ we immediately recalled the conversation , ” he told the senators . “ I never intended not to include that . ” As for a third meeting in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington , Sessions cleared up the confusion in the same way his boss is draining the swamp . “ I would have gladly reported the meeting and encounter that may have occurred , and some say occurred in the Mayflower , if I had remembered it , or it actually occurred , which I don ’ t remember that it did . ” Trust Kamala Harris , another Democratic senator with lots of pesky questions , to fail to recognize the deeply honorable nature of our amnesiac attorney general . As she peppered him with questions about whether he communicated with any Russian nationals , Sessions almost let it slip that he might have met a few at the Republican convention . Then he quickly tried to qualify his words to the point of meaninglessness . “ I ’ m not able to be rushed this fast , ” he complained . “ It makes me nervous . ” The truth can make you feel nervous . Especially when you ’ re not the man you think you are , if you actually ever were , which you don ’ t remember saying you were .

Jeff Sessions is an oft-misunderstood man. Time and again, he has found himself the innocent victim of dishonorable accusations that he, a plainly honorable southern gentleman, should never have to suffer. Time and again, he has been afflicted by mysterious memory loss that renders him incapable of recollecting important facts about his own honorable conduct. Jeff Sessions calls accusations of Russia collusion an 'appalling lie' Read more Time and again, his many critics fail to understand his selfless commitment to the law, to ethics and to the United States itself. Anyone watching Sessions testifying before his former Senate colleagues – as he liked to call them, before they hurled all kinds of calumnies in his direction – was surely shocked by how often the attorney general has had to endure such indignities. Who could expect this fine man to live by the common standards of recusal? It’s quite outrageous to think that recusal from the Russia investigation means he had to recuse himself from firing someone for the Russia investigation. The normal rules do not apply to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. “It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render the attorney general unable to manage the leadership of the various Department of Justice law-enforcement components that conduct thousands of investigations,” Sessions explained to his plainly clueless former colleagues. So what if one of those investigations included him, his role in the Trump campaign, and his boss, Donald Trump? “I recuse myself from any investigation into the campaign for president, but I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against false allegations,” he declared. This isn’t the first time our hero has suffered the slings and arrows of what he called so memorably “an appalling and detestable lie” on Tuesday. A few decades ago he was denied his rightful appointment as a federal judge because some other former colleagues accused him of racism. His deputy Thomas Figures testified that Sessions called him “boy” on multiple occasions and warned him to be careful about what he said to white folks. Figures, who is black, also told how Sessions joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan was “OK, until he learned that they smoked marijuana”. Sessions insisted in his confirmation hearings earlier this year that he was plainly misunderstood as a US attorney in Alabama. “I conducted myself honorably and properly,” he declared. “I did not harbor the kind of animosity and race-based discrimination ideas that I was accused of. I did not.” Now sometimes you just have to take a gentleman’s word for what happened. Sessions didn’t deny making any of those vile comments, but he did say he’d been quoted out of context. Which is exactly what our fine, upstanding attorney general was forced to explain all over again on Tuesday. Senator Al Franken had asked what Sessions called “a rambling question after some six hours of testimony” about Trump campaign contacts with Russians. How could Sessions know that Franken meant “contacts with Russians” when he used those words? Once again, this was plainly a confirmation hearing taken out of context. “I was responding to the allegation that surrogates had been meeting with Russians on a regular basis,” he said. “It simply did not occur to me to go further than the context and to list any conversations that I may have had with Russians in routine situations, as I had many routine meetings with other foreign officials.” For normal folks, meeting with people on a regular basis is the same as meeting with people in routine situations. But not for Jeff Sessions. This isn’t the first time Sessions has struggled to tell his side of the story. Back when people were accusing him of racism in Alabama, he admitted he may have called a white civil rights lawyer a “disgrace to his race”. “Trying to recollect on it the best I can recall was, and I say, well, he’s not that popular around town,” Sessions told senators in 1986. “I’ve heard him referred to as a disgrace to his race.” A month later, he insisted he had never said any such thing. “I am absolutely convinced that I did not call [him] a disgrace to his race, and I did not acknowledge it in any form.” Why this great man finds himself so often ensnared in such confusion remains a puzzle. Jeff Sessions on Hawaii gaffe: 'Nobody has a sense of humour any more' Read more Recently, he told a conservative radio host that it was incredible that some Hawaii judge could overturn his boss’s travel ban on Muslims. “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power,” Sessions said. That island in the Pacific may be a state with the same statutory and constitutional position as Alabama. But the words of Jeff Sessions were once again being taken out of context. “Nobody has a sense of humor any more,” he told ABC. “I wasn’t criticizing the judge or the island,” he told CNN. It’s almost like you can’t tell KKK jokes any more. What is this country coming to? It’s true that Sessions has moments of memory failure, but the good news is that when confronted with reality, he has immense powers of recall. Even though he initially forgot about meeting the Russians a couple of times, when a reporter asked about those meetings, “we immediately recalled the conversation,” he told the senators. “I never intended not to include that.” As for a third meeting in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, Sessions cleared up the confusion in the same way his boss is draining the swamp. “I would have gladly reported the meeting and encounter that may have occurred, and some say occurred in the Mayflower, if I had remembered it, or it actually occurred, which I don’t remember that it did.” So that’s straight, then. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Senator Kamala Harris peppered Sessions with ‘pesky questions’. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA Trust Kamala Harris, another Democratic senator with lots of pesky questions, to fail to recognize the deeply honorable nature of our amnesiac attorney general. As she peppered him with questions about whether he communicated with any Russian nationals, Sessions almost let it slip that he might have met a few at the Republican convention. Then he quickly tried to qualify his words to the point of meaninglessness. “I’m not able to be rushed this fast,” he complained. “It makes me nervous.” The truth can make you feel nervous. Especially when you’re not the man you think you are, if you actually ever were, which you don’t remember saying you were.

www.theguardian.com

left

EuBolEGzLDmu4o8X

test

4yBC93vdvS2ccOWx

justice_department

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-military-officers-resist-proposal-sexual-assault-cases/story?id=19319814#.Ua5WR5zYH3I

Top Military Officers Resist Proposal to Take Sexual Assault Cases Out of Chain of Command

Luis Martinez

The nation 's top military leaders have told Congress they have reservations about legislation that would remove commanders from the process of prosecuting sexual assault cases because , they say , it could ruin order and discipline in the ranks . It 's a highly contentious issue : Recent high profile-incidents and new statistics indicating that sexual assault in the military is on the rise have increased support on Capitol Hill for legislation that would remove the chain of command from the prosecution of sexual assault cases . The most controversial legislation , proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand , D-N.Y. , has garnered bipartisan support . Deciding whether serious crimes , including sexual misconduct cases , should go to trial would be made by seasoned legal officers . At Tuesday 's hearing , Gillibrand noted the importance of commanders ' setting the tone for a unit , but argued that not all commanders are qualified to deal with serious sexual assault cases . `` Not every single commander necessarily wants women in the force , not every single commander believes what a sexual assault is , not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape , '' said Gillibrand . Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee , the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledged that efforts to curb sexual assault in the military have not been successful . They welcomed discussion of legislative efforts but , said chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey , `` Reducing command responsibility could adversely affect the ability of the commander to enforce professional standards and ultimately , to accomplish the mission . '' Read more : Hagel : Sexual Assault Report Shows Armed Forces 'Need Cultural Change ' Gen. Raymond Odierno , the Army chief of staff , said , `` Legal reform can and should continue to be part of our campaign to end sexual assault '' and called some of the current legislation `` reasonable . '' But Odierno said removing the authority of commanders to handle assault cases could affect unit discipline and lead to other effects . `` We can not legislate our way out of this problem , '' said Odierno . Adm. Jonathan Greenert , chief of Naval operations , explained that Naval commanders often have to make difficult decision when they are at sea , adding , `` I believe it is essential that our commanders be involved in each phase of the military justice process . '' Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos laid out his concerns saying , `` Commanding officers never delegate responsibility . They should never be forced to delegate their authority . '' Gen. Mark A. Welsh III , from the Air Force , labeled sexual assault in the military a `` cancer `` and said that `` none of us will be standing still '' in trying to end it . However , Welsh added , `` Commanders should n't just be part of the solution . They must be part of the solution or there will be no solution . '' In his opening statement committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin , D-Mich. , and the committee chairman , said , `` The problem of sexual assault is of such scope and magnitude that it has become a stain on our military . '' He added that real progress would not be seen without a cultural change in the military from the top down . '' Sen. James Inhofe ( R-Okla. ) , the ranking Republican on the committee , opposes Gillibrand 's bill , saying , `` No change is possible without commanders as agents of that change . '' On Tuesday , Gillibrand told the panel of military officers , `` You have lost the trust of the men and women who rely on you . '' She added that the biggest challenge is that sexual assault victims are wary of stepping forward because they are `` afraid to report , they fear their careers are over – they feel they are being blamed . '' Last month the Pentagon 's most recent report on sexual assault in the military estimated that as many as 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year , up from an estimated 19,000 assaults in 2010 . Sen. Claire McCaskill ( D-Mo . ) said that number was confusing because it describes incidents of `` unwanted sexual contact '' which includes sexual harassment , an unwelcome work environment , touching and rape . Sen. John McCain ( R-Ariz. ) a strong military supporter and former Naval officer who was held as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War , said he is concerned how sexual assault could affect recruitment and retention in the military . `` Last night a woman came to me and said her daughter wanted to join the military and could I give my unqualified support for her doing so , '' said McCain . `` I could not . '' `` I can not overstate my disgust and disappointment over the continued reports of sexual misconduct in our military , '' he said . `` We 've been talking about the issue for years and talk is insufficient . ''

The nation's top military leaders have told Congress they have reservations about legislation that would remove commanders from the process of prosecuting sexual assault cases because, they say, it could ruin order and discipline in the ranks. It's a highly contentious issue: Recent high profile-incidents and new statistics indicating that sexual assault in the military is on the rise have increased support on Capitol Hill for legislation that would remove the chain of command from the prosecution of sexual assault cases. The most controversial legislation, proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., has garnered bipartisan support. Deciding whether serious crimes, including sexual misconduct cases, should go to trial would be made by seasoned legal officers. At Tuesday's hearing, Gillibrand noted the importance of commanders' setting the tone for a unit, but argued that not all commanders are qualified to deal with serious sexual assault cases. "Not every single commander necessarily wants women in the force, not every single commander believes what a sexual assault is, not every single commander can distinguish between a slap on the ass and a rape," said Gillibrand. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledged that efforts to curb sexual assault in the military have not been successful. They welcomed discussion of legislative efforts but, said chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, "Reducing command responsibility could adversely affect the ability of the commander to enforce professional standards and ultimately, to accomplish the mission." Read more: Hagel: Sexual Assault Report Shows Armed Forces 'Need Cultural Change' Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said, "Legal reform can and should continue to be part of our campaign to end sexual assault" and called some of the current legislation "reasonable." But Odierno said removing the authority of commanders to handle assault cases could affect unit discipline and lead to other effects. "We cannot legislate our way out of this problem," said Odierno. Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of Naval operations, explained that Naval commanders often have to make difficult decision when they are at sea, adding, "I believe it is essential that our commanders be involved in each phase of the military justice process." Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos laid out his concerns saying, "Commanding officers never delegate responsibility. They should never be forced to delegate their authority." Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, from the Air Force, labeled sexual assault in the military a "cancer " and said that "none of us will be standing still" in trying to end it. However, Welsh added, "Commanders shouldn't just be part of the solution. They must be part of the solution or there will be no solution." In his opening statement committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the committee chairman, said, "The problem of sexual assault is of such scope and magnitude that it has become a stain on our military." He added that real progress would not be seen without a cultural change in the military from the top down." Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the committee, opposes Gillibrand's bill, saying, "No change is possible without commanders as agents of that change." On Tuesday, Gillibrand told the panel of military officers, "You have lost the trust of the men and women who rely on you." She added that the biggest challenge is that sexual assault victims are wary of stepping forward because they are "afraid to report, they fear their careers are over – they feel they are being blamed ." Last month the Pentagon's most recent report on sexual assault in the military estimated that as many as 26,000 military members may have been sexually assaulted last year, up from an estimated 19,000 assaults in 2010. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said that number was confusing because it describes incidents of "unwanted sexual contact" which includes sexual harassment, an unwelcome work environment, touching and rape. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) a strong military supporter and former Naval officer who was held as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said he is concerned how sexual assault could affect recruitment and retention in the military. "Last night a woman came to me and said her daughter wanted to join the military and could I give my unqualified support for her doing so," said McCain. "I could not." "I cannot overstate my disgust and disappointment over the continued reports of sexual misconduct in our military," he said. "We've been talking about the issue for years and talk is insufficient."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

4yBC93vdvS2ccOWx

test

4v2pcLdrBgfccp3L

fbi

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50178197

Mueller report: Criminal probe into Russia inquiry begins

The US justice department has launched a criminal investigation into the origins of the Mueller inquiry . An administrative review into the special counsel 's investigation of 2016 election interference began in May . But the switch to a criminal probe means investigators can now issue subpoenas for testimony and documents . The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election did not establish any criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign . But it did not clear the president of obstructing justice . President Donald Trump has long dismissed Robert Mueller 's investigation as a `` witch hunt '' . Reports of the justice department 's new criminal inquiry first appeared in the New York Times . It is unclear what potential crime is under investigation , the newspaper said . The administrative review of the Mueller investigation began in May . It is being overseen by US Attorney General William Barr and is run by US federal prosecutor John Durham . Mr Durham will have the power to summon witnesses and documents and to enrol a grand jury that could bring criminal charges . He was tasked with determining whether the collection of intelligence on the Trump campaign in 2016 was lawful . Mr Durham is widely respected and known for investigating links between FBI agents and organised crime , and investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videos . Last April , Mr Barr told members of Congress that he believed `` spying did occur '' on the Trump campaign in 2016 , adding : `` The question is whether it was adequately predicated . And I 'm not suggesting that it was n't adequately predicated . But I need to explore that . '' Critics accused Mr Barr of launching an administrative review more in the interests of the president than the interests of justice . In a joint statement , the chairs of the House judiciary and intelligence committees said reports of a criminal investigation `` raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under AG Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump 's political revenge '' . The two Democrats , Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff , said the move could bring `` new and irreparable damage '' to the rule of law . President Trump said at the time he did not order Mr Barr to launch the administrative review , but added that he was `` so proud of our attorney general '' and it was `` a great thing that he did '' . Mr Trump has previously accused the FBI investigators who first launched the probe into his election campaign of treason . On Friday , Mr Trump told reporters of the investigation : `` I think you 're going to see a lot of really bad things . '' The president said he would `` leave it all up to the attorney general '' . `` I will say this ... this was the worst hoax in the history of our country . '' So far , the justice department has not made clear what potential crime is under investigation . It is also unclear why this investigation has started now , or what prompted it . And given the department itself appointed Robert Mueller to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election , this criminal probe means the department may be in essence investigating itself . The 448-page Mueller report did not conclude that there was a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential election . However , it did detail 10 instances where Mr Trump possibly attempted to impede the investigation . The report concluded that Russia had interfered in the election `` in sweeping and systematic fashion '' . That interference took the form of an extensive social media campaign and the hacking of Democratic Party servers by Russian military intelligence , the report said .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption William Barr's review of the Muller Inquiry has turned into a criminal investigation The US justice department has launched a criminal investigation into the origins of the Mueller inquiry. An administrative review into the special counsel's investigation of 2016 election interference began in May. But the switch to a criminal probe means investigators can now issue subpoenas for testimony and documents. The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election did not establish any criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign. But it did not clear the president of obstructing justice. President Donald Trump has long dismissed Robert Mueller's investigation as a "witch hunt". Reports of the justice department's new criminal inquiry first appeared in the New York Times. It is unclear what potential crime is under investigation, the newspaper said. Why is the Mueller report being investigated? The administrative review of the Mueller investigation began in May. It is being overseen by US Attorney General William Barr and is run by US federal prosecutor John Durham. Mr Durham will have the power to summon witnesses and documents and to enrol a grand jury that could bring criminal charges. He was tasked with determining whether the collection of intelligence on the Trump campaign in 2016 was lawful. Mr Durham is widely respected and known for investigating links between FBI agents and organised crime, and investigating the destruction of CIA interrogation videos. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The Mueller report - in 60 seconds Last April, Mr Barr told members of Congress that he believed "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign in 2016, adding: "The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting that it wasn't adequately predicated. But I need to explore that." Critics accused Mr Barr of launching an administrative review more in the interests of the president than the interests of justice. In a joint statement, the chairs of the House judiciary and intelligence committees said reports of a criminal investigation "raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under AG Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump's political revenge". The two Democrats, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, said the move could bring "new and irreparable damage" to the rule of law. President Trump said at the time he did not order Mr Barr to launch the administrative review, but added that he was "so proud of our attorney general" and it was "a great thing that he did". Mr Trump has previously accused the FBI investigators who first launched the probe into his election campaign of treason. On Friday, Mr Trump told reporters of the investigation: "I think you're going to see a lot of really bad things." The president said he would "leave it all up to the attorney general". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump defends criminal investigation into Mueller probe "I will say this...this was the worst hoax in the history of our country." What don't we know? So far, the justice department has not made clear what potential crime is under investigation. It is also unclear why this investigation has started now, or what prompted it. And given the department itself appointed Robert Mueller to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, this criminal probe means the department may be in essence investigating itself. What's the Mueller report? The 448-page Mueller report did not conclude that there was a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential election. However, it did detail 10 instances where Mr Trump possibly attempted to impede the investigation. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Did the president refuse to be interviewed? Yes, says Mueller. The report concluded that Russia had interfered in the election "in sweeping and systematic fashion". That interference took the form of an extensive social media campaign and the hacking of Democratic Party servers by Russian military intelligence, the report said. Timeline of key events in Mueller inquiry

www.bbc.com

center

4v2pcLdrBgfccp3L

test

szZORrj5evrGJzUh

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/devastating-sequester-spending-cuts-give-me-a-break/

Devastating Sequester Spending Cuts? Give Me a Break!

Jonathan Karl

The Sky is Falling ! Maybe , but it really should n't be . The Obama administration 's list of what will happen if upcoming spending cuts go into effect is downright terrifying . In recent days , officials have warned of more forest fires , workplace deaths and , heaven-forbid - chicken shortages . And today the White House brought out Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to warn of big air travel delays across the country as air traffic controllers are forced off the job because of budget cuts . READ : The full list of alleged consequences from the sequester LaHood even suggested that some smaller airports - he specifically mentioned the airport at golfing paradise Hilton Head , S.C. - might have to reduce hours of operation or even temporarily close . That should catch the eye of avid golfer and Speaker of the House John Boehner . There 's no doubt that the automatic spending cuts set to go into effect on March 1 will cause some real pain and many economists believe they would hurt the economy . But all the dire warnings give the impression the cuts are much larger than they actually are . The Department of Transportation 's budget for 2013 is $ 74.2 billion . The automatic spending cuts would slice $ 1 billion out of its budget : that is a cut of less than 1.4 percent . And consider this : even if the cuts go into effect , the Department of Transportation will spend more money this year ( $ 73.2 billion ) than it spent last year ( $ 72.6 billion ) . The administration is saying that the Department of Transportation can not squeeze 1.4 percent of its budget without sending air traffic controllers home and that they can not find a way to operate effectively this year with a budget that is actually larger than the budget they had last year . That may be true , but it raises larger questions about the government 's ability to find relatively modest savings without cutting essential services . I asked Secretary LaHood about this at today 's White House briefing : KARL : Ca n't you find some other way to cut without telling air traffic controllers to stay home ? LAHOOD : This has to be a part of it . DOT has 55,000 employees . The largest number of those employees are at the FAA , and the largest number of those employees are controllers , and they 're all over the country . There has to be some impact in order to save a billion dollars . A billion dollars is a lot of money . KARL : Let 's be clear : It 's less than 2 percent of your budget . Another fact lost amidst all the dire warnings is that although the cuts go into effect on March 1 , most of the impact wo n't be felt until weeks or even months after that . Here 's why : On March 1 , the federal government will give employees 30 days notice that they may have to take unpaid leave ( furlough ) . That means the first furloughs can not happen until March 31 at the earliest . For employees of the Department of Transportation , the most they will be asked to take is one unpaid day off every two weeks . At the White House today , Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the administration is not exaggerating when it warns of more forest fires , chicken shortages and long air travel delays . `` I think all of those things come from reduced , you know , numbers of people fighting fires , you know , reduced numbers of people doing inspections of our food , reduced numbers of people , you know , engaging in air traffic control , '' Carney said . `` I mean , those are just the facts . '' For more warnings to keep you up at night , take a look at the list of the Administration 's 57 Terrible Consequences of the spending cuts compiled by ███ ' Chris Good .

The Sky is Falling! Maybe, but it really shouldn't be. The Obama administration's list of what will happen if upcoming spending cuts go into effect is downright terrifying. In recent days, officials have warned of more forest fires, workplace deaths and, heaven-forbid - chicken shortages. And today the White House brought out Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to warn of big air travel delays across the country as air traffic controllers are forced off the job because of budget cuts. READ: The full list of alleged consequences from the sequester LaHood even suggested that some smaller airports - he specifically mentioned the airport at golfing paradise Hilton Head, S.C. - might have to reduce hours of operation or even temporarily close. That should catch the eye of avid golfer and Speaker of the House John Boehner. Charles Dharapak/AP Photo There's no doubt that the automatic spending cuts set to go into effect on March 1 will cause some real pain and many economists believe they would hurt the economy. But all the dire warnings give the impression the cuts are much larger than they actually are. Take today's White House example: The Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation's budget for 2013 is $74.2 billion. The automatic spending cuts would slice $1 billion out of its budget: that is a cut of less than 1.4 percent. And consider this: even if the cuts go into effect, the Department of Transportation will spend more money this year ($73.2 billion) than it spent last year ($72.6 billion). The administration is saying that the Department of Transportation cannot squeeze 1.4 percent of its budget without sending air traffic controllers home and that they cannot find a way to operate effectively this year with a budget that is actually larger than the budget they had last year. That may be true, but it raises larger questions about the government's ability to find relatively modest savings without cutting essential services. I asked Secretary LaHood about this at today's White House briefing: KARL: Can't you find some other way to cut without telling air traffic controllers to stay home? LAHOOD: This has to be a part of it. DOT has 55,000 employees. The largest number of those employees are at the FAA, and the largest number of those employees are controllers, and they're all over the country. There has to be some impact in order to save a billion dollars. A billion dollars is a lot of money. KARL: Let's be clear: It's less than 2 percent of your budget. LAHOOD: It's a lot of money, Jonathan. Another fact lost amidst all the dire warnings is that although the cuts go into effect on March 1, most of the impact won't be felt until weeks or even months after that. Here's why: On March 1, the federal government will give employees 30 days notice that they may have to take unpaid leave (furlough). That means the first furloughs cannot happen until March 31 at the earliest. For employees of the Department of Transportation, the most they will be asked to take is one unpaid day off every two weeks. At the White House today, Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the administration is not exaggerating when it warns of more forest fires, chicken shortages and long air travel delays. "I think all of those things come from reduced, you know, numbers of people fighting fires, you know, reduced numbers of people doing inspections of our food, reduced numbers of people, you know, engaging in air traffic control," Carney said. "I mean, those are just the facts." For more warnings to keep you up at night, take a look at the list of the Administration's 57 Terrible Consequences of the spending cuts compiled by ABC News' Chris Good.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

szZORrj5evrGJzUh

test

nlDpjaqz1F2969Ah

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377

Trump admits son met Russian for information on opponent

US President Donald Trump has admitted his son met a Russian lawyer in June 2016 `` to get information on an opponent '' , but argues it was legal . Donald Trump Jr 's meeting with Kremlin-linked lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower could constitute a breach of US campaign rules , experts say . And the meeting is being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his inquiry into Russia 's alleged role to help Mr Trump win . He has called the ongoing investigations in the US `` the greatest political witch hunt in history '' . Russia has repeatedly denied claims it interfered in the November 2016 presidential elections , where Mr Trump defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton . On Sunday , US media including the Washington Post , CNN and AP reported that Mr Trump was worried Donald Trump Jr could be in legal trouble because of the 9 June 2016 meeting with Ms Veselnitskaya in New York . They cited several unnamed sources . Mr Trump tweeted : `` Fake News reporting , a complete fabrication , that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son , Donald , had in Trump Tower . `` This was a meeting to get information on an opponent , totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere . On Monday , the president quoted a Fox and Friends interview about alleged Democratic collusion with Russia . Mr Trump has spoken out before about links between Moscow and Mrs Clinton while saying it is `` commonly agreed '' that there was no collusion between Russia and him . Mr Trump 's Sunday tweet appears to contradict a previous statement from the Trump camp about the meeting . When the meeting was first reported by the New York Times , Donald Trump Jr said in a statement that he and Ms Veselnitskaya had mostly discussed a suspended programme for Americans to adopt Russian children . However , he subsequently admitted he had agreed to the meeting after being told he would be offered information that would prove detrimental to Mrs Clinton . He also released the email exchange that brought about the meeting . US media then reported that the US president had been involved in the initial statement his son issued on the meeting . This was initially denied by Mr Trump 's team , but his lawyers later confirmed that he had in fact dictated his son 's statement . US commentators have argued that Mr Trump 's new admission that the meeting was to gain information about Mrs Clinton shows that the earlier statement was misleading . Mr Trump again denied knowing about the meeting in Sunday 's tweet . 8 July 2017 : The New York Times reveals the June 2016 meeting took place and Mr Trump Jr releases a statement describing it as a `` short introductory meeting '' that focused on Russian adoptions The New York Times reveals the June 2016 meeting took place and Mr Trump Jr releases a statement describing it as a `` short introductory meeting '' that focused on Russian adoptions 9 July 2017 : The Times reports that Mr Trump Jr was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before the meeting . He confirmed the report but said in a second statement that `` no meaningful information '' came from the meeting The Times reports that Mr Trump Jr was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before the meeting . He confirmed the report but said in a second statement that `` no meaningful information '' came from the meeting 11 July 2017 : Mr Trump Jr tweets screenshots of his email correspondence that discussed setting up the meeting just minutes before the email chain was revealed in a Times story . The emails showed he was eager to accept `` sensitive '' information that was `` part of Russia and its government 's support for Mr Trump '' : Mr Trump Jr tweets screenshots of his email correspondence that discussed setting up the meeting just minutes before the email chain was revealed in a Times story . The emails showed he was eager to accept `` sensitive '' information that was `` part of Russia and its government 's support for Mr Trump '' 12-16 July 2017 : The president 's lawyer Jay Sekulow denies that Mr Trump was involved in his son 's initial statement to the Times The president 's lawyer Jay Sekulow denies that Mr Trump was involved in his son 's initial statement to the Times 2 June 2018 : The Times reports that Mr Trump 's lawyers wrote a letter to special counsel Mueller acknowledging that he dictated his son 's initial statement The Times reports that Mr Trump 's lawyers wrote a letter to special counsel Mueller acknowledging that he dictated his son 's initial statement 26 July 2018 : The president 's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen says that Mr Trump approved the June 2016 meeting , contradicting previous statements by the Trump legal team The president 's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen says that Mr Trump approved the June 2016 meeting , contradicting previous statements by the Trump legal team 5 August 2018 : The president says his son took the meeting `` to get information on an opponent '' , but denies having any knowledge of it Last month , however , Mr Trump 's former lawyer Michael Cohen said the president knew about the meeting in advance . The special counsel is currently investigating whether Mr Trump obstructed justice . Under US law , obstruction cases require proving `` corrupt intent '' - so while Mr Trump 's tweet does not prove anything illegal , it could serve as evidence of the president 's intent . It is common for US politicians to research their opponents during a campaign . However , legal experts say that Mr Trump Jr could fall foul of campaign finance laws , which prohibit accepting anything of value from a foreign government or foreign national . Mr Trump Jr 's apparently enthusiastic response to the offer of information about Mrs Clinton could also breach conspiracy laws . The Trump team has argued that Mr Trump Jr ultimately did not receive any damaging information about Mrs Clinton at the meeting . Some analysts say that by having the meeting at all , Mr Trump Jr broke the law . But others say it is unclear as no information reportedly exchanged hands at the meeting . One of Mr Trump 's lawyers , Jay Sekulow , said on Sunday that the meeting had not broken any laws . `` The question is what law , statute or rule or regulation 's been violated ? Nobody 's pointed to one , '' Mr Sekulow told ABC News . US media reported last year that some of the president 's advisers feared the extent of the president 's intervention could place him and some of his inner circle in legal jeopardy .

Image copyright AFP Image caption Controversy surrounds Donald Trump Jr's meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016 US President Donald Trump has admitted his son met a Russian lawyer in June 2016 "to get information on an opponent", but argues it was legal. Donald Trump Jr's meeting with Kremlin-linked lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower could constitute a breach of US campaign rules, experts say. And the meeting is being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his inquiry into Russia's alleged role to help Mr Trump win. President Trump denies any collusion. He has called the ongoing investigations in the US "the greatest political witch hunt in history". Russia has repeatedly denied claims it interfered in the November 2016 presidential elections, where Mr Trump defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. What did President Trump say? On Sunday, US media including the Washington Post, CNN and AP reported that Mr Trump was worried Donald Trump Jr could be in legal trouble because of the 9 June 2016 meeting with Ms Veselnitskaya in New York. They cited several unnamed sources. Mr Trump tweeted: "Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. "This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. "I did not know about it!" On Monday, the president quoted a Fox and Friends interview about alleged Democratic collusion with Russia. Mr Trump has spoken out before about links between Moscow and Mrs Clinton while saying it is "commonly agreed" that there was no collusion between Russia and him. Why does his Trump Tower tweet matter? Mr Trump's Sunday tweet appears to contradict a previous statement from the Trump camp about the meeting. When the meeting was first reported by the New York Times, Donald Trump Jr said in a statement that he and Ms Veselnitskaya had mostly discussed a suspended programme for Americans to adopt Russian children. However, he subsequently admitted he had agreed to the meeting after being told he would be offered information that would prove detrimental to Mrs Clinton. He also released the email exchange that brought about the meeting. US media then reported that the US president had been involved in the initial statement his son issued on the meeting. This was initially denied by Mr Trump's team, but his lawyers later confirmed that he had in fact dictated his son's statement. US commentators have argued that Mr Trump's new admission that the meeting was to gain information about Mrs Clinton shows that the earlier statement was misleading. Mr Trump again denied knowing about the meeting in Sunday's tweet. Trump Tower meeting: How the story has changed 8 July 2017: The New York Times reveals the June 2016 meeting took place and Mr Trump Jr releases a statement describing it as a "short introductory meeting" that focused on Russian adoptions The New York Times reveals the June 2016 meeting took place and Mr Trump Jr releases a statement describing it as a "short introductory meeting" that focused on Russian adoptions 9 July 2017: The Times reports that Mr Trump Jr was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before the meeting. He confirmed the report but said in a second statement that "no meaningful information" came from the meeting The Times reports that Mr Trump Jr was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before the meeting. He confirmed the report but said in a second statement that "no meaningful information" came from the meeting 11 July 2017 : Mr Trump Jr tweets screenshots of his email correspondence that discussed setting up the meeting just minutes before the email chain was revealed in a Times story. The emails showed he was eager to accept "sensitive" information that was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump" : Mr Trump Jr tweets screenshots of his email correspondence that discussed setting up the meeting just minutes before the email chain was revealed in a Times story. The emails showed he was eager to accept "sensitive" information that was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump" 12-16 July 2017: The president's lawyer Jay Sekulow denies that Mr Trump was involved in his son's initial statement to the Times The president's lawyer Jay Sekulow denies that Mr Trump was involved in his son's initial statement to the Times 2 June 2018: The Times reports that Mr Trump's lawyers wrote a letter to special counsel Mueller acknowledging that he dictated his son's initial statement The Times reports that Mr Trump's lawyers wrote a letter to special counsel Mueller acknowledging that he dictated his son's initial statement 26 July 2018: The president's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen says that Mr Trump approved the June 2016 meeting, contradicting previous statements by the Trump legal team The president's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen says that Mr Trump approved the June 2016 meeting, contradicting previous statements by the Trump legal team 5 August 2018: The president says his son took the meeting "to get information on an opponent", but denies having any knowledge of it Last month, however, Mr Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen said the president knew about the meeting in advance. The special counsel is currently investigating whether Mr Trump obstructed justice. Under US law, obstruction cases require proving "corrupt intent" - so while Mr Trump's tweet does not prove anything illegal, it could serve as evidence of the president's intent. Image copyright Reuters Image caption The meeting involved Mr Trump's son, his son-in-law, and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort Why is the Trump Tower meeting controversial? It is common for US politicians to research their opponents during a campaign. However, legal experts say that Mr Trump Jr could fall foul of campaign finance laws, which prohibit accepting anything of value from a foreign government or foreign national. Mr Trump Jr's apparently enthusiastic response to the offer of information about Mrs Clinton could also breach conspiracy laws. The Trump team has argued that Mr Trump Jr ultimately did not receive any damaging information about Mrs Clinton at the meeting. Some analysts say that by having the meeting at all, Mr Trump Jr broke the law. But others say it is unclear as no information reportedly exchanged hands at the meeting. One of Mr Trump's lawyers, Jay Sekulow, said on Sunday that the meeting had not broken any laws. "The question is what law, statute or rule or regulation's been violated? Nobody's pointed to one," Mr Sekulow told ABC News. US media reported last year that some of the president's advisers feared the extent of the president's intervention could place him and some of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.

www.bbc.com

center

nlDpjaqz1F2969Ah

test

Ga5fn4vIxGAbfTfX

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-politics-democrats/principles-or-power-virginia-political-scandal-a-test-for-democrats-idUSKCN1PW2SH

Principles or power? Virginia political scandal a test for Democrats

2019-02-07

John Whitesides

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - The spiraling political crisis in Virginia , which threatens to take out three top state Democrats with racial scandals or sexual assault accusations , poses a stiff test for a party thriving on its growing strength with women and minorities . If all three step aside , the next in line to be governor is the Republican House speaker . That leaves many state Democrats in a quandary : Should they stick to the moral high ground and seek their resignations , or protect the party ’ s power in a vital battleground state ? “ This is a moment of reckoning for Virginia , ” said Stephen Farnsworth , a political scientist at Mary Washington University in Virginia . “ Political principles that cost you something are always a lot harder to maintain . ” Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and state Attorney General Mark Herring , who is third in line to the governor , have acknowledged wearing blackface while students in college in the 1980s , an act widely seen as racist although it was not uncommon in television and movies of the time . Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax , who would take over as governor if Northam steps down , faces allegations he sexually assaulted a woman in 2004 . Fairfax , who is black , has denied the allegation and said the sexual encounter was consensual . Northam faced a wave of calls for his resignation from state Democrats and at least five Democratic 2020 White House contenders after the scandal broke last week when a racist photo from his 1984 medical school yearbook surfaced . But as the controversy spread to Fairfax and Herring , many Democrats have softened their position amid fears the growing crisis will halt the party ’ s recent political momentum ahead of legislative elections this year and the presidential election next year . “ This has been a complete debacle , ” said Virginia-based Democratic strategist Ben Tribbett , who said the early surge of Democratic calls for Northam ’ s resignation were made out of confidence that a Democrat would replace him . “ It has all been about political power . We don ’ t have the principles we think we have , ” Tribbett said . Buoyed by a backlash against Republican President Donald Trump , particularly in suburban areas , Democrats have made huge gains in Virginia in the last two years . They moved close to capturing a majority in the state House of Delegates in 2017 , and picked up three U.S. House of Representatives seats from Republicans last year . But Tribbett said Democrats in the state will have to answer questions about the scandals for years , whether or not any of the three leaves office . Herring and Fairfax had been seen as the top two Democratic contenders to replace Northam when his four-year term ends in 2021 . Women and racial minorities are two of the party ’ s most reliable voting blocs , and national Democrats have made racial justice and sexual equality key pillars of their agenda , taking a tough line against sexual misconduct or racial insensitivity to try to avoid being accused of hypocrisy in criticizing Trump and Republicans . The scandal in Virginia “ shows how vulnerable Democrats can become to these attacks , ” Republican strategist John Feehery said . “ When they attack each other on these themes , it hits hard . ” The Democratic approach stands in contrast to the recent strategy by Republicans , who have stuck with Trump after he brushed off allegations of sexual misconduct to win the White House and weathered repeated scandals in office . Other Republicans have taken a cue from the president . Chris Collins of New York was re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in November despite facing an indictment for insider trading . Despite a history of racist comments , Steve King is still a member of Congress even though he was kicked off committees by Republican leaders after defending white nationalism and white supremacy in an interview . Democrats said there was little danger of the party stealing a page from Trump and trying to ride out future controversies . “ I don ’ t think Trump has changed the game , ” said Democratic strategist Dane Strother , who frequently works on campaigns in the South , noting Democratic Senator Al Franken ’ s 2017 resignation after allegations of unwanted sexual advances were made against him . “ Democrats have not learned the wrong lessons from Trump , and I ’ m glad about that . I hate that Al Franken is gone , but he did what he thought was best , ” he said . “ If you sexually harass a woman or you say racist things ... as Democrats we stop and talk about it . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The spiraling political crisis in Virginia, which threatens to take out three top state Democrats with racial scandals or sexual assault accusations, poses a stiff test for a party thriving on its growing strength with women and minorities. FILE PHOTO: Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, accompanied by his wife Pamela Northam announces he will not resign during a news conference in Richmond, Virginia, U.S. February 2, 2019. REUTERS/ Jay Paul/File Photo If all three step aside, the next in line to be governor is the Republican House speaker. That leaves many state Democrats in a quandary: Should they stick to the moral high ground and seek their resignations, or protect the party’s power in a vital battleground state? “This is a moment of reckoning for Virginia,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at Mary Washington University in Virginia. “Political principles that cost you something are always a lot harder to maintain.” Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and state Attorney General Mark Herring, who is third in line to the governor, have acknowledged wearing blackface while students in college in the 1980s, an act widely seen as racist although it was not uncommon in television and movies of the time. Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, who would take over as governor if Northam steps down, faces allegations he sexually assaulted a woman in 2004. Fairfax, who is black, has denied the allegation and said the sexual encounter was consensual. Northam faced a wave of calls for his resignation from state Democrats and at least five Democratic 2020 White House contenders after the scandal broke last week when a racist photo from his 1984 medical school yearbook surfaced. But as the controversy spread to Fairfax and Herring, many Democrats have softened their position amid fears the growing crisis will halt the party’s recent political momentum ahead of legislative elections this year and the presidential election next year. “This has been a complete debacle,” said Virginia-based Democratic strategist Ben Tribbett, who said the early surge of Democratic calls for Northam’s resignation were made out of confidence that a Democrat would replace him. Now, he said, many Democrats are reconsidering. ‘POLITICAL POWER’ “It has all been about political power. We don’t have the principles we think we have,” Tribbett said. Buoyed by a backlash against Republican President Donald Trump, particularly in suburban areas, Democrats have made huge gains in Virginia in the last two years. They moved close to capturing a majority in the state House of Delegates in 2017, and picked up three U.S. House of Representatives seats from Republicans last year. But Tribbett said Democrats in the state will have to answer questions about the scandals for years, whether or not any of the three leaves office. Herring and Fairfax had been seen as the top two Democratic contenders to replace Northam when his four-year term ends in 2021. Women and racial minorities are two of the party’s most reliable voting blocs, and national Democrats have made racial justice and sexual equality key pillars of their agenda, taking a tough line against sexual misconduct or racial insensitivity to try to avoid being accused of hypocrisy in criticizing Trump and Republicans. The scandal in Virginia “shows how vulnerable Democrats can become to these attacks,” Republican strategist John Feehery said. “When they attack each other on these themes, it hits hard.” The Democratic approach stands in contrast to the recent strategy by Republicans, who have stuck with Trump after he brushed off allegations of sexual misconduct to win the White House and weathered repeated scandals in office. Other Republicans have taken a cue from the president. Chris Collins of New York was re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in November despite facing an indictment for insider trading. Despite a history of racist comments, Steve King is still a member of Congress even though he was kicked off committees by Republican leaders after defending white nationalism and white supremacy in an interview. Slideshow (2 Images) Democrats said there was little danger of the party stealing a page from Trump and trying to ride out future controversies. “I don’t think Trump has changed the game,” said Democratic strategist Dane Strother, who frequently works on campaigns in the South, noting Democratic Senator Al Franken’s 2017 resignation after allegations of unwanted sexual advances were made against him. “Democrats have not learned the wrong lessons from Trump, and I’m glad about that. I hate that Al Franken is gone, but he did what he thought was best,” he said. “If you sexually harass a woman or you say racist things ... as Democrats we stop and talk about it.”

www.reuters.com

center

Ga5fn4vIxGAbfTfX

test

bf3Y0aIsVvvRXhkI

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-immigration/immigration-top-issue-for-u-s-voters-economy-a-close-second-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1JV31K

Immigration top issue for U.S. voters, economy a close second: Reuters/Ipsos poll

2018-07-05

Maria Caspani

( ███ ) - Immigration tops the economy and healthcare as the most important issue determining Americans ’ vote ahead of the midterm elections in November , a new ███/Ipsos opinion poll shows . ███/Ipsos data shows that immigration became a top concern for registered voters in the United States after the Trump administration in May announced its “ zero tolerance ” policy on illegal immigrants , saying they would be criminally charged . The policy became a political lightning rod in mid-June with disclosures that thousands of children were separated from their parents who were accused of crossing illegally into the country . The poll , conducted between June 28 and July 2 , found : - Fifteen percent of U.S. registered voters said immigration was the top issue determining how they will cast their ballot in November , while 14 percent said the economy was their biggest concern . - Twenty-six percent of registered Republicans cited immigration as the most important issue likely to determine their vote , up 14 percentage points from a similar poll conducted at the beginning of June . - Healthcare remains the top issue for registered Democrats ( 16 percent ) , followed by the economy ( 14 percent ) , the ███/Ipsos poll shows . Seven percent of Democrats cited immigration as their top concern . - However , Trump ’ s approval on his handling of immigration remains little changed since the beginning of the year , with 52 percent of registered voters saying in an ongoing ███/Ipsos poll that they disapprove of the way the president is handling immigration . Americans are squarely divided along partisan lines on Trump ’ s stance on immigration : Eighty-one percent of Republicans said they approve of his handling of the issue while 84 percent of registered Democrats said they disapprove .

FILE PHOTO: An undocumented immigrant holds his possessions in a government-issued bag after being released from detention at a bus depot in McAllen, Texas, U.S., July 3, 2018. REUTERS/Loren Elliott (Reuters) - Immigration tops the economy and healthcare as the most important issue determining Americans’ vote ahead of the midterm elections in November, a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll shows. Reuters/Ipsos data shows that immigration became a top concern for registered voters in the United States after the Trump administration in May announced its “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigrants, saying they would be criminally charged. The policy became a political lightning rod in mid-June with disclosures that thousands of children were separated from their parents who were accused of crossing illegally into the country. The poll, conducted between June 28 and July 2, found: - Fifteen percent of U.S. registered voters said immigration was the top issue determining how they will cast their ballot in November, while 14 percent said the economy was their biggest concern. - Twenty-six percent of registered Republicans cited immigration as the most important issue likely to determine their vote, up 14 percentage points from a similar poll conducted at the beginning of June. - Healthcare remains the top issue for registered Democrats (16 percent), followed by the economy (14 percent), the Reuters/Ipsos poll shows. Seven percent of Democrats cited immigration as their top concern. - However, Trump’s approval on his handling of immigration remains little changed since the beginning of the year, with 52 percent of registered voters saying in an ongoing Reuters/Ipsos poll that they disapprove of the way the president is handling immigration. Americans are squarely divided along partisan lines on Trump’s stance on immigration: Eighty-one percent of Republicans said they approve of his handling of the issue while 84 percent of registered Democrats said they disapprove. Polling Explorer Tracking the president's approval ratings

www.reuters.com

center

bf3Y0aIsVvvRXhkI

test

RLcDnuYlvNmr0GlB

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Congress-Benghazi-Chairman/2015/10/17/id/696691/

Gowdy: I'll 'Shock You With Fairness' in Questioning Clinton

2015-10-17

Matthew Daly

Rep. Trey Gowdy is a man under fierce pressure as he leads a congressional Benghazi investigation that 's dismissed by Democrats as partisan and even questioned by some fellow Republicans . The former prosecutor and three-term South Carolina Republican known for his `` Southern politeness '' is pressing ahead , determined to get the facts about the long night of Sept. 11 , 2012 , when extremists hit two U.S. facilities in Benghazi , Libya , and killed four Americans , including Ambassador Chris Stevens . On Thursday , as chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi , faces the star witness in the 17-month , Republican-led investigation that already has surpassed the 1970s-era Watergate probe in length . Hillary Rodham Clinton , secretary of state when the attack happened and now a Democratic presidential candidate , will testify in the highly anticipated hearing on Capitol Hill . For all the talk of how Clinton used a private email server as secretary , Gowdy pledged in a recent interview that the hearing will be `` Benghazi-centric , '' focused on security before and during the attacks . Some questions are likely on Clinton 's use of a private email account and server for government business , Gowdy said , but he maintains that his approach may `` shock you with fairness . '' Clinton has said the use of a private server was a mistake . The 51-year-old Gowdy , boyish-looking with close-cropped silver hair , has cast himself as a fact-finder as he deals with Republicans eager to portray the attacks as a major national security failure of the Obama administration and Democrats who call the inquiry a pointless partisan exercise after some seven other investigations into the raids . Gowdy has conducted most of the committee 's work behind closed doors while holding just three public hearings in 17 months , the last one in January . The panel has interviewed more than 50 witnesses— including seven eyewitnesses whom Gowdy says were never questioned by other congressional committees — and reviewed thousands of documents about security lapses , the military response and the administration 's initial , inaccurate accounts of why the attacks occurred . House Speaker John Boehner , the driving force behind creation of the committee in May 2014 , said he chose Gowdy , a member of the 2010 tea party class , because `` he is one of the most professional , capable and respected members of Congress . '' `` Time and time again , Trey has proven that he is the best person to ensure the American people know the truth about what happened in Benghazi , '' Boehner , R-Ohio , told The Associated Press in a statement . Democrats counter that the $ 4.5 million inquiry is a costly partisan hunt to destroy Clinton 's White House bid and complain that they have been frozen out of some of the committee interviews . They point to the recent comments of two Republicans who suggested Clinton is the panel 's target . House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , said last month that the committee can take credit for Clinton 's diminished public standing in recent months , a comment he later retracted . On Wednesday , Rep. Richard Hanna , R-N.Y. , who is not on the committee , said `` a big part '' of the Benghazi investigation was designed to go after Clinton . `` At this point , Trey Gowdy 's inquiry has zero credibility left , '' said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon . Clinton called the panel an `` arm of the Republican National Committee . '' A former Republican staffer recently said he was unlawfully fired in part because he sought a comprehensive probe into the attacks instead of focusing on Clinton . Air Force Reserve Maj. Bradley Podliska also complained that the committee was engaged in social activities such as an informal wine club nicknamed `` Wine Wednesdays . '' Gowdy said Podliska was fired for mishandling classified information and other mistakes . Still , the chairman felt compelled to issue a statement saying his panel `` is not focused on Secretary Clinton , and to the extent we have given any attention to Clinton , it is because she was secretary of state at all relevant times covered by this committee 's jurisdiction . '' Whatever criticism , Gowdy is acutely aware that Thursday 's hearing is likely to be the committee 's make-or-break moment , where he can revive its credibility or see it widely discredited . Republicans blame Democrats for the partisan breakdown and say Gowdy has been patient with the administration as he seeks documents from the State Department and other agencies . `` He 's a lot more patient than I would have been , '' said Rep. Mike Pompeo , R-Kan. , a member of the committee . Gowdy is `` bending over backward '' for Democrats who `` have not lifted one finger to help us in the fact-discovery process , '' Pompeo said . Rep. Adam Smith , D-Wash. , said he believes Gowdy was sincere in `` saying from the beginning that he wanted to do this right . But it just has n't happened . It has not played out the way that Rep. Gowdy said it would . '' Before the fierce partisanship , Gowdy allowed Smith to participate in a hearing via Skype after the congressman was sidelined by surgery . Another panel member , Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , said Gowdy `` is under immense pressure '' from his party to deliver something after 17 months . Schiff , who has called for the committee to be disbanded , said he likes Gowdy , but `` the intense and partisan focus of the committee on Secretary Clinton above all else has made our work on the committee difficult , to say the least . ''

Rep. Trey Gowdy is a man under fierce pressure as he leads a congressional Benghazi investigation that's dismissed by Democrats as partisan and even questioned by some fellow Republicans. No matter. The former prosecutor and three-term South Carolina Republican known for his "Southern politeness" is pressing ahead, determined to get the facts about the long night of Sept. 11, 2012, when extremists hit two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. On Thursday, as chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, faces the star witness in the 17-month, Republican-led investigation that already has surpassed the 1970s-era Watergate probe in length. Hillary Rodham Clinton, secretary of state when the attack happened and now a Democratic presidential candidate, will testify in the highly anticipated hearing on Capitol Hill. For all the talk of how Clinton used a private email server as secretary, Gowdy pledged in a recent interview that the hearing will be "Benghazi-centric," focused on security before and during the attacks. Some questions are likely on Clinton's use of a private email account and server for government business, Gowdy said, but he maintains that his approach may "shock you with fairness." Clinton has said the use of a private server was a mistake. The 51-year-old Gowdy, boyish-looking with close-cropped silver hair, has cast himself as a fact-finder as he deals with Republicans eager to portray the attacks as a major national security failure of the Obama administration and Democrats who call the inquiry a pointless partisan exercise after some seven other investigations into the raids. Gowdy has conducted most of the committee's work behind closed doors while holding just three public hearings in 17 months, the last one in January. The panel has interviewed more than 50 witnesses— including seven eyewitnesses whom Gowdy says were never questioned by other congressional committees — and reviewed thousands of documents about security lapses, the military response and the administration's initial, inaccurate accounts of why the attacks occurred. House Speaker John Boehner, the driving force behind creation of the committee in May 2014, said he chose Gowdy, a member of the 2010 tea party class, because "he is one of the most professional, capable and respected members of Congress." "Time and time again, Trey has proven that he is the best person to ensure the American people know the truth about what happened in Benghazi," Boehner, R-Ohio, told The Associated Press in a statement. Democrats counter that the $4.5 million inquiry is a costly partisan hunt to destroy Clinton's White House bid and complain that they have been frozen out of some of the committee interviews. They point to the recent comments of two Republicans who suggested Clinton is the panel's target. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said last month that the committee can take credit for Clinton's diminished public standing in recent months, a comment he later retracted. On Wednesday, Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y., who is not on the committee, said "a big part" of the Benghazi investigation was designed to go after Clinton. "At this point, Trey Gowdy's inquiry has zero credibility left," said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. Clinton called the panel an "arm of the Republican National Committee." Gowdy is on the defensive on another front, too. A former Republican staffer recently said he was unlawfully fired in part because he sought a comprehensive probe into the attacks instead of focusing on Clinton. Air Force Reserve Maj. Bradley Podliska also complained that the committee was engaged in social activities such as an informal wine club nicknamed "Wine Wednesdays." Gowdy said Podliska was fired for mishandling classified information and other mistakes. Still, the chairman felt compelled to issue a statement saying his panel "is not focused on Secretary Clinton, and to the extent we have given any attention to Clinton, it is because she was secretary of state at all relevant times covered by this committee's jurisdiction." Whatever criticism, Gowdy is acutely aware that Thursday's hearing is likely to be the committee's make-or-break moment, where he can revive its credibility or see it widely discredited. Republicans blame Democrats for the partisan breakdown and say Gowdy has been patient with the administration as he seeks documents from the State Department and other agencies. "He's a lot more patient than I would have been," said Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., a member of the committee. Gowdy is "bending over backward" for Democrats who "have not lifted one finger to help us in the fact-discovery process," Pompeo said. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said he believes Gowdy was sincere in "saying from the beginning that he wanted to do this right. But it just hasn't happened. It has not played out the way that Rep. Gowdy said it would." Before the fierce partisanship, Gowdy allowed Smith to participate in a hearing via Skype after the congressman was sidelined by surgery. Another panel member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Gowdy "is under immense pressure" from his party to deliver something after 17 months. Schiff, who has called for the committee to be disbanded, said he likes Gowdy, but "the intense and partisan focus of the committee on Secretary Clinton above all else has made our work on the committee difficult, to say the least."

www.newsmax.com

right

RLcDnuYlvNmr0GlB

test

dRP8pg9ecFwOOdcR

fbi

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/08/christopher-steele-durham-not-cooperate/

Christopher Steele Refuses To Cooperate With US Prosecutor Looking Into Origins Of Trump-Russia Probe

2020-03-08

Dossier author Christopher Steele will not cooperate with U.S. Attorney John Durham ’ s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe , telling an audience at Oxford University that he believes U.S. investigators have acted in “ bad faith . ” Steele , a former British spy , said at the Oxford event on Friday that he and his firm , Orbis Business Intelligence , had already “ done our duty ” by cooperating with a Justice Department inspector general ’ s ( IG ) investigation of the FBI ’ s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page . According to The Daily Beast , which attended the Oxford event , Steele also criticized the IG , saying that he cooperated with the probe for “ four or five months , ” and observed “ very bad qualities ” on the part of government officials . He said some acted in “ bad faith. ” ( RELATED : AG Barr : Durham Is ‘ Looking Act ’ Activities Of ‘ Private Actors ’ ) Reuters reported on Friday that Durham ’ s team has recently approached Steele seeking an interview . The former MI6 officer rejected the request because he believes that he would not be treated fairly , three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters . Numerous questions remain unanswered about how Steele collected information for his dossier , and how many of his allegations about Trump associates turned out to be inaccurate . Steele alleged that the Trump campaign , including Page , took part in a “ well-developed conspiracy of cooperation ” with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election . The special counsel found no evidence that any Trump associates conspired with Russians , or took part in the hacking or dissemination of Democrats ’ emails in 2016 . Steele also wrote in the dossier that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin insiders . Both the special counsel ’ s report and the IG report debunked that claim , saying that Cohen never visited the Czech Republic ’ s capital city . The IG ’ s report provided a particularly harsh assessment of the FBI as well as of Steele . It said that the FBI failed to disclose information about Steele and the sourcing for his dossier that would have called the reliability of the document into question . The report said that Steele ’ s primary source of information for his investigation of Donald Trump met with FBI investigators in January 2017 and disputed much of what was in the dossier . Steele himself told his FBI contacts in an Oct. 3 , 2016 meeting that he believed that a key sub-source for the dossier was a “ boaster ” and “ egotist . ” Despite those red flags , the FBI relied heavily on Steele ’ s information to assert that Carter Page was a Russian agent . And despite the apparent problems with the dossier , Steele defiantly defended his infamous report during his remarks at Oxford on Friday . “ I stand by the integrity of our work , our sources and what we did , ” he said . Steele issued a statement through his lawyers following the release of the IG report , asserting that the document had “ several serious errors and misstatements . ” Attorney General William Barr did provide one clue in an interview on Dec. 18 , saying that the prosecutor is conducting a broad investigation that extends beyond government agencies . “ He ’ s not just looking at the FBI , ” Barr said . “ He ’ s looking at other agencies … and also private actors , so it ’ s a much broader investigation . ” Durham has reportedly sought records related to former CIA Director John Brennan . Michael Rogers , the former director of the National Security Agency , has also reportedly cooperated with Durham ’ s review .

Dossier author Christopher Steele will not cooperate with U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, telling an audience at Oxford University that he believes U.S. investigators have acted in “bad faith.” Steele, a former British spy, said at the Oxford event on Friday that he and his firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, had already “done our duty” by cooperating with a Justice Department inspector general’s (IG) investigation of the FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page. According to The Daily Beast, which attended the Oxford event, Steele also criticized the IG, saying that he cooperated with the probe for “four or five months,” and observed “very bad qualities” on the part of government officials. He said some acted in “bad faith.” (RELATED: AG Barr: Durham Is ‘Looking Act’ Activities Of ‘Private Actors’) Reuters reported on Friday that Durham’s team has recently approached Steele seeking an interview. The former MI6 officer rejected the request because he believes that he would not be treated fairly, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. Numerous questions remain unanswered about how Steele collected information for his dossier, and how many of his allegations about Trump associates turned out to be inaccurate. Steele alleged that the Trump campaign, including Page, took part in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. The special counsel found no evidence that any Trump associates conspired with Russians, or took part in the hacking or dissemination of Democrats’ emails in 2016. Steele also wrote in the dossier that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen visited Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin insiders. Both the special counsel’s report and the IG report debunked that claim, saying that Cohen never visited the Czech Republic’s capital city. The IG’s report provided a particularly harsh assessment of the FBI as well as of Steele. It said that the FBI failed to disclose information about Steele and the sourcing for his dossier that would have called the reliability of the document into question. The report said that Steele’s primary source of information for his investigation of Donald Trump met with FBI investigators in January 2017 and disputed much of what was in the dossier. Steele himself told his FBI contacts in an Oct. 3, 2016 meeting that he believed that a key sub-source for the dossier was a “boaster” and “egotist.” Despite those red flags, the FBI relied heavily on Steele’s information to assert that Carter Page was a Russian agent. And despite the apparent problems with the dossier, Steele defiantly defended his infamous report during his remarks at Oxford on Friday. “I stand by the integrity of our work, our sources and what we did,” he said. Steele issued a statement through his lawyers following the release of the IG report, asserting that the document had “several serious errors and misstatements.” Little is known about what exactly Durham is investigating. Attorney General William Barr did provide one clue in an interview on Dec. 18, saying that the prosecutor is conducting a broad investigation that extends beyond government agencies. “He’s not just looking at the FBI,” Barr said. “He’s looking at other agencies … and also private actors, so it’s a much broader investigation.” Durham has reportedly sought records related to former CIA Director John Brennan. Michael Rogers, the former director of the National Security Agency, has also reportedly cooperated with Durham’s review. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

dRP8pg9ecFwOOdcR

test

pG7vpssJrkZEe0I6

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/july/obama-bush-honor-fallen-officers-as-hurting-nation-ponders-the-future

Obama, Bush to Honor Fallen Officers as Hurting Nation Ponders the Future

2016-07-11

President Barack Obama is traveling to Texas Tuesday to pay tribute to the police officers killed by a sniper last week . Obama will be joined by President George W. Bush at an interfaith memorial service in Dallas at the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center . Tuesday 's service follows a weekend filled with honors for the five officers who lost their lives , comfort for those who survived , and candid conversations about what lies ahead . Bishop Harry Jackson spoke about the current racial tensions plaguing the U.S. and what needs to be done to move toward healing . Watch above . Two patrol cars sit outside Dallas police headquarters , covered with cards , flowers and teddy bears . It 's a memorial that grows with each passing day . People are traveling from near and far to add to their gifts to the memorial . They are also personally extending thanks to the officers who pass by . The city saw chaos Thursday , following a rally and peaceful protest . Rev . Michael Waters , pastor of Joy Tabernacle A.M.E. , was a speaker at the rally , which called for an end to police brutality following the deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota . `` While we were dispersing , the gunfire began , '' Waters told ███ News , following his Sunday morning service in the heart of the city . Recalling the people at the rally that night , Waters said , `` It was white people , it was Latino people , it was Asian people , it was young people . There were children in that crowd . '' `` Everyone who was there in that non-violent peaceful rally and march was there because they love life and want to preserve it , '' he continued . `` It has broken all of our hearts that life was taken that night . '' Police say the gunman , Micah Johnson , claimed he was angry about the deaths the protesters were marching against . That 's why he took aim at white officers , killing five and injuring seven . `` You would still hear the gunfire , '' Waters recalled . `` And it was a shock because you went from total peace and tranquility to total chaos at a moment . '' The sniper attack on 12 Dallas police officers reminded some of another dark day in the city 's history . President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 in Dealy Plaza , just two blocks from where the gunman took aim at the officers , delivering a painful blow to the city and the country . On Sunday , the pain gave way to praise at the Potters House Church , where Bishop T.D . Jakes canceled his regular sermon and hosted a townhall conversation . `` We have had a very challenging week in our city . Been tested to our very core , shaken to our very foundation , '' Jakes told those in attendance . His townhall panel included the city 's mayor and an officer who watched a colleague die in the tragedy , shot in the face . Officer Steve Gentry told the packed congregation , `` Sometimes you dream that this person is sitting next to your bed or standing next to your bed , asking you why -- those are the hard times . '' The family of the man shot and killed in Louisiana last week was also there . Saundra Sterling , who raised Alton Sterling , recalled her final moments with him , just two days before he died at the hands of police officers . They visited the graves of family members . `` We went to his brother 's grave , '' Saundra told ███ News . `` His brother , his mother , my father and his dad and we ( were ) visiting each one of those graves and that was the last time I saw or heard from him . '' Jakes ended the service , reminding all of the hope believers have in Christ . `` Injustices , police killings , domestic violence , black-on-black crime – we got a lot of stuff to pray about . But we are going to make it , '' Jakes said .

President Barack Obama is traveling to Texas Tuesday to pay tribute to the police officers killed by a sniper last week. Obama will be joined by President George W. Bush at an interfaith memorial service in Dallas at the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center. Tuesday's service follows a weekend filled with honors for the five officers who lost their lives, comfort for those who survived, and candid conversations about what lies ahead. Bishop Harry Jackson spoke about the current racial tensions plaguing the U.S. and what needs to be done to move toward healing. Watch above. Two patrol cars sit outside Dallas police headquarters, covered with cards, flowers and teddy bears. It's a memorial that grows with each passing day. People are traveling from near and far to add to their gifts to the memorial. They are also personally extending thanks to the officers who pass by. The city saw chaos Thursday, following a rally and peaceful protest. Rev. Michael Waters, pastor of Joy Tabernacle A.M.E., was a speaker at the rally, which called for an end to police brutality following the deaths of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota. "While we were dispersing, the gunfire began," Waters told CBN News, following his Sunday morning service in the heart of the city. Recalling the people at the rally that night, Waters said, "It was white people, it was Latino people, it was Asian people, it was young people. There were children in that crowd." "Everyone who was there in that non-violent peaceful rally and march was there because they love life and want to preserve it," he continued. "It has broken all of our hearts that life was taken that night." Police say the gunman, Micah Johnson, claimed he was angry about the deaths the protesters were marching against. That's why he took aim at white officers, killing five and injuring seven. "You would still hear the gunfire," Waters recalled. "And it was a shock because you went from total peace and tranquility to total chaos at a moment." The sniper attack on 12 Dallas police officers reminded some of another dark day in the city's history. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 in Dealy Plaza, just two blocks from where the gunman took aim at the officers, delivering a painful blow to the city and the country. On Sunday, the pain gave way to praise at the Potters House Church, where Bishop T.D. Jakes canceled his regular sermon and hosted a townhall conversation. "We have had a very challenging week in our city. Been tested to our very core, shaken to our very foundation," Jakes told those in attendance. His townhall panel included the city's mayor and an officer who watched a colleague die in the tragedy, shot in the face. Officer Steve Gentry told the packed congregation, "Sometimes you dream that this person is sitting next to your bed or standing next to your bed, asking you why -- those are the hard times." The family of the man shot and killed in Louisiana last week was also there. Saundra Sterling, who raised Alton Sterling, recalled her final moments with him, just two days before he died at the hands of police officers. They visited the graves of family members. "We went to his brother's grave," Saundra told CBN News. "His brother, his mother, my father and his dad and we (were) visiting each one of those graves and that was the last time I saw or heard from him." Jakes ended the service, reminding all of the hope believers have in Christ. "Injustices, police killings, domestic violence, black-on-black crime – we got a lot of stuff to pray about. But we are going to make it," Jakes said.

www1.cbn.com

right

pG7vpssJrkZEe0I6

test

99wdwSORTWDWQY2x

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/24/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-election-russia-democrats

DNC lawsuit against Trump campaign divides party – but could reveal key facts

2018-04-24

Tom Mccarthy

Experts say suit alleging election conspiracy could inform the public about Trump and Russia , but some Democrats have voiced concern By suing the Trump campaign , the Russian government and others , the Democratic National Committee has opened up a new front in a legal battle that is either a campaign for justice or a pitiable attempt to overturn the 2016 election result , depending on whom you ask . 'Protecting our democracy ' : DNC chair defends suit against Trump and Russia Read more Donald Trump ’ s 2020 campaign manager , Brad Parscale , branded the DNC action a “ last-ditch effort to revive the witch-hunt with a lawsuit ” . Trump tweeted that it was “ so funny , the Democrats have sued the Republicans for Winning ” . Even some Democrats have expressed reservations . “ I think this sidebar lawsuit is not in the interest of the American people , ” the US congresswoman Jackie Speier of San Francisco , who has a law degree , told CNN . But the lawsuit is distinct in significant ways from parallel legal actions and – if it is not dismissed outright at an early stage – it could add significantly to public knowledge , at least , about Trump campaign activities and Russian election tampering , legal experts said . “ [ It ] might end up becoming a really , really powerful tool for the DNC to actually unearth new information , ” Susan Hennessey , executive editor of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution , told PBS Newshour on Friday . The DNC suit alleges that the Trump campaign was a racketeering enterprise engaged in an illegal conspiracy to influence the outcome of the election . Unlike parallel legal actions , the lawsuit names as defendants Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner , the president ’ s son-in-law and adviser . While both men have been subject to grand jury subpoenas issued by the special counsel Robert Mueller , and Kushner sat for a private meeting with Mueller in November 2017 , neither has been charged by Mueller , as far as is publicly known . The DNC lawsuit could be seen as an outrider to Mueller ’ s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and related matters , Hennessey told PBS . “ I think that they are fundamentally unrelated , ” she said . “ We don ’ t know much about the Mueller investigation . The DNC suit both relies on the Mueller investigation , because it uses some evidence that actually comes from those court filings , and it also gets quite a bit ahead – it is alleging this actual conspiracy [ and ] we haven ’ t seen Mueller make that showing . “ I think the best way to think about it is sort of parallel tracks , the same subject matter but not necessarily related . ” In a separate lawsuit filed in July 2017 , three plaintiffs whose emails were hacked and disseminated in the cyber-attacks on the DNC accused the Trump campaign and Trump ’ s former adviser Roger Stone of an invasion of privacy . Stone had boasted of communications with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks , which published the emails . A hearing on a motion to dismiss the suit , filed in US district court for the District of Columbia by the DNC donors Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg , and the former DNC staffer Scott Comer , is scheduled for 17 May . Writing last year on that lawsuit , Andrew Wright , a former White House associate counsel and a professor at Savannah Law School , concluded : “ This is an extraordinary case in which discovery orders on the path to that proof could be as important to the public discourse as the outcome of the case itself . ” The same dynamic could hold in the DNC suit , Wright said in an email to ███ , with important information coming to light through judicial proceedings . Hennessey , meanwhile , said : “ This is an amazingly complex legal landscape . ”

Experts say suit alleging election conspiracy could inform the public about Trump and Russia, but some Democrats have voiced concern By suing the Trump campaign, the Russian government and others, the Democratic National Committee has opened up a new front in a legal battle that is either a campaign for justice or a pitiable attempt to overturn the 2016 election result, depending on whom you ask. 'Protecting our democracy': DNC chair defends suit against Trump and Russia Read more Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, branded the DNC action a “last-ditch effort to revive the witch-hunt with a lawsuit”. Trump tweeted that it was “so funny, the Democrats have sued the Republicans for Winning”. Even some Democrats have expressed reservations. “I think this sidebar lawsuit is not in the interest of the American people,” the US congresswoman Jackie Speier of San Francisco, who has a law degree, told CNN. But the lawsuit is distinct in significant ways from parallel legal actions and – if it is not dismissed outright at an early stage – it could add significantly to public knowledge, at least, about Trump campaign activities and Russian election tampering, legal experts said. “[It] might end up becoming a really, really powerful tool for the DNC to actually unearth new information,” Susan Hennessey, executive editor of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told PBS Newshour on Friday. The DNC suit alleges that the Trump campaign was a racketeering enterprise engaged in an illegal conspiracy to influence the outcome of the election. Unlike parallel legal actions, the lawsuit names as defendants Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and adviser. While both men have been subject to grand jury subpoenas issued by the special counsel Robert Mueller, and Kushner sat for a private meeting with Mueller in November 2017, neither has been charged by Mueller, as far as is publicly known. The brothers-in-law have separately denied any wrongdoing. The DNC lawsuit could be seen as an outrider to Mueller’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and related matters, Hennessey told PBS. “I think that they are fundamentally unrelated,” she said. “We don’t know much about the Mueller investigation. The DNC suit both relies on the Mueller investigation, because it uses some evidence that actually comes from those court filings, and it also gets quite a bit ahead – it is alleging this actual conspiracy [and] we haven’t seen Mueller make that showing. “I think the best way to think about it is sort of parallel tracks, the same subject matter but not necessarily related.” In a separate lawsuit filed in July 2017, three plaintiffs whose emails were hacked and disseminated in the cyber-attacks on the DNC accused the Trump campaign and Trump’s former adviser Roger Stone of an invasion of privacy. Stone had boasted of communications with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, which published the emails. A hearing on a motion to dismiss the suit, filed in US district court for the District of Columbia by the DNC donors Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, and the former DNC staffer Scott Comer, is scheduled for 17 May. Writing last year on that lawsuit, Andrew Wright, a former White House associate counsel and a professor at Savannah Law School, concluded: “This is an extraordinary case in which discovery orders on the path to that proof could be as important to the public discourse as the outcome of the case itself.” The same dynamic could hold in the DNC suit, Wright said in an email to the Guardian, with important information coming to light through judicial proceedings. Hennessey, meanwhile, said: “This is an amazingly complex legal landscape.”

www.theguardian.com

left

99wdwSORTWDWQY2x

test

tXWaHwYtB61wAJ5f

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/

Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI

2017-12-04

The FBI agent who was fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation team for sending anti-Donald Trump text messages conducted the interviews with two Hillary Clinton aides accused of giving false statements about what they knew of the former secretary of state ’ s private email server . Neither of the Clinton associates , Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin , faced legal consequences for their misleading statements , which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok . ( RELATED : Anti-Trump Text Messages Show Pattern Of Bias On Mueller Team ) Michael Flynn , the former national security adviser , pleaded guilty last week to lying during an interview he gave on Jan. 24 to Strzok and another FBI agent . Circa journalist Sara Carter reported on Monday that Strzok took part in that interview with the retired lieutenant general . ( RELATED : Anti-Trump FBI Agent Conducted Interview With Michael Flynn ) At the time , Strzok was the FBI ’ s top investigator on the fledgling investigation into Russian interference in the presidential campaign . He was appointed to supervise that effort at the end of July 2016 , just weeks after the conclusion of the Clinton email probe . CNN reported on Monday that as the FBI ’ s No . 2 counterintelligence official , Strzok signed the documents that officially opened the collusion inquiry . The starkly different outcomes from Strzok ’ s interviews — a felony charge against Flynn and a free pass to Mills and Abedin — are sure to raise questions from Republicans about double-standards in the FBI ’ s two most prominent political investigations . FBI Director Christopher Wray will likely be pressed on the Strzok scandal on Thursday when he attends an oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee . Strzok was also a prominent part of the Clinton investigation , so much so that he conducted all of the most significant interviews in the case . Along with Justice Department attorney David Laufman , Strzok interviewed Clinton herself on July 2 , 2016 . The pair also interviewed Mills , Abedin and two other Clinton aides , Jake Sullivan and Heather Samuelson . Summaries of the interviews , known as 302s , were released by the FBI last year . A review of those documents conducted by ███ shows that Mills and Abedin told Strzok and Laufman that they were not aware of Clinton ’ s server until after she left the State Department . “ Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton ’ s [ Department of State ] tenure , ” reads notes from Mills ’ April 9 , 2016 interview . “ Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time . ” Abedin also denied knowing about Clinton ’ s server until leaving the State Department in 2013 . “ Abedin did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge , ” the summary of Strzok ’ s interview with Abedin states . But undercutting those denials are email exchanges in which both Mills and Abedin either directly discussed or were involved in discussing Clinton ’ s server . ( RELATED : Chaffetz : Cheryl Mills ‘ Lied To Everybody ’ About Clinton ’ s Server ) “ hrc email coming back — is server okay ? ” Mills asked in a Feb. 27 , 2010 email to Abedin and Justin Cooper , a longtime aide to Bill Clinton who helped set up the Clinton server . “ Ur funny . We are on the same server , ” Cooper replied . Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30 , 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton ’ s “ email server is down . ” And in a Jan. 9 , 2011 email exchange , Cooper told Abedin that Clinton ’ s server had been malfunctioning because “ someone was trying to hack us . ” “ Had to shut down the server , ” wrote Cooper , who told the FBI in his interviews that he discussed Clinton ’ s server with Abedin in 2009 , when it was being set up . Former FBI Director James Comey defended the Clinton aides ’ inconsistent statements in a House Judiciary Committee hearing held on Sept. 28 , 2016 . “ Having done many investigations myself , there ’ s always conflicting recollections of facts , some of which are central [ to the investigation ] , some of which are peripheral , ” Comey told Jason Chaffetz , a former Utah congressman who served on the committee last year . “ I think she lied to everybody , ” he said of Mills in an interview on Fox News the night of the Comey hearing . “ There ’ s direct evidence that she actually did know [ about the server ] , ” said Chaffetz , who added that Comey ’ s defense of Mills “ makes no sense . ” Chaffetz suggested that Mills would have had an incentive to deny knowing about the server during Clinton ’ s State Department tenure because it would allow her to cite attorney-client privilege to avoid discussing certain aspects of Clinton ’ s email setup . Mills began working as one of Clinton ’ s lawyers just after they left the State Department . Strzok ’ s role in the Clinton and Russia investigations took on a new significance on Saturday after the bombshell revelation that the FBI veteran exchanged politically-charged text messages last year . Strzok was kicked off Mueller ’ s team over the summer after the Justice Department ’ s inspector general discovered that he sent the messages to Lisa Page , an FBI lawyer and his mistress . The watchdog has been investigating the FBI and DOJ ’ s handling of the Clinton email matter . Page also worked on the Mueller team for a short time over the summer . TheDC also discovered that Strzok ’ s wife , a Securities and Exchange Commission attorney named Melissa Hodgman , has a strong pro-Clinton bias . Her Facebook account shows she ’ s a member of groups called “ We Voted for Hillary ” and “ Thank You Obama . ” It was reported back in August that Strzok had been removed from the Mueller team to the FBI ’ s human resources department . Mueller ’ s office had declined for months to comment on the mysterious personnel move . It was also revealed on Monday that Strzok was the FBI agent responsible for softening language that Comey used in his July 5 , 2016 statement closing the Clinton investigation . Strzok edited a rough draft of Comey ’ s speech , changing out the phrase “ grossly negligent ” — a term which has legal weight — with the softer phrase , “ extremely careless. ” ( RELATED : Anti-Trump FBI Agent Softened Comey ’ s Description Of Clinton ’ s Email Conduct ) The FBI and Special Counsel ’ s Office did not respond to requests for comment .

The FBI agent who was fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team for sending anti-Donald Trump text messages conducted the interviews with two Hillary Clinton aides accused of giving false statements about what they knew of the former secretary of state’s private email server. Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements, which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok. (RELATED: Anti-Trump Text Messages Show Pattern Of Bias On Mueller Team) But another Strzok interview subject was not so lucky. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, pleaded guilty last week to lying during an interview he gave on Jan. 24 to Strzok and another FBI agent. Circa journalist Sara Carter reported on Monday that Strzok took part in that interview with the retired lieutenant general. (RELATED: Anti-Trump FBI Agent Conducted Interview With Michael Flynn) At the time, Strzok was the FBI’s top investigator on the fledgling investigation into Russian interference in the presidential campaign. He was appointed to supervise that effort at the end of July 2016, just weeks after the conclusion of the Clinton email probe. CNN reported on Monday that as the FBI’s No. 2 counterintelligence official, Strzok signed the documents that officially opened the collusion inquiry. The starkly different outcomes from Strzok’s interviews — a felony charge against Flynn and a free pass to Mills and Abedin — are sure to raise questions from Republicans about double-standards in the FBI’s two most prominent political investigations. FBI Director Christopher Wray will likely be pressed on the Strzok scandal on Thursday when he attends an oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Strzok was also a prominent part of the Clinton investigation, so much so that he conducted all of the most significant interviews in the case. Along with Justice Department attorney David Laufman, Strzok interviewed Clinton herself on July 2, 2016. The pair also interviewed Mills, Abedin and two other Clinton aides, Jake Sullivan and Heather Samuelson. Summaries of the interviews, known as 302s, were released by the FBI last year. A review of those documents conducted by The Daily Caller shows that Mills and Abedin told Strzok and Laufman that they were not aware of Clinton’s server until after she left the State Department. “Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton’s [Department of State] tenure,” reads notes from Mills’ April 9, 2016 interview. “Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time.” Abedin also denied knowing about Clinton’s server until leaving the State Department in 2013. “Abedin did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge,” the summary of Strzok’s interview with Abedin states. But undercutting those denials are email exchanges in which both Mills and Abedin either directly discussed or were involved in discussing Clinton’s server. (RELATED: Chaffetz: Cheryl Mills ‘Lied To Everybody’ About Clinton’s Server) “hrc email coming back — is server okay?” Mills asked in a Feb. 27, 2010 email to Abedin and Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton who helped set up the Clinton server. “Ur funny. We are on the same server,” Cooper replied. Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30, 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton’s “email server is down.” And in a Jan. 9, 2011 email exchange, Cooper told Abedin that Clinton’s server had been malfunctioning because “someone was trying to hack us.” “Had to shut down the server,” wrote Cooper, who told the FBI in his interviews that he discussed Clinton’s server with Abedin in 2009, when it was being set up. Former FBI Director James Comey defended the Clinton aides’ inconsistent statements in a House Judiciary Committee hearing held on Sept. 28, 2016. “Having done many investigations myself, there’s always conflicting recollections of facts, some of which are central [to the investigation], some of which are peripheral,” Comey told Jason Chaffetz, a former Utah congressman who served on the committee last year. Chaffetz was not buying Comey’s dismissive response. “I think she lied to everybody,” he said of Mills in an interview on Fox News the night of the Comey hearing. “There’s direct evidence that she actually did know [about the server],” said Chaffetz, who added that Comey’s defense of Mills “makes no sense.” WATCH: Chaffetz suggested that Mills would have had an incentive to deny knowing about the server during Clinton’s State Department tenure because it would allow her to cite attorney-client privilege to avoid discussing certain aspects of Clinton’s email setup. Mills began working as one of Clinton’s lawyers just after they left the State Department. Strzok’s role in the Clinton and Russia investigations took on a new significance on Saturday after the bombshell revelation that the FBI veteran exchanged politically-charged text messages last year. Strzok was kicked off Mueller’s team over the summer after the Justice Department’s inspector general discovered that he sent the messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and his mistress. The watchdog has been investigating the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Clinton email matter. Page also worked on the Mueller team for a short time over the summer. TheDC also discovered that Strzok’s wife, a Securities and Exchange Commission attorney named Melissa Hodgman, has a strong pro-Clinton bias. Her Facebook account shows she’s a member of groups called “We Voted for Hillary” and “Thank You Obama.” It was reported back in August that Strzok had been removed from the Mueller team to the FBI’s human resources department. Mueller’s office had declined for months to comment on the mysterious personnel move. It was also revealed on Monday that Strzok was the FBI agent responsible for softening language that Comey used in his July 5, 2016 statement closing the Clinton investigation. Strzok edited a rough draft of Comey’s speech, changing out the phrase “grossly negligent” — a term which has legal weight — with the softer phrase, “extremely careless.” (RELATED: Anti-Trump FBI Agent Softened Comey’s Description Of Clinton’s Email Conduct) The FBI and Special Counsel’s Office did not respond to requests for comment. Follow Chuck on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

tXWaHwYtB61wAJ5f

test

jbBY4VQ2OKcjBJiD

education

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/september/some-believe-it-rsquo-s-better-to-curb-free-speech-on-campus-rather-than-risk-lsquo-triggering-rsquo-students-and-professors

Some Believe It’s Better to Curb Free Speech on Campus Rather Than Risk ‘Triggering’ Students & Professors

2019-09-25

America is the land of liberty . But to have a free people , you need to have free speech . And that ’ s threatened in some places these days , and it seems mostly on college campuses . New polling shows just how much these seats of higher education are stifling free speech . The so-called thought police can be so strident that students are simply afraid to utter opinion because they fear it could lead to lower grades or even worse . A recent poll found that 68 percent of students believe the social and political climate on their campus keeps them from speaking freely . “ They fear that their classmates might find their opinions offensive , so they just don ’ t talk altogether , ” said Nicole Neily , president of Speech First , a group that fights for free speech on campuses . She mentioned another poll showing conservative students tend to censor themselves . “ 73 percent of strong Republicans say that they fear expressing opinions in class because they ’ re worried that their grade might suffer , ” Neily stated . She pointed out that ’ s because it ’ s often the professors who take offense . A recent article in The Blaze highlighted California State University Prof. Carlos Tejeda writing , “ I nearly had to cancel class because of how shaken I am about seeing a ‘ Build the Wall ’ banner on our campus . ” His emails about this to the faculty and staff on the Cal State U Los Angeles campus were obtained by Young America ’ s Foundation through a public records request . Tejeda advocated curbing what he sees as dangerous free speech , writing , “ …this poses a threat to the mental well-being of many of our students , staff , and faculty ; that it violates their sense of safety… ” Neily said of a recent incident , “ I actually was just on a panel with a professor from the University of Maryland this weekend . He said that he felt that students in class wearing something like a Make America Great hat would make him feel offended . ” The Speech First president pointed out that professors ’ reactions can lead to unfair treatment and gave ███ News an example of a Michigan student she knows . “ His professor saw him wearing a Trump button , and then refused to write him a letter of recommendation for med school , ” she explained . In another case , Northeast Wisconsin Technical College student Polly Olsen was busted for passing out Valentines . Apparently someone on campus was threatened or offended by that and turned her in . “ Every year she hands out hand-made Valentines that say ‘ Jesus loves you ’ for Valentine ’ s Day . She ’ s religious , ” Neily said of Olsen . “ And somebody filed a complaint against her for doing so , and the school tried to shut her down . They said , ‘ You ’ re not allowed to do this . ’ ” Olsen sued and won in court , the judge writing , “ Olsen was engaged in a constitutionally protected form of expression . ” Neily pointed out it ’ s often students themselves willing to curb the First Amendment because they think some speech can actually hurt them . “ They want to be free from emotional harm , ” she explained . “ Which is troubling in a way because you think ‘ this may be four years of your life , but you go out into the real world , you ’ re not going to be protected from emotional harm . ’ ” Neily added , “ You learn how to cope in the real world . For schools to bend over backwards to try to prevent a student from having their feelings hurt , from being faced with a tough situation , from being exposed to opinions that they dislike , is doing those students a disservice . ” The Speech First president finds it ironic that universities should be stifling free speech when they of all places should treasure the robust exchange of ideas and unfettered free speech . She stated , “ Universities were designed to be the place to pursue truth , however that comes to be – the clash of ideas , debating back and forth , Socratic dialogues , late-night arguments . ” Neily concluded , “ For universities to at this point , frankly , only have a very narrow window of dialogue that ’ s welcome on campuses , and to try and through underhanded means silence and shut down viewpoints outside of that – it ’ s fundamentally antithetical to their mission . ”

America is the land of liberty. But to have a free people, you need to have free speech. And that’s threatened in some places these days, and it seems mostly on college campuses. New polling shows just how much these seats of higher education are stifling free speech. The so-called thought police can be so strident that students are simply afraid to utter opinion because they fear it could lead to lower grades or even worse. A recent poll found that 68 percent of students believe the social and political climate on their campus keeps them from speaking freely. 73% Afraid to Speak Their Opinions “They fear that their classmates might find their opinions offensive, so they just don’t talk altogether,” said Nicole Neily, president of Speech First, a group that fights for free speech on campuses. She mentioned another poll showing conservative students tend to censor themselves. “73 percent of strong Republicans say that they fear expressing opinions in class because they’re worried that their grade might suffer,” Neily stated. She pointed out that’s because it’s often the professors who take offense. ‘Emotionally & Physically Triggered’ A recent article in The Blaze highlighted California State University Prof. Carlos Tejeda writing, “I nearly had to cancel class because of how shaken I am about seeing a ‘Build the Wall’ banner on our campus.” He described himself as “emotionally and physically triggered.” His emails about this to the faculty and staff on the Cal State U Los Angeles campus were obtained by Young America’s Foundation through a public records request. Tejeda advocated curbing what he sees as dangerous free speech, writing, “…this poses a threat to the mental well-being of many of our students, staff, and faculty; that it violates their sense of safety…” Hat or a Button Enough to Stir Up Trouble Neily said of a recent incident, “I actually was just on a panel with a professor from the University of Maryland this weekend. He said that he felt that students in class wearing something like a Make America Great hat would make him feel offended.” The Speech First president pointed out that professors’ reactions can lead to unfair treatment and gave CBN News an example of a Michigan student she knows. “His professor saw him wearing a Trump button, and then refused to write him a letter of recommendation for med school,” she explained. Even Valentines Can Trigger Someone In another case, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College student Polly Olsen was busted for passing out Valentines. Apparently someone on campus was threatened or offended by that and turned her in. “Every year she hands out hand-made Valentines that say ‘Jesus loves you’ for Valentine’s Day. She’s religious,” Neily said of Olsen. “And somebody filed a complaint against her for doing so, and the school tried to shut her down. They said, ‘You’re not allowed to do this.’” Olsen sued and won in court, the judge writing, “Olsen was engaged in a constitutionally protected form of expression.” They Believe Speech Can Actually Harm Them Neily pointed out it’s often students themselves willing to curb the First Amendment because they think some speech can actually hurt them. “They want to be free from emotional harm,” she explained. “Which is troubling in a way because you think ‘this may be four years of your life, but you go out into the real world, you’re not going to be protected from emotional harm.’” Neily added, “You learn how to cope in the real world. For schools to bend over backwards to try to prevent a student from having their feelings hurt, from being faced with a tough situation, from being exposed to opinions that they dislike, is doing those students a disservice.” What of the Robust Exchange of Ideas? The Speech First president finds it ironic that universities should be stifling free speech when they of all places should treasure the robust exchange of ideas and unfettered free speech. She stated, “Universities were designed to be the place to pursue truth, however that comes to be – the clash of ideas, debating back and forth, Socratic dialogues, late-night arguments.” Neily concluded, “For universities to at this point, frankly, only have a very narrow window of dialogue that’s welcome on campuses, and to try and through underhanded means silence and shut down viewpoints outside of that – it’s fundamentally antithetical to their mission.”

www1.cbn.com

right

jbBY4VQ2OKcjBJiD

test

xlYjCS5dOj57gkOa

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45266985

Will Donald Trump remain bulletproof after Manafort and Cohen?

Anthony Zurcher, North America Reporter

Tuesday 's duelling courtroom dramas in New York and Virginia were the kind of body blows that would stagger , if not fell , most presidencies . And those were just the two top headlines in a day that contained a string of dismal news for Donald Trump . Will any of this matter ? The president - at least among his base - has appeared politically bulletproof . Bulletproof for now , however , does n't necessarily mean bulletproof forever . At some point , the projectiles - perhaps after the mid-terms , when Republican control of Congress and power to set the political agenda may be blunted - may start finding the mark . Here 's a look at just how bad a day this was for the president . The president 's former personal lawyer did n't just stand in court on Tuesday and accuse the president of lying - although he did do that . By saying that Mr Trump - `` individual-1 '' in the plea agreement - directed him to make or oversee payments in 2016 to secure the silence of women poised to accuse the president of having adulterous affairs with them , he effectively implicated the president in the commission of a crime . Cohen admitted that his payments constituted campaign contributions that either were directed from an illegal corporate source or in excess of allowable amounts for an individual . Both acts carry a five-year maximum prison sentence . The president in the past has denied having any knowledge of the payments . His legal team has since walked that back and asserted that he only had general knowledge after the fact . Now , however , Cohen is saying Mr Trump knew about them from the start . And it 's not just Cohen 's word against the president 's . In the case of the payment to Karen MacDougal - `` woman-1 '' in the plea agreement - his lawyer has already released an audio recording in which Cohen and then-candidate Mr Trump discussed the issue . Add to this the fact that `` woman-2 '' , adult film actress Stormy Daniels , is now poised to resume her lawsuit against Mr Trump to get out of her non-disclosure agreement brokered by Cohen . A judge put the suit on hold pending the criminal investigation into Cohen , which now appears to be resolved . That suit could turn up more evidence of Mr Trump 's involvement in the illegal $ 130,000 hush-money payment Cohen has now confessed to making to her on the eve of the 2016 election . It 's heavy seas ahead for the president any way you look at it . Special Counsel Robert Mueller was under considerable pressure to get a conviction in his case against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort . Even though the charges did not directly relate to the central thrust of his investigation into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election , it was the first time his team had to face a jury . If they had walked away without a conviction , either through a hung jury or an outright acquittal , the accusations from Trump loyalists that the investigation was a waste of resources and time would have reached a fevered pitch . It was n't an across-the-board victory for Mr Mueller , given that the jury could n't reach a verdict on 10 of the 18 counts , but convictions on tax fraud , failing to disclose foreign bank accounts and bank fraud are points on the board . Add that to the numerous indictments of Russian individuals and companies and plea agreements already reached with Trump campaign officials George Papadopolous , Michael Flynn and Rick Gates , as well as with London lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and computer programmer Richard Pinedo , and the special counsel team is producing a growing list of accomplishments . After the verdicts were announced , Manafort 's lawyer told the press that his client was `` disappointed '' . That may be a bit of an understatement . Even with convictions on only eight of the 18 criminal counts against him , Mr Trump 's former campaign chair could be looking at a lengthy prison sentence . And Manafort faces a second trial in Washington DC next month for money laundering , acting as an unregistered foreign agent , conspiracy to defraud the US , making false statements and witness tampering . It 's the bulk of the legal case against the long-time Washington lobbyist . Manafort 's lawyers had insisted on the two separate trials , perhaps because they thought they he had a better chance of acquittal from an Alexandria jury or friendlier federal judges in the Northern Virginia district . If so , that plan backfired . Manafort may be hoping for a presidential pardon , given that Mr Trump has said his prosecution was politically motivated and that he was a `` good man '' . The president can only pardon for federal crimes , however , and Manafort 's conviction on tax fraud opens him up to future state-level charges , which Mr Trump has no power to forgive . Now 69-year-old Manafort is facing a lengthy prison sentence - and more legal battles to come . And while he has n't shown a willingness to co-operate with Mr Mueller 's investigation so far , that could change . Manafort , after all , attended the June 2016 Trump tower meeting set up by Donald Trump Jr with Russian nationals , originally billed as a means to gather damaging information about Democrat Hillary Clinton . He took a series of cryptic notes on the topic , which he might be willing to explain to the special counsel - in exchange for lightened sentence . Having one 's former campaign chair end up as a convicted felon is not good news . If Manafort flips , however , a bad day for Mr Trump could , in hindsight , be a catastrophic one . Buried under Tuesday afternoon 's news was another nugget from the special counsel 's office , that it has requested the sentencing of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn be delayed once again . `` Due to the status of the investigation , the Special Counsel 's Office does not believe that this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time , '' Mr Mueller 's lawyers told the court overseeing Flynn 's plea deal . That would indicate that Flynn , who has admitted to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials during the Trump presidential transition , is still co-operating with Mr Mueller and that his usefulness to the investigation is ongoing . It might also mean that a formal sentencing hearing could reveal information Mr Mueller would prefer to keep secret at this time . Either way , it 's a sign that , behind the scenes , gears are still grinding in Mr Mueller 's investigation . Two weeks ago Chris Collins of New York , the first member of the House of Representatives to endorse Mr Trump 's presidential bid , was indicted for insider trading . On Tuesday afternoon , Duncan Hunter - the second congressman to do so - was charged with using campaign funds for personal expenses , including trips for his family to Hawaii and Italy . Earlier in the day Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren unveiled a sweeping programme of political reform measures she said were necessary to address widespread political corruption in Washington DC . That included a ban on all lobbying by former top government officials , a prohibition of all members of Congress and White House staff from holding individual corporate stocks and a requirement that all president and vice-presidential candidates disclose eight years of tax returns . Similar calls for fixing a broken political system helped Democrats sweep into power in Congress in 2006 . It did the same for Republicans in 1994 . Mr Trump 's `` drain the swamp '' rhetoric was a constant rallying cry for his supporters in 2016 . After Tuesday 's onslaught of convictions , pleas and indictments , Warren 's slate of proposals could prove to be a potent mid-term weapon for Democrats this November , if they know how to use it .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Trump has effectively been implicated in the commission of a crime Tuesday's duelling courtroom dramas in New York and Virginia were the kind of body blows that would stagger, if not fell, most presidencies. And those were just the two top headlines in a day that contained a string of dismal news for Donald Trump. Will any of this matter? The president - at least among his base - has appeared politically bulletproof. Bulletproof for now, however, doesn't necessarily mean bulletproof forever. At some point, the projectiles - perhaps after the mid-terms, when Republican control of Congress and power to set the political agenda may be blunted - may start finding the mark. Here's a look at just how bad a day this was for the president. Cohen has implicated Trump in criminal conduct The president's former personal lawyer didn't just stand in court on Tuesday and accuse the president of lying - although he did do that. By saying that Mr Trump - "individual-1" in the plea agreement - directed him to make or oversee payments in 2016 to secure the silence of women poised to accuse the president of having adulterous affairs with them, he effectively implicated the president in the commission of a crime. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Cohen pleaded guilty in a Manhattan court to violating campaign finance laws Cohen admitted that his payments constituted campaign contributions that either were directed from an illegal corporate source or in excess of allowable amounts for an individual. Both acts carry a five-year maximum prison sentence. The president in the past has denied having any knowledge of the payments. His legal team has since walked that back and asserted that he only had general knowledge after the fact. Now, however, Cohen is saying Mr Trump knew about them from the start. And it's not just Cohen's word against the president's. In the case of the payment to Karen MacDougal - "woman-1" in the plea agreement - his lawyer has already released an audio recording in which Cohen and then-candidate Mr Trump discussed the issue. Add to this the fact that "woman-2", adult film actress Stormy Daniels, is now poised to resume her lawsuit against Mr Trump to get out of her non-disclosure agreement brokered by Cohen. A judge put the suit on hold pending the criminal investigation into Cohen, which now appears to be resolved. That suit could turn up more evidence of Mr Trump's involvement in the illegal $130,000 hush-money payment Cohen has now confessed to making to her on the eve of the 2016 election. It's heavy seas ahead for the president any way you look at it. Special counsel team notches a trial conviction Special Counsel Robert Mueller was under considerable pressure to get a conviction in his case against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. Even though the charges did not directly relate to the central thrust of his investigation into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, it was the first time his team had to face a jury. If they had walked away without a conviction, either through a hung jury or an outright acquittal, the accusations from Trump loyalists that the investigation was a waste of resources and time would have reached a fevered pitch. It wasn't an across-the-board victory for Mr Mueller, given that the jury couldn't reach a verdict on 10 of the 18 counts, but convictions on tax fraud, failing to disclose foreign bank accounts and bank fraud are points on the board. Add that to the numerous indictments of Russian individuals and companies and plea agreements already reached with Trump campaign officials George Papadopolous, Michael Flynn and Rick Gates, as well as with London lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and computer programmer Richard Pinedo, and the special counsel team is producing a growing list of accomplishments. Pressure on Manafort mounts After the verdicts were announced, Manafort's lawyer told the press that his client was "disappointed". That may be a bit of an understatement. Even with convictions on only eight of the 18 criminal counts against him, Mr Trump's former campaign chair could be looking at a lengthy prison sentence. And Manafort faces a second trial in Washington DC next month for money laundering, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, conspiracy to defraud the US, making false statements and witness tampering. It's the bulk of the legal case against the long-time Washington lobbyist. Image copyright Reuters Image caption Manafort was found guilty on eight charges of tax fraud, bank fraud and failing to disclose foreign banks accounts Manafort's lawyers had insisted on the two separate trials, perhaps because they thought they he had a better chance of acquittal from an Alexandria jury or friendlier federal judges in the Northern Virginia district. If so, that plan backfired. Manafort may be hoping for a presidential pardon, given that Mr Trump has said his prosecution was politically motivated and that he was a "good man". The president can only pardon for federal crimes, however, and Manafort's conviction on tax fraud opens him up to future state-level charges, which Mr Trump has no power to forgive. Now 69-year-old Manafort is facing a lengthy prison sentence - and more legal battles to come. And while he hasn't shown a willingness to co-operate with Mr Mueller's investigation so far, that could change. Manafort, after all, attended the June 2016 Trump tower meeting set up by Donald Trump Jr with Russian nationals, originally billed as a means to gather damaging information about Democrat Hillary Clinton. He took a series of cryptic notes on the topic, which he might be willing to explain to the special counsel - in exchange for lightened sentence. Having one's former campaign chair end up as a convicted felon is not good news. If Manafort flips, however, a bad day for Mr Trump could, in hindsight, be a catastrophic one. Flynn is still co-operating Buried under Tuesday afternoon's news was another nugget from the special counsel's office, that it has requested the sentencing of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn be delayed once again. "Due to the status of the investigation, the Special Counsel's Office does not believe that this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time," Mr Mueller's lawyers told the court overseeing Flynn's plea deal. That would indicate that Flynn, who has admitted to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials during the Trump presidential transition, is still co-operating with Mr Mueller and that his usefulness to the investigation is ongoing. It might also mean that a formal sentencing hearing could reveal information Mr Mueller would prefer to keep secret at this time. Either way, it's a sign that, behind the scenes, gears are still grinding in Mr Mueller's investigation. Another early Trump supporter is charged Two weeks ago Chris Collins of New York, the first member of the House of Representatives to endorse Mr Trump's presidential bid, was indicted for insider trading. On Tuesday afternoon, Duncan Hunter - the second congressman to do so - was charged with using campaign funds for personal expenses, including trips for his family to Hawaii and Italy. Earlier in the day Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren unveiled a sweeping programme of political reform measures she said were necessary to address widespread political corruption in Washington DC. That included a ban on all lobbying by former top government officials, a prohibition of all members of Congress and White House staff from holding individual corporate stocks and a requirement that all president and vice-presidential candidates disclose eight years of tax returns. Similar calls for fixing a broken political system helped Democrats sweep into power in Congress in 2006. It did the same for Republicans in 1994. Mr Trump's "drain the swamp" rhetoric was a constant rallying cry for his supporters in 2016. After Tuesday's onslaught of convictions, pleas and indictments, Warren's slate of proposals could prove to be a potent mid-term weapon for Democrats this November, if they know how to use it.

www.bbc.com

center

xlYjCS5dOj57gkOa

test

CMlCkaVjqLlkTMhI

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2016/12/16/thank-you-john-stossel-for-teaching-libe

Thank You, John Stossel, for Teaching Libertarians How to Do Cable News

2016-12-16

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

Tonight ( at 10 p.m . ET ) is the last-ever episode of Stossel , the weekly Fox Business Network program that for seven years explained free-market principles better than any show on television . Host John Stossel , as he explains here in his weekly column , is moving on to other pursuits , including creating great content right here with ███ TV , and he will still be a contributor over in the Fox building . His final episode , appropriately , is a survey through the show 's persistent and often hilarious attempts to illustrate difficult-to-visualize libertarian concepts using props , costumes , stunts , and engaging conversation , including with such beloved locals as Katherine Mangu-Ward ( pictured ) and Kmele Foster . I am honored to be one of the two live guests on tonight 's program , along with our great friend and frequent collaborator Kennedy . And therein lies a brief story . I first met Kennedy in June 2011 in the exact same place you 'll see us tonight : in Fox 's Studio D , sitting next to John Stossel . This was during an hour-long special he very generously put together to discuss The Declaration of Independents : How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What 's Wrong with America , which I had freshly co-written with Nick Gillespie . It was a galvanizing moment—I had been doing increasing amounts of cable news , but had never seen anyone with as much TV charisma and quick wit as this former VJ . Soon she would begin collaborating regularly with both ███ TV and Stossel , the latter of whom brought her on as a special correspondent even though he did n't know half the time what the hell she was talking about ( which , in typical John fashion , he would say out loud , on television ) . Lloyd Grove at The Daily Beast would later recount how the seeds of what would eventually flower as The Independents were planted at a ███ Weekend in Puerto Rico in February 2012 . Stossel , Grove wrote , served as a mentor and helped recruit Kennedy to the six-year-old network . `` She 's a libertarian and I love that—there are n't many libertarians on TV , '' Stossel says , adding that Kennedy `` is much more of a performer than I am . She lights up the screen . '' Some of their bonding occurred in the middle of a beach volleyball clinic that Stossel ran during a ███ weekend retreat in Puerto Rico . `` He was in volleyball shorts and shirtless , and the man is in better shape than most 20-year-olds I know , '' Kennedy says of the 66-year-old Stossel , who had been using her as a special correspondent since the summer of 2012 . `` He 's a really meticulous person , and his libertarian views evolved over time . I think when you start out as a liberal and you come to be a libertarian , you tend to be really forgiving of other people 's political evolution , and you realize that people can change and come into their own . Libertarians can be loners . A lot of us can feel like misfits . '' Kennedy was like a unicorn for Stossel : A libertarian who was already great at television . For the rest of his run , John labored at the largely thankless and rarely acknowledged task of training questionably dressed free-market types like me to be less like Broadcast News ' Albert Brooks and just a wee more William Hurt-ish . There were the green-room coachings ( `` Do n't bore people with a bunch of numbers ! `` ) , the on-set eye-glazes when you wandered off point , the cutting quips about questionable ties . It was tough love , but , well , you have to consider the raw material here . The result of Stossel 's conscious exertions is that the universe of camera-ready libertarians is much larger and considerably more polished than it was seven years ago . ( Judge Andrew Napolitano 's late , lamented Freedom Watch also deserves a shout-out here for giving reps to us rabble . ) Next-generation shows like Kennedy get to take their libertarianism more for granted precisely because Stossel had done the shovel work ( * cough * ) of introducing fundamental concepts and breaking in nerds . So thank you , John Stossel , not just for making a damn fine program for millions of Americans , but for helping groom some of us to make our own TV programming , now and into a bright future . And make sure , everyone , to tune in at 10 p.m . ET and again at midnight , to see what Kennedy and I have in store for the 'stache !

Tonight (at 10 p.m. ET) is the last-ever episode of Stossel, the weekly Fox Business Network program that for seven years explained free-market principles better than any show on television. Host John Stossel, as he explains here in his weekly column, is moving on to other pursuits, including creating great content right here with Reason TV, and he will still be a contributor over in the Fox building. His final episode, appropriately, is a survey through the show's persistent and often hilarious attempts to illustrate difficult-to-visualize libertarian concepts using props, costumes, stunts, and engaging conversation, including with such beloved locals as Katherine Mangu-Ward (pictured) and Kmele Foster. I am honored to be one of the two live guests on tonight's program, along with our great friend and frequent collaborator Kennedy. And therein lies a brief story. I first met Kennedy in June 2011 in the exact same place you'll see us tonight: in Fox's Studio D, sitting next to John Stossel. This was during an hour-long special he very generously put together to discuss The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America, which I had freshly co-written with Nick Gillespie. It was a galvanizing moment—I had been doing increasing amounts of cable news, but had never seen anyone with as much TV charisma and quick wit as this former VJ. Soon she would begin collaborating regularly with both Reason TV and Stossel, the latter of whom brought her on as a special correspondent even though he didn't know half the time what the hell she was talking about (which, in typical John fashion, he would say out loud, on television). Lloyd Grove at The Daily Beast would later recount how the seeds of what would eventually flower as The Independents were planted at a Reason Weekend in Puerto Rico in February 2012. Stossel, Grove wrote, served as a mentor and helped recruit Kennedy to the six-year-old network. "She's a libertarian and I love that—there aren't many libertarians on TV," Stossel says, adding that Kennedy "is much more of a performer than I am. She lights up the screen." Some of their bonding occurred in the middle of a beach volleyball clinic that Stossel ran during a Reason weekend retreat in Puerto Rico. "He was in volleyball shorts and shirtless, and the man is in better shape than most 20-year-olds I know," Kennedy says of the 66-year-old Stossel, who had been using her as a special correspondent since the summer of 2012. "He's a really meticulous person, and his libertarian views evolved over time. I think when you start out as a liberal and you come to be a libertarian, you tend to be really forgiving of other people's political evolution, and you realize that people can change and come into their own. Libertarians can be loners. A lot of us can feel like misfits." Kennedy was like a unicorn for Stossel: A libertarian who was already great at television. For the rest of his run, John labored at the largely thankless and rarely acknowledged task of training questionably dressed free-market types like me to be less like Broadcast News' Albert Brooks and just a wee more William Hurt-ish. There were the green-room coachings ("Don't bore people with a bunch of numbers!"), the on-set eye-glazes when you wandered off point, the cutting quips about questionable ties. It was tough love, but, well, you have to consider the raw material here. The result of Stossel's conscious exertions is that the universe of camera-ready libertarians is much larger and considerably more polished than it was seven years ago. (Judge Andrew Napolitano's late, lamented Freedom Watch also deserves a shout-out here for giving reps to us rabble.) Next-generation shows like Kennedy get to take their libertarianism more for granted precisely because Stossel had done the shovel work (*cough*) of introducing fundamental concepts and breaking in nerds. So thank you, John Stossel, not just for making a damn fine program for millions of Americans, but for helping groom some of us to make our own TV programming, now and into a bright future. And make sure, everyone, to tune in at 10 p.m. ET and again at midnight, to see what Kennedy and I have in store for the 'stache! UPDATE: Stossel was on Kennedy last night; here's the video:

www.reason.com

right

CMlCkaVjqLlkTMhI

test

q38tPq9lkbF0ZE7p

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/20/pro-trump-pundits-sour-on-sessions/

Pro-Trump Pundits Sour On Sessions

2017-07-20

Some of President Trump ’ s strongest supporters in the media have lost faith in Attorney General Jeff Sessions . Trump tore into Sessions in an interview with The New York Times Wednesday , expressing regret for choosing him as attorney general . The White House said on Thursday that Trump still has confidence in Sessions , but noted that firing Sessions would be within Trump ’ s authority as president . While the White House claims that Trump has confidence in Sessions , some of the loudest pro-Trump voices are openly turning on Sessions . “ I know that Sessions does not have the confidence of the President . He should resign , ” longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone told a Washingtonian writer on Wednesday . “ Trump should fire Sessions and appoint [ Texas Sen. Ted ] Cruz Attorney General , ” said GotNews writer Chuck Johnson in a Facebook post Thursday morning . “ Cruz is pro-Constitution and an order of magnitude smarter than Sessions . ” Right-wing blogger Mike Cernovich , whose work Donald Trump Jr. has publicly praised , blasted Sessions as “ out of touch , ” adding that the attorney general “ has to go . ” New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin was calling on Trump to fire Sessions even before the NYT interview . “ Instead of firing the special counsel , which would serve as a rallying cry to the left and alienate some Republicans , Trump should wage a smart campaign to fight Mueller , ” Goodwin wrote on Monday . “ He can begin by firing two other people — Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy , Rod Rosenstein . ” Fox News host Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh stopped short of saying Sessions should resign or be fired but both of them , like Trump , appear to have soured on Sessions . Hannity criticized Sessions on his radio show Wednesday for not reopening the investigation into former secretary of state Hillary Clinton ’ s email server . “ I don ’ t know where Jeff Sessions is , maybe something ’ s happening that we don ’ t know about , ” Hannity said . He added : “ I ’ m like , OK , we have a new attorney general , statute of limitations have not gone anywhere , why isn ’ t this woman being investigated ? ” Radio host Rush Limbaugh similarly appeared to side with Trump over Sessions on Thursday . “ And this recusal just blindsided [ Trump ] . I ’ ll tell you why . I think Trump believed , since Sessions was so willing in the Senate to go against amnesty and to go against comprehensive immigration reform , I am convinced that Trump thought that Sessions was a fighter just like Trump sees himself . And then when Sessions recused , Trump was surprised , ” Limbaugh said . “ And if I were in Trump ’ s shoes I would be so livid about [ the Russia investigation ] I wouldn ’ t be able to contain myself the way he is . It is that absurd , ” Limbaugh added . “ This is totally ridiculous . ”

Some of President Trump’s strongest supporters in the media have lost faith in Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Trump tore into Sessions in an interview with The New York Times Wednesday, expressing regret for choosing him as attorney general. The White House said on Thursday that Trump still has confidence in Sessions, but noted that firing Sessions would be within Trump’s authority as president. While the White House claims that Trump has confidence in Sessions, some of the loudest pro-Trump voices are openly turning on Sessions. “I know that Sessions does not have the confidence of the President. He should resign,” longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone told a Washingtonian writer on Wednesday. “Trump should fire Sessions and appoint [Texas Sen. Ted] Cruz Attorney General,” said GotNews writer Chuck Johnson in a Facebook post Thursday morning. “Cruz is pro-Constitution and an order of magnitude smarter than Sessions.” Right-wing blogger Mike Cernovich, whose work Donald Trump Jr. has publicly praised, blasted Sessions as “out of touch,” adding that the attorney general “has to go.” New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin was calling on Trump to fire Sessions even before the NYT interview. “Instead of firing the special counsel, which would serve as a rallying cry to the left and alienate some Republicans, Trump should wage a smart campaign to fight Mueller,” Goodwin wrote on Monday. “He can begin by firing two other people — Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein.” Fox News host Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh stopped short of saying Sessions should resign or be fired but both of them, like Trump, appear to have soured on Sessions. Hannity criticized Sessions on his radio show Wednesday for not reopening the investigation into former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s email server. “I don’t know where Jeff Sessions is, maybe something’s happening that we don’t know about,” Hannity said. He added: “I’m like, OK, we have a new attorney general, statute of limitations have not gone anywhere, why isn’t this woman being investigated?” Radio host Rush Limbaugh similarly appeared to side with Trump over Sessions on Thursday. “And this recusal just blindsided [Trump]. I’ll tell you why. I think Trump believed, since Sessions was so willing in the Senate to go against amnesty and to go against comprehensive immigration reform, I am convinced that Trump thought that Sessions was a fighter just like Trump sees himself. And then when Sessions recused, Trump was surprised,” Limbaugh said. “And if I were in Trump’s shoes I would be so livid about [the Russia investigation] I wouldn’t be able to contain myself the way he is. It is that absurd,” Limbaugh added. “This is totally ridiculous.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

q38tPq9lkbF0ZE7p

test

0sio5gyBqDchUGdx

national_defense

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/27/us-usa-bergdahl-idUSKBN0L01XS20150127

Bowe Bergdahl to face desertion charges

2015-01-27

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion for disappearing from his base in Afghanistan in 2009 , NBC News reported on Tuesday . U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Berghdal is pictured in this undated handout photo provided by the U.S. Army and received by ███ on May 31 , 2014 . ███/U.S . Army/Handout via ███ Bergdahl , who was released from captivity last year in a controversial Taliban prisoner swap , could be charged within a week , the television network said , quoting senior defense officials who were not identified by name . However , senior Army and defense officials contacted by ███ could not confirm the report . The officer in charge of the case , General Mark Milley , is reviewing facts and findings submitted by Army investigators last month and has not publicly said whether he will file charges , said spokesman Jim Hinnant . Milley heads the Fort Bragg , North Carolina-based U.S . Forces Command . Milley is expected to make a decision soon on whether the findings merit a court-martial or some form of administrative punishment . The general also could decide no action against Bergdahl is warranted . Bergdahl ’ s attorney , New Haven , Connecticut-based Eugene Fidell , declined to comment on NBC ’ s report . Bergdahl is stationed at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio , where he is working as a clerk . The soldier , who spent five years in captivity after leaving his post , was released in May in exchange for five prisoners from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay , Cuba . The deal was blasted by some Republicans , and some of his fellow soldiers called him a deserter . If officials conclude that Bergdahl broke U.S. military law , they could force him to forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay accumulated during his captivity and give up future benefits , NBC said . According to the network , charges against Bergdahl will not say that he left the base with the intent to never return . Citing defense and military officials , the network also said that he could be given a less than honorable discharge . He would also likely be given consideration for his time in captivity , NBC quoted officials as saying .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl will be charged with desertion for disappearing from his base in Afghanistan in 2009, NBC News reported on Tuesday. U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Berghdal is pictured in this undated handout photo provided by the U.S. Army and received by Reuters on May 31, 2014. REUTERS/U.S. Army/Handout via Reuters Bergdahl, who was released from captivity last year in a controversial Taliban prisoner swap, could be charged within a week, the television network said, quoting senior defense officials who were not identified by name. However, senior Army and defense officials contacted by Reuters could not confirm the report. The officer in charge of the case, General Mark Milley, is reviewing facts and findings submitted by Army investigators last month and has not publicly said whether he will file charges, said spokesman Jim Hinnant. Milley heads the Fort Bragg, North Carolina-based U.S. Forces Command. Milley is expected to make a decision soon on whether the findings merit a court-martial or some form of administrative punishment. The general also could decide no action against Bergdahl is warranted. Bergdahl’s attorney, New Haven, Connecticut-based Eugene Fidell, declined to comment on NBC’s report. Bergdahl is stationed at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, where he is working as a clerk. The soldier, who spent five years in captivity after leaving his post, was released in May in exchange for five prisoners from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The deal was blasted by some Republicans, and some of his fellow soldiers called him a deserter. If officials conclude that Bergdahl broke U.S. military law, they could force him to forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay accumulated during his captivity and give up future benefits, NBC said. According to the network, charges against Bergdahl will not say that he left the base with the intent to never return. Citing defense and military officials, the network also said that he could be given a less than honorable discharge. He would also likely be given consideration for his time in captivity, NBC quoted officials as saying.

www.reuters.com

center

0sio5gyBqDchUGdx

test

oAMZxlf4HxoUXGDP

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/august/should-he-stay-of-should-he-go-the-gop-riff-over-attorney-general-sessions

Should He Stay of Should He Go? The GOP Riff Over Attorney General Sessions

2018-08-27

WASHINGTON – A potential rift is growing within the GOP over the future of Attorney General Jeff Sessions . `` The president is entitled to an attorney general he has faith in , somebody that 's qualified for the job , '' Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) told reporters . While Graham may back the president 's frustration , others are stressing caution . `` The idea that Jeff Sessions might be fired because he 's not a political hack is a very , very bad idea , '' warned Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) . `` There may be a few isolated voices saying that the president ought to fire him now ; I can tell you as a body , we 're saying please do n't , '' echoed Sen. Jeff Flake ( R-AZ ) during an interview with NBC 's `` Meet the Press . '' In a recent interview with Fox News , President Donald Trump hammered Sessions over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation . `` Jeff Sessions never took control of the Justice Department . It 's sort of an incredible thing , '' he said . `` He took the job and then he said , ' I 'm going to recuse myself . ' I said , 'What kind of a man is this ? '' Trump questioned . In a rare move , Sessions responded to the president 's jabs , saying , `` The actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations . '' This comes after former Trump attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws . He also accused the president of ordering him to do so . Cohen was caught during special counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials . Democrats are n't talking impeachment yet , but should they take the House in November they 'll begin their own investigations . `` We should be investigating all of those things – the interference of the Russians in our investigations , what we can do to make sure that ca n't happen again , who in the United States aided and abetted that , '' said Rep. Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) . According to a report from Axios ' Jonathan Swan , Republicans are gearing up for a wide range of investigations , even circulating a spreadsheet with a list of possible inquiries including the president 's tax returns and The White House staff 's use of personal email . Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz says the case for impeachment simply is n't there . `` I fully understand why so many people want , hope that President Trump has committed crimes and impeachable offenses , but the evidence is n't there , '' he told ABC 's `` This Week . '' And more legal news surrounding the President , Trump 's CFO Allen Weisselberg and National Inquirer publisher David Pecker , were also given immunity to testify to Southern District of New York 's case surrounding Michael Cohen . Still , the president 's supporters point out none of it has anything to do with Russia collusion .

WASHINGTON – A potential rift is growing within the GOP over the future of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "The president is entitled to an attorney general he has faith in, somebody that's qualified for the job," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters. While Graham may back the president's frustration, others are stressing caution. "The idea that Jeff Sessions might be fired because he's not a political hack is a very, very bad idea," warned Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). "There may be a few isolated voices saying that the president ought to fire him now; I can tell you as a body, we're saying please don't," echoed Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) during an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." In a recent interview with Fox News, President Donald Trump hammered Sessions over his decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. "Jeff Sessions never took control of the Justice Department. It's sort of an incredible thing," he said. "He took the job and then he said, 'I'm going to recuse myself.' I said, 'What kind of a man is this?" Trump questioned. In a rare move, Sessions responded to the president's jabs, saying, "The actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations." This comes after former Trump attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws. He also accused the president of ordering him to do so. Cohen was caught during special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Democrats aren't talking impeachment yet, but should they take the House in November they'll begin their own investigations. "We should be investigating all of those things – the interference of the Russians in our investigations, what we can do to make sure that can't happen again, who in the United States aided and abetted that," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). According to a report from Axios' Jonathan Swan, Republicans are gearing up for a wide range of investigations, even circulating a spreadsheet with a list of possible inquiries including the president's tax returns and The White House staff's use of personal email. Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz says the case for impeachment simply isn't there. "I fully understand why so many people want, hope that President Trump has committed crimes and impeachable offenses, but the evidence isn't there," he told ABC's "This Week." And more legal news surrounding the President, Trump's CFO Allen Weisselberg and National Inquirer publisher David Pecker, were also given immunity to testify to Southern District of New York's case surrounding Michael Cohen. Still, the president's supporters point out none of it has anything to do with Russia collusion.

www1.cbn.com

right

oAMZxlf4HxoUXGDP

test

7TovO9jDARQl35rp

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/22/aunt-jemima-quaker-oats-relatives-family-history-racism-packaging-removal/

‘This Comes As A Slap In The Face’: Relatives Of Aunt Jemima Actresses Speak Out Against Rebranding

2020-06-22

The relatives of two women who portrayed Aunt Jemima aren ’ t favorable to Quaker Oats ’ decision to rebrand amid accusations that the icon is a racist depiction , numerous sources reported . Relatives of two women who portrayed Aunt Jemima in the 1920s and 1930s are concerned that the removal of the character will erase their history , Patch reported . “ This is an injustice for me and my family . This is part of my history , sir , ” Larnell Evans Sr. , a great-grandson of Anna Short Harrington , who portrayed Aunt Jemima , told Patch . Harrington played Aunt Jemima after being discovered at the New York State Fair in 1935 . Critics of the character claim that Aunt Jemima “ is based on a racial stereotype. ” Quaker Oats announced the removal of the image June 17 , saying that it was part of an effort “ to make progress toward racial equality. ” ( RELATED : Quaker Announces That It Will Change Name , Remove Logo From Aunt Jemima Brand ) But Evans said the news of rebranding “ comes as a slap in the fact , ” according to NBC . “ She worked 25 years doing it . She improved their product … what they ’ re trying to do is ludicrous . ” The family of Lillian Richard , who became an ambassador for the brand after being discovered by the company in Dallas , is also concerned that the rebranding will erase their aunt ’ s legacy . “ We just don ’ t want my aunt ’ s legacy — what she did making an honest living at the time — to be wiped away , ” Vera Harris , Richard ’ s great niece , said according to Fox 6 . “ Her story should not be erased from history . ” Harris understands why Quaker Oats made the decision , but her family is proud of her aunt having made an honest living and wants to honor her legacy . Harris and her family have spearheaded multiple efforts to honor Richard , including putting signs leading to Hawkins , Texas that read “ Home of Lillian Richard ‘ Aunt Jemima , ’ ” according to NBC . “ If we wipe out our history , we have nothing to strive for in the future , ” she added . “ Our history will help us prosper in the future , ” Harris told Fox 6 . Evans , too , is hurt that his relative ’ s history is being erased . “ The racism they talk about , using images from slavery , that comes from the other side — white people . This company profits off images of our slavery . And their answer is to erase my great-grandmother ’ s history . A black female . … It hurts , ” he told Patch .

The relatives of two women who portrayed Aunt Jemima aren’t favorable to Quaker Oats’ decision to rebrand amid accusations that the icon is a racist depiction, numerous sources reported. Relatives of two women who portrayed Aunt Jemima in the 1920s and 1930s are concerned that the removal of the character will erase their history, Patch reported. “This is an injustice for me and my family. This is part of my history, sir,” Larnell Evans Sr., a great-grandson of Anna Short Harrington, who portrayed Aunt Jemima, told Patch. Harrington played Aunt Jemima after being discovered at the New York State Fair in 1935. Critics of the character claim that Aunt Jemima “is based on a racial stereotype.” Quaker Oats announced the removal of the image June 17, saying that it was part of an effort “to make progress toward racial equality.” (RELATED: Quaker Announces That It Will Change Name, Remove Logo From Aunt Jemima Brand) But Evans said the news of rebranding “comes as a slap in the fact,” according to NBC. “She worked 25 years doing it. She improved their product … what they’re trying to do is ludicrous.” The family of Lillian Richard, who became an ambassador for the brand after being discovered by the company in Dallas, is also concerned that the rebranding will erase their aunt’s legacy. “We just don’t want my aunt’s legacy — what she did making an honest living at the time — to be wiped away,” Vera Harris, Richard’s great niece, said according to Fox 6. “Her story should not be erased from history.” Harris understands why Quaker Oats made the decision, but her family is proud of her aunt having made an honest living and wants to honor her legacy. Harris and her family have spearheaded multiple efforts to honor Richard, including putting signs leading to Hawkins, Texas that read “Home of Lillian Richard ‘Aunt Jemima,’” according to NBC. “If we wipe out our history, we have nothing to strive for in the future,” she added. “Our history will help us prosper in the future,” Harris told Fox 6. Evans, too, is hurt that his relative’s history is being erased. “The racism they talk about, using images from slavery, that comes from the other side — white people. This company profits off images of our slavery. And their answer is to erase my great-grandmother’s history. A black female. … It hurts,” he told Patch.

www.dailycaller.com

right

7TovO9jDARQl35rp

test

Hf94qdpyJMwAWxWZ

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/january/800-000-federal-workers-return-to-work-but-for-how-long

800,000 Federal Workers Return to Work, But for How Long?

2019-01-28

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is n't so sure lawmakers will reach an agreement to secure the border by Feb. 15 . In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Sunday , the president stated , `` I personally think it 's less than 50-50 , but you have a lot of very good people on that board . '' And if it does n't happen ? Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney says the president is `` willing '' to allow for another partial shutdown but maintains that is n't the goal . Garnering congressional support for a second shutdown in two months may also be a hard sell . `` I do n't know how any administration or member of Congress could think that a shutdown was a worthy pursuit , '' Senator Susan Collins ( R-ME ) told CBS 's `` Face the Nation . '' As part of a three-week deal , a bipartisan group of 17 lawmakers from the House and Senate will hash out a plan all sides can agree on . Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-MO ) , who is part of that team , says he 's `` reasonably optimistic '' a deal can be made . Democrats admit the president has made progress by getting rid of a plan for a `` concrete wall from sea to shining sea , '' but are pushing for more . `` Making sure that there 's a bill that 's evidence-based in terms of securing our borders , '' Rep. Hakeem Jeffries ( D-NY ) told NBC 's `` Meet the Press . '' Meanwhile , nearly 800,000 government workers returned to work Monday – relieved but cautious . `` They want to try to do in three weeks what they could n't do in five weeks . So anyone that asks us , 'What do you think 's going to happen ? ' They 're going to shut down the government again , '' said one federal worker . But it may not end in another partial shutdown . The president maintains he could declare a national emergency to fund the wall . That 's something his GOP colleagues fear , with some suggesting it sets a dangerous precedent . `` There might be a future president that I do n't agree with , thinks something else is an emergency , '' lamented Blunt . `` If we 'll do our job he wo n't even have to consider going there three weeks from now . ''

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump isn't so sure lawmakers will reach an agreement to secure the border by Feb. 15. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Sunday, the president stated, "I personally think it's less than 50-50, but you have a lot of very good people on that board." And if it doesn't happen? Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney says the president is "willing" to allow for another partial shutdown but maintains that isn't the goal. Garnering congressional support for a second shutdown in two months may also be a hard sell. "I don't know how any administration or member of Congress could think that a shutdown was a worthy pursuit," Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) told CBS's "Face the Nation." As part of a three-week deal, a bipartisan group of 17 lawmakers from the House and Senate will hash out a plan all sides can agree on. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who is part of that team, says he's "reasonably optimistic" a deal can be made. Democrats admit the president has made progress by getting rid of a plan for a "concrete wall from sea to shining sea," but are pushing for more. "Making sure that there's a bill that's evidence-based in terms of securing our borders," Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told NBC's "Meet the Press." Meanwhile, nearly 800,000 government workers returned to work Monday – relieved but cautious. "They want to try to do in three weeks what they couldn't do in five weeks. So anyone that asks us, 'What do you think's going to happen?' They're going to shut down the government again," said one federal worker. But it may not end in another partial shutdown. The president maintains he could declare a national emergency to fund the wall. That's something his GOP colleagues fear, with some suggesting it sets a dangerous precedent. "There might be a future president that I don't agree with, thinks something else is an emergency," lamented Blunt. "If we'll do our job he won't even have to consider going there three weeks from now."

www1.cbn.com

right

Hf94qdpyJMwAWxWZ

test

LVgjBaOEaY5OvFwu

race_and_racism

Salon

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/12/watchdog-calls-on-va-to-remove-headstones-inscribed-with-swastikas-from-national-military-cemetery/

Watchdog calls on VA to remove headstones inscribed with swastikas from national military cemetery

2020-05-12

A nonprofit civil rights organization committed to preserving religious freedom in the military has asked the Department of Veterans Affairs to remove marble headstones inscribed with Nazi iconography and a phrase honoring Adolf Hitler at the graves of two German prisoners of war in a national cemetery in San Antonio . Along with the soldiers ' names and dates of birth and death , the headstones are engraved with a swastika in the center of an iron cross — an award for valor — and the phrase , `` He died far from his home for the Führer , people and fatherland . '' `` The Führer '' is the name Hitler gave to himself . Mikey Weinstein , chair of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation ( MRFF ) , was tipped off to the headstones by a former active duty senior officer in the U.S. military . He shared photographs of the headstones with ███ . Weinstein , who is Jewish , wrote Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie demanding that the department `` immediately replace the gravestones of all German military personnel interred in V.A . National Cemeteries '' and ensure that no Nazi-era symbols remain in U.S. military graveyards . `` Indeed , V.A . Secretary Wilkie must first timely explain why any such former enemy military personnel are even buried in V.A . national cemeteries in the first place alongside our honored deceased American veterans , '' Weinstein said . Les ' Melnyk , the head of public affairs and outreach for the V.A . National Cemetery Administration , told ███ in an email that the agency `` will continue to preserve these headstones , like every past administration has . '' It is not immediately clear whether any past administration has fielded a similar call to remove the headstones . The Fort Sam Houston V.A . cemetery is home to 133,154 American veterans , spouses or their children . Its `` Section Z '' hosts the remains of 140 prisoners of war from World War II , 132 of which were German . By the end of World War II , nearly half a million Axis prisoners of war were transferred to about 700 camps in the U.S . The vast majority were repatriated at the end of the war , but POWs who died in the U.S. were buried at their prisons and sometimes reinterred in national cemeteries when camps shut down . It is unclear why the remains of these two POWs , both of whom died in 1943 , were not repatriated nor why their gravestones were inscribed with Nazi iconography and given military distinction . The former military officer who shared the photos — who is Jewish — saw the headstones when he was paying respects to his grandfather , an ambulance driver who fought against the Germans in World War II . His father was also enlisted , and his uncle and aunt are both buried at the same cemetery . `` There are Nazis here today , and they could gather around these symbols . You know , 'Here are the martyrs that died for our cause , ' '' he told ███ . `` It 's an outrage . '' Along with the German prisoners of war , the cemetery is home to four Italian , three Japanese and one Austrian . Historical records show that the POWs were buried in Section Z starting in 1947 , according to a 2012 article about the cemetery in a local San Antonio publication . `` When they first buried the PWs out there , the section they were in was about as far from the active part of the cemetery as you can get and still be in the cemetery , '' former Fort Sam Houston Museum director John Manguso told the paper . `` But , as time went on , the cemetery expanded out past where they 're buried and so now they 're about in the geographic center of it . '' The VA routinely changes out headstones if appropriately requested , such as for errors in spelling or dates . The military also keeps a registry of Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers , and neither the iron cross nor the swastika appear on the official list . `` Somebody had to make a decision putting these Nazi symbols and that inscription honoring Adolf Hitler on those headstones , '' said the retired senior officer , who also had family members among the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust . `` Somebody had to do it . '' Displays of white supremacy and anti-Semitism in the U.S. increased dramatically following Trump 's ascension to the presidency . Among them was the 2018 massacre at Pittsburgh 's Tree of Life synagogue , which was the deadliest anti-Semitic terrorist attack in U.S. history . But white supremacism has long nested in American culture , including in the military . Pollsters found in 2017 that nearly one in four armed service members — and more than 40 percent of people of color in uniform — had encountered someone promoting white nationalism in the military . Republicans in Congress quietly removed the term `` white nationalist '' from a defense bill amendment aimed at keeping white nationalists out of the military last year , according to Rep. Pete Aguilar , D-Calif . The retired military officer pointed out that the remains of the Nazi officers hanged at the Nuremburg trials were cremated and tossed into the Iscar River , so their resting places would not be shrines or destinations for Nazi pilgrims . Weinstein 's group is now calling on the V.A . to apologize — and explain why it has used taxpayer money to maintain the gravestones . `` In light of the shocking and inexcusable existence of these Nazi-adorned gravesites in V.A . National Cemeteries , MRFF demands that you , Secretary Wilkie , issue an immediate and heartfelt apology to all United States veterans and their families , '' he wrote in a statement to the department . You can read Melnyk 's statement on behalf of the V.A . National Cemetery Administration below :

A nonprofit civil rights organization committed to preserving religious freedom in the military has asked the Department of Veterans Affairs to remove marble headstones inscribed with Nazi iconography and a phrase honoring Adolf Hitler at the graves of two German prisoners of war in a national cemetery in San Antonio. Along with the soldiers' names and dates of birth and death, the headstones are engraved with a swastika in the center of an iron cross — an award for valor — and the phrase, "He died far from his home for the Führer, people and fatherland." "The Führer" is the name Hitler gave to himself. Advertisement: Mikey Weinstein, chair of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), was tipped off to the headstones by a former active duty senior officer in the U.S. military. He shared photographs of the headstones with Salon. Weinstein, who is Jewish, wrote Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie demanding that the department "immediately replace the gravestones of all German military personnel interred in V.A. National Cemeteries" and ensure that no Nazi-era symbols remain in U.S. military graveyards. "Indeed, V.A. Secretary Wilkie must first timely explain why any such former enemy military personnel are even buried in V.A. national cemeteries in the first place alongside our honored deceased American veterans," Weinstein said. Advertisement: Les' Melnyk, the head of public affairs and outreach for the V.A. National Cemetery Administration, told Salon in an email that the agency "will continue to preserve these headstones, like every past administration has." It is not immediately clear whether any past administration has fielded a similar call to remove the headstones. The Fort Sam Houston V.A. cemetery is home to 133,154 American veterans, spouses or their children. Its "Section Z" hosts the remains of 140 prisoners of war from World War II, 132 of which were German. By the end of World War II, nearly half a million Axis prisoners of war were transferred to about 700 camps in the U.S. The vast majority were repatriated at the end of the war, but POWs who died in the U.S. were buried at their prisons and sometimes reinterred in national cemeteries when camps shut down. Advertisement: It is unclear why the remains of these two POWs, both of whom died in 1943, were not repatriated nor why their gravestones were inscribed with Nazi iconography and given military distinction. The former military officer who shared the photos — who is Jewish — saw the headstones when he was paying respects to his grandfather, an ambulance driver who fought against the Germans in World War II. His father was also enlisted, and his uncle and aunt are both buried at the same cemetery. Advertisement: "There are Nazis here today, and they could gather around these symbols. You know, 'Here are the martyrs that died for our cause,'" he told Salon. "It's an outrage." Along with the German prisoners of war, the cemetery is home to four Italian, three Japanese and one Austrian. Historical records show that the POWs were buried in Section Z starting in 1947, according to a 2012 article about the cemetery in a local San Antonio publication. "When they first buried the PWs out there, the section they were in was about as far from the active part of the cemetery as you can get and still be in the cemetery," former Fort Sam Houston Museum director John Manguso told the paper. "But, as time went on, the cemetery expanded out past where they're buried and so now they're about in the geographic center of it." Advertisement: The VA routinely changes out headstones if appropriately requested, such as for errors in spelling or dates. The military also keeps a registry of Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers, and neither the iron cross nor the swastika appear on the official list. "Somebody had to make a decision putting these Nazi symbols and that inscription honoring Adolf Hitler on those headstones," said the retired senior officer, who also had family members among the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust. "Somebody had to do it." Displays of white supremacy and anti-Semitism in the U.S. increased dramatically following Trump's ascension to the presidency. Among them was the 2018 massacre at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue, which was the deadliest anti-Semitic terrorist attack in U.S. history. But white supremacism has long nested in American culture, including in the military. Advertisement: Pollsters found in 2017 that nearly one in four armed service members — and more than 40 percent of people of color in uniform — had encountered someone promoting white nationalism in the military. Republicans in Congress quietly removed the term "white nationalist" from a defense bill amendment aimed at keeping white nationalists out of the military last year, according to Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif. The retired military officer pointed out that the remains of the Nazi officers hanged at the Nuremburg trials were cremated and tossed into the Iscar River, so their resting places would not be shrines or destinations for Nazi pilgrims. Weinstein's group is now calling on the V.A. to apologize — and explain why it has used taxpayer money to maintain the gravestones. "In light of the shocking and inexcusable existence of these Nazi-adorned gravesites in V.A. National Cemeteries, MRFF demands that you, Secretary Wilkie, issue an immediate and heartfelt apology to all United States veterans and their families," he wrote in a statement to the department. You can read Melnyk's statement on behalf of the V.A. National Cemetery Administration below: Advertisement:

www.salon.com

left

LVgjBaOEaY5OvFwu

test

cobvLeHTgnFpsiFw

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-there-is-no-debt-crisis/

President Obama: There Is No Debt Crisis

Jonathan Karl

There has been no shortage of dire warnings about the mounting US national debt , but President Obama is now offering a different assessment : no big deal . `` We do n't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt , '' President Obama said in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulos for `` Good Morning America . '' `` In fact , for the next 10 years , it 's gon na be in a sustainable place . '' It 's an assessment that will throw cold water on the latest attempt to achieve a so-called grand bargain to reduce the deficit . After all , a grand bargain would require excruciatingly difficult decisions for both sides - for Republicans , it would mean raising taxes , and for Democrats , cutting future spending on cherished programs like Social Security and Medicare . If there is no crisis , why would either side do it ? So , what happens if this latest effort to reach a deficit agreement falls through ? Once again , the president 's answer was , essentially , no big deal . `` Ultimately , it may be that the differences are just too wide '' to get a deal , President Obama said . `` That wo n't create a crisis . It just means that we will have missed an opportunity . '' The president 's reasoning is that the series of 11th hour agreements he has struck with Republicans over the last two years - to prevent a government shutdown , raise the debt ceiling and avoid the fiscal cliff - have resulted in enough deficit reduction to get the debt under control . `` I think what 's important to recognize is that we 've already cut $ 2.5- $ 2.7 trillion out of the deficit , '' he told Stephanopoulos . `` If the sequester stays in , you 've got over $ 3.5 trillion of deficit reduction already . '' By that accounting , we have already achieved nearly all the $ 4 trillion the Bowles-Simpson debt commission called for back in 2010 - mission ( almost ) accomplished . First , the Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of $ 845 billion - that 's lower than the $ 1 trillion-plus deficits we 've seen over the past four years and , as a percentage of the total economy , half the annual deficit of 2009 . But , CBO also warns that the deficit is projected to continue rising once again after 2015 , adding a total of $ 7 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years . Second , Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson are now saying we are nowhere near accomplishing the amount of deficit reduction needed to put the government on sustainable path . `` They have n't done any of the tough stuff , any of the important stuff , '' Bowles told me last month . `` They have n't reformed the tax code…they have n't done anything to slow the rate of health care , to the rate of growth of the economy , they have n't made Social Security sustainably solvent . There 's about $ 2.4 trillion more of hard work we 've got ta do . '' Allan Simpson went further , calling the failure to control entitlement spending `` madness . '' `` Ten thousand [ Americans ] a day are turning 65 , '' Simpson told me . `` This is madness . And life expectancy is 78.1 , and in five years will be 80. Who is kidding who ? This will eat a hole through America . '' Urgent or not , the president seemed downright pessimistic about bridging the difference between Democrats and Republicans on how to further reduce the deficit . `` I am prepared to do some tough stuff . Neither side 's gon na get 100 percent . That 's what the American people are lookin ' for . That 's what 's gon na be good for jobs . That 's what 's gon na be good for growth , '' President Obama said . `` But ultimately , it may be that the differences are just too wide . It may be that ideologically , if their position is , 'We ca n't do any revenue , ' or , 'We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid ' - if that 's the position , then we 're probably not gon na be able to get a deal . '' Related : Obama Says Partisan Divide Might be Too Great for Budget Deal

There has been no shortage of dire warnings about the mounting US national debt, but President Obama is now offering a different assessment: no big deal. "We don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt," President Obama said in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopoulos for "Good Morning America." "In fact, for the next 10 years, it's gonna be in a sustainable place." It's an assessment that will throw cold water on the latest attempt to achieve a so-called grand bargain to reduce the deficit. After all, a grand bargain would require excruciatingly difficult decisions for both sides - for Republicans, it would mean raising taxes, and for Democrats, cutting future spending on cherished programs like Social Security and Medicare. If there is no crisis, why would either side do it? So, what happens if this latest effort to reach a deficit agreement falls through? Once again, the president's answer was, essentially, no big deal. "Ultimately, it may be that the differences are just too wide" to get a deal, President Obama said. "That won't create a crisis. It just means that we will have missed an opportunity." The national debt clock is seen during Republican National Convention August 27, 2012. It has since grown by about a trillion dollars. (Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images) The president's reasoning is that the series of 11th hour agreements he has struck with Republicans over the last two years - to prevent a government shutdown, raise the debt ceiling and avoid the fiscal cliff - have resulted in enough deficit reduction to get the debt under control. "I think what's important to recognize is that we've already cut $2.5- $2.7 trillion out of the deficit," he told Stephanopoulos. "If the sequester stays in, you've got over $3.5 trillion of deficit reduction already." By that accounting, we have already achieved nearly all the $4 trillion the Bowles-Simpson debt commission called for back in 2010 - mission (almost) accomplished. But there are two problems with that accounting: First, the Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of $845 billion - that's lower than the $1 trillion-plus deficits we've seen over the past four years and, as a percentage of the total economy, half the annual deficit of 2009. But, CBO also warns that the deficit is projected to continue rising once again after 2015, adding a total of $7 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Second, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson are now saying we are nowhere near accomplishing the amount of deficit reduction needed to put the government on sustainable path. "They haven't done any of the tough stuff, any of the important stuff," Bowles told me last month. "They haven't reformed the tax code…they haven't done anything to slow the rate of health care, to the rate of growth of the economy, they haven't made Social Security sustainably solvent. There's about $2.4 trillion more of hard work we've gotta do." Allan Simpson went further, calling the failure to control entitlement spending "madness." "Ten thousand [Americans] a day are turning 65," Simpson told me. "This is madness. And life expectancy is 78.1, and in five years will be 80. Who is kidding who? This will eat a hole through America." Urgent or not, the president seemed downright pessimistic about bridging the difference between Democrats and Republicans on how to further reduce the deficit. "I am prepared to do some tough stuff. Neither side's gonna get 100 percent. That's what the American people are lookin' for. That's what's gonna be good for jobs. That's what's gonna be good for growth," President Obama said. "But ultimately, it may be that the differences are just too wide. It may be that ideologically, if their position is, 'We can't do any revenue,' or, 'We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid' - if that's the position, then we're probably not gonna be able to get a deal." Related: Obama Says Partisan Divide Might be Too Great for Budget Deal Related: Obama Weighs In on White House 'Tourgate' Transcript: President Obama Interviewed by George Stephanopoulos

www.abcnews.go.com

left

cobvLeHTgnFpsiFw

test

y8E3xfUtr24mWVGA

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/george-will-quite-literally-the-opposition-to-gay-marriage-is-dying/

George Will: ‘Quite Literally, The Opposition to Gay Marriage Is Dying’

George Stephanopoulos

While Supreme Court watchers ponder how justices will come down in the debate over gay marriage , ABC 's George Will said Sunday on ███ `` This Week '' it 's clear where public opinion is headed . `` There is something like an emerging consensus , '' Will said , noting voters in three states recently endorsed same-sex marriage initiatives . `` Quite literally , the opposition to gay marriage is dying . It 's old people . '' Democratic strategist James Carville agreed the 2012 election marked a `` profound '' shift on the controversial issue . `` Look in Salt Lake City , the 12 Apostles . The Mormon Church after the election says , well , 'Maybe we 're going to change our position on homosexuality is a choice . You 're not born that way , ' '' he said . `` I mean , the effects of an election reverberate all the way through society . '' On the table is a case challenging Proposition 8 , the hot-button 2008 California ballot measure restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples . The Court will also hear a challenge to a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) , which defines marriage as between a man and a woman . New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said the Court 's decision to take on gay marriage could have a major impact on upcoming elections . `` It 's actually a positive [ for Democrats ] , '' Krugman said . `` This is a significant bloc of voters that will make a decision based on which party they see as being favorable to equal rights . '' But Republican strategist Mary Matalin said there are other issues at play . `` There are important constitutional , biological , theological , ontological questions relative to homosexual marriage , but people who live in the real world say the greatest threat to civil order is heterosexuals who do n't get married and are making babies , '' Matalin said . `` That 's an epidemic in crisis proportions . That is irrefutably more problematic for our culture than homosexuals getting married , '' she added . Currently , gay marriage is legal in just nine states and in the District of Columbia - but polls suggest support is growing . A recent ███-Washington Post poll found 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage , while a recent Pew poll shows national support at 48 percent - up from 35 percent in 2001 . `` To me , the consensus has already emerged on this issue , '' said ███ ' Matthew Dowd . `` It 's just a question of … is the Supreme Court going to catch up and follow that wind of the pack , or get ahead of it or put a block in the path of it ? '' Like `` This Week '' on Facebook here . You can also follow the show on Twitter here . Get more pure politics at ███.com/Politics and a different take on the news at OTUSNews.com

(ABC News) While Supreme Court watchers ponder how justices will come down in the debate over gay marriage, ABC's George Will said Sunday on ABC News " This Week" it's clear where public opinion is headed. "There is something like an emerging consensus," Will said, noting voters in three states recently endorsed same-sex marriage initiatives. "Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It's old people." Democratic strategist James Carville agreed the 2012 election marked a "profound" shift on the controversial issue. "Look in Salt Lake City, the 12 Apostles. The Mormon Church after the election says, well, 'Maybe we're going to change our position on homosexuality is a choice. You're not born that way,'" he said. "I mean, the effects of an election reverberate all the way through society." On the table is a case challenging Proposition 8, the hot-button 2008 California ballot measure restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Court will also hear a challenge to a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said the Court's decision to take on gay marriage could have a major impact on upcoming elections. "It's actually a positive [for Democrats]," Krugman said. "This is a significant bloc of voters that will make a decision based on which party they see as being favorable to equal rights." But Republican strategist Mary Matalin said there are other issues at play. "There are important constitutional, biological, theological, ontological questions relative to homosexual marriage, but people who live in the real world say the greatest threat to civil order is heterosexuals who don't get married and are making babies," Matalin said. "That's an epidemic in crisis proportions. That is irrefutably more problematic for our culture than homosexuals getting married," she added. Currently, gay marriage is legal in just nine states and in the District of Columbia - but polls suggest support is growing. A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll found 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage, while a recent Pew poll shows national support at 48 percent - up from 35 percent in 2001. "To me, the consensus has already emerged on this issue," said ABC News' Matthew Dowd. "It's just a question of … is the Supreme Court going to catch up and follow that wind of the pack, or get ahead of it or put a block in the path of it?" Watch George Will's comments here: Like "This Week" on Facebook here. You can also follow the show on Twitter here. Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics and a different take on the news at OTUSNews.com

www.abcnews.go.com

left

y8E3xfUtr24mWVGA

test

BA4jEgVreGfuLq1U

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-jersey-menendez/corruption-trial-of-senator-menendez-ends-in-mistrial-idUSKBN1DG2NP

Corruption trial of Senator Menendez ends in mistrial

2017-11-17

Joseph Ax

( ███ ) - The corruption trial of New Jersey ’ s Democratic U.S . Senator Bob Menendez ended in a mistrial on Thursday , after the jury said it was hopelessly deadlocked on bribery , fraud and other charges . Menendez , 63 , a longtime fixture in the state ’ s political circles who first joined the Senate in 2006 , was accused of accepting private flights , campaign contributions and other bribes from a wealthy patron , Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen , in exchange for official favors . The hung jury was a victory for Menendez and a major setback for federal prosecutors in what was the Justice Department ’ s first high-profile corruption trial since a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year limited its ability to bring such cases . One juror , Ed Norris , told reporters the panel was split 10-2 in favor of acquittal , which could discourage the government from pursuing a second trial . It was not immediately clear whether prosecutors would seek to retry Menendez , who is expected to run for re-election next year . In a statement , the Justice Department said it would “ carefully consider next steps . ” Related Coverage Specter of Menendez retrial could haunt U.S. Senate Democrats in 2018 Republican Mitch McConnell , the Senate majority leader , immediately called for the Senate ’ s ethics committee to investigate the allegations against Menendez . The committee said it would resume its inquiry , which was put on hold in 2013 to allow the criminal probe to proceed . A tearful Menendez thanked God , his family and the jurors outside the courthouse in Newark , New Jersey , as well as two senators who testified on his behalf as character witnesses , Democrat Cory Booker and Republican Lindsey Graham . “ The way this case started was wrong , ” said Menendez , flanked by his grown children . “ The way it was investigated was wrong . The way it was prosecuted was wrong . The way it was tried was wrong as well . ” “ To those who were digging my political grave so they could jump into my seat : I know who you are , and I won ’ t forget you , ” he said . U.S . Senator Robert Menendez ( D-NJ ) speaks to media as he departs the United States Court after his corruption trial ended in a mistrial in Newark , New Jersey , U.S. , November 16 , 2017 . ███/Eduardo Munoz The mistrial provides at least a temporary measure of relief for Menendez ’ s Democratic colleagues in the Senate , where Republicans likely would have pushed for resignation or expulsion if Menendez had been convicted . The case was seen as a test for prosecutors in the wake of last year ’ s Supreme Court ruling vacating the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell . In doing so , the high court narrowed the grounds for corruption cases . The trial judge , Williams Walls , strongly considered a defense motion to throw out the case mid-trial in light of the McDonnell decision before deciding against it . During the 10-week trial , prosecutors accused Menendez of pressuring Medicare officials to change the agency ’ s billing practices after it concluded that Melgen overbilled it by millions of dollars . Melgen , Menendez ’ s co-defendant in the corruption trial , was separately convicted in Florida earlier this year of a massive Medicare fraud . According to the government , Menendez also helped secure visas for the married Melgen ’ s foreign girlfriends and asked U.S. officials to resolve a port dispute in the Dominican Republic involving one of Melgen ’ s businesses . In exchange , Melgen showered the senator with luxury vacations and hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars , prosecutors said . Defense attorneys said prosecutors cherry-picked gifts exchanged between close friends to suggest impropriety when none existed .

(Reuters) - The corruption trial of New Jersey’s Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Menendez ended in a mistrial on Thursday, after the jury said it was hopelessly deadlocked on bribery, fraud and other charges. Menendez, 63, a longtime fixture in the state’s political circles who first joined the Senate in 2006, was accused of accepting private flights, campaign contributions and other bribes from a wealthy patron, Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen, in exchange for official favors. The hung jury was a victory for Menendez and a major setback for federal prosecutors in what was the Justice Department’s first high-profile corruption trial since a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year limited its ability to bring such cases. One juror, Ed Norris, told reporters the panel was split 10-2 in favor of acquittal, which could discourage the government from pursuing a second trial. It was not immediately clear whether prosecutors would seek to retry Menendez, who is expected to run for re-election next year. In a statement, the Justice Department said it would “carefully consider next steps.” Related Coverage Specter of Menendez retrial could haunt U.S. Senate Democrats in 2018 Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, immediately called for the Senate’s ethics committee to investigate the allegations against Menendez. The committee said it would resume its inquiry, which was put on hold in 2013 to allow the criminal probe to proceed. A tearful Menendez thanked God, his family and the jurors outside the courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, as well as two senators who testified on his behalf as character witnesses, Democrat Cory Booker and Republican Lindsey Graham. “The way this case started was wrong,” said Menendez, flanked by his grown children. “The way it was investigated was wrong. The way it was prosecuted was wrong. The way it was tried was wrong as well.” The senator also added a warning to political rivals. “To those who were digging my political grave so they could jump into my seat: I know who you are, and I won’t forget you,” he said. U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) speaks to media as he departs the United States Court after his corruption trial ended in a mistrial in Newark, New Jersey, U.S., November 16, 2017. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz The mistrial provides at least a temporary measure of relief for Menendez’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate, where Republicans likely would have pushed for resignation or expulsion if Menendez had been convicted. The case was seen as a test for prosecutors in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court ruling vacating the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. In doing so, the high court narrowed the grounds for corruption cases. The trial judge, Williams Walls, strongly considered a defense motion to throw out the case mid-trial in light of the McDonnell decision before deciding against it. During the 10-week trial, prosecutors accused Menendez of pressuring Medicare officials to change the agency’s billing practices after it concluded that Melgen overbilled it by millions of dollars. Melgen, Menendez’s co-defendant in the corruption trial, was separately convicted in Florida earlier this year of a massive Medicare fraud. According to the government, Menendez also helped secure visas for the married Melgen’s foreign girlfriends and asked U.S. officials to resolve a port dispute in the Dominican Republic involving one of Melgen’s businesses. Slideshow (5 Images) In exchange, Melgen showered the senator with luxury vacations and hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars, prosecutors said. Defense attorneys said prosecutors cherry-picked gifts exchanged between close friends to suggest impropriety when none existed.

www.reuters.com

center

BA4jEgVreGfuLq1U

test

x6klhPKzGQrMX9hI

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cruz-house-border-bill/2014/07/31/id/585971/

Ted Cruz Puts Boehner's House Border Bill in Jeopardy

2014-07-31

Melanie Batley

The House leadership has started debating Thursday on a border security bill to address the immigration crisis , but conservatives , led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz , say they may refuse to sign-on without language that would put an end to what they call the `` Obama amnesty '' law.Cruz convened a meeting Wednesday night with 11 rank-and-file House members to try to persuade them to vote against House Speaker John Boehner 's version of the bill on the basis that the measure does not defund President Barack Obama 's Deferred Action for Child Arrivals [ DACA ] executive order.The current leadership bill leaves DACA intact but simply prohibits any official policies to expand its scope , a position conservatives say is not acceptable.Speaker John Boehner gave indications he might give Cruz a concession by adding a vote on a second bill on Thursday . `` I have been speaking with members in both houses who have an interest in my views , '' Cruz told Reuters late on Wednesday.The second bill would stop Obama from expanding his 2012 action to suspend deportations of children brought by their parents to the United States before mid-2007.After the meeting with Cruz , Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann suggested she and other conservatives may withhold their support from the current version of the $ 659 million border bill without stronger language on DACA , Politico reported.Their refusal to sign-on could jeopardize the chances of the bill 's passage , though a number of Democrats have said they would support the bill , according to Politico . `` There is support for the DACA fix , '' Bachmann told Politico . `` I think you will see the DACA-fix bill pass . `` Iowa Rep. Steve King , Texas Rep Louie Gohmert , and Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon were also among those at the meeting.Cruz believes that 2012 DACA law , which allows the president to issue work permits to people in the country illegally , is `` the direct and proximate cause '' of the current crisis , and argues that any House bill should prevent the future implementation of DACA , according to Breitbart `` The only way to stop the border crisis is to stop Obama 's amnesty . It is disappointing the border security legislation unveiled today does not include language to end Obama 's amnesty , '' Cruz said Tuesday . `` Congress can not hope to solve this problem without addressing the fundamental cause of it . `` In an interview Wednesday on Fox News ' `` On the Record with Greta Van Susteren , '' Cruz went a step further saying , `` If you 're granting amnesty to people who come as kids , other kids will come . `` Even with the new DACA strategy put into the legislation , some conservatives Wednesday still were n't satisfied , according to Politico . Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks said the measures still don ’ t provide adequate border security , and Iowa Rep. King wants tougher asylum language.The leadership 's ability to seal a deal is now down to the wire , as the House adjourns Friday for a five-week recess.Meanwhile , Cruz said he has introduced a two-page bill in the Senate that says the president does not have authority to grant amnesty to any new illegal immigrants . `` We should have done our basic job a long time ago , '' he said.Meanwhile , in order for Boehner 's bill to pass without full support of all Republicans , Democrats would have to vote for the measure . That seemed iffy , with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying the GOP would be on its own.Pelosi said Democrats were n't necessarily on board . according to The Hill . `` Let me put it this way : The Democrats are not going to enable that bill to pass . That 's the number that we 're interested in , '' Pelosi said . `` They [ Republicans ] are going to have to do that on their own . ''

The House leadership has started debating Thursday on a border security bill to address the immigration crisis, but conservatives, led by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, say they may refuse to sign-on without language that would put an end to what they call the "Obama amnesty" law.Cruz convened a meeting Wednesday night with 11 rank-and-file House members to try to persuade them to vote against House Speaker John Boehner's version of the bill on the basis that the measure does not defund President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Child Arrivals [DACA] executive order.The current leadership bill leaves DACA intact but simply prohibits any official policies to expand its scope, a position conservatives say is not acceptable.Speaker John Boehner gave indications he might give Cruz a concession by adding a vote on a second bill on Thursday."I have been speaking with members in both houses who have an interest in my views," Cruz told Reuters late on Wednesday.The second bill would stop Obama from expanding his 2012 action to suspend deportations of children brought by their parents to the United States before mid-2007.After the meeting with Cruz, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann suggested she and other conservatives may withhold their support from the current version of the $659 million border bill without stronger language on DACA, Politico reported.Their refusal to sign-on could jeopardize the chances of the bill's passage, though a number of Democrats have said they would support the bill, according to Politico."There is support for the DACA fix," Bachmann told Politico. "I think you will see the DACA-fix bill pass."Iowa Rep. Steve King, Texas Rep Louie Gohmert, and Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon were also among those at the meeting.Cruz believes that 2012 DACA law, which allows the president to issue work permits to people in the country illegally, is "the direct and proximate cause" of the current crisis, and argues that any House bill should prevent the future implementation of DACA, according to Breitbart "The only way to stop the border crisis is to stop Obama's amnesty. It is disappointing the border security legislation unveiled today does not include language to end Obama's amnesty," Cruz said Tuesday. "Congress cannot hope to solve this problem without addressing the fundamental cause of it."In an interview Wednesday on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," Cruz went a step further saying, "If you're granting amnesty to people who come as kids, other kids will come."Even with the new DACA strategy put into the legislation, some conservatives Wednesday still weren't satisfied, according to Politico. Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks said the measures still don’t provide adequate border security, and Iowa Rep. King wants tougher asylum language.The leadership's ability to seal a deal is now down to the wire, as the House adjourns Friday for a five-week recess.Meanwhile, Cruz said he has introduced a two-page bill in the Senate that says the president does not have authority to grant amnesty to any new illegal immigrants."We should have done our basic job a long time ago," he said.Meanwhile, in order for Boehner's bill to pass without full support of all Republicans, Democrats would have to vote for the measure. That seemed iffy, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying the GOP would be on its own.Pelosi said Democrats weren't necessarily on board. according to The Hill. "Let me put it this way: The Democrats are not going to enable that bill to pass. That's the number that we're interested in," Pelosi said. "They [Republicans] are going to have to do that on their own."

www.newsmax.com

right

x6klhPKzGQrMX9hI

test

Uyzc6AHuKT6jHTIX

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/29/the_lefts_changing_personality_how_progressives_are_changing_from_professionals_to_populists/

The left’s changing personality: How progressives are changing from professionals to populists

2015-01-29

Michael Lind

Nobody is talking about it , but the professions are collapsing . And as they collapse , they will take a certain kind of center-left progressivism with them . There will be some sort of liberal left in the future , but it probably will not resemble the school of progressivism familiar from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama , a school rooted in the professional class . For more than a century , the American upper middle class has been divided between “ professionals ” and “ managers. ” The elite professions—doctors , lawyers and professors—have shared several characteristics . Although professionals may choose to specialize , they are essentially generalists . The ideal professional is self-employed or works with partners , instead of working in a corporate or public bureaucracy . Doctors and lawyers , though not professors , are paid fees for specific services to specific clients , not wages . Membership of the profession is limited , both by requirements that practitioners obtain expensive credentials and by politically influential cartels—the American Medical Association ( AMA ) , the American Bar Association ( ABA ) . The credentials and the cartels artificially restrict the supply of practitioners , driving up their fees . Contrast the managers . While some are self-employed , most work in corporate hierarchies . They have far less control over their schedules and jobs than independent professionals . Within the firm , they usually specialize in finance or human resources or marketing . They are paid wages and sometimes stock options , tying their remuneration to the success of the firm and the industry . The educational requirements of managers are lower than those of professionals . Many do well with B.A.s , and the MBA program takes only two years . There is no cartel for managers like the AMA or ABA , and nothing like state bar or medical licensing exams . The differences in working conditions are reflected in different worldviews . American academics and lawyers , and to some degree doctors , tend to see themselves as having special professional responsibilities to the public as a whole , rather like civil servants , in a way that American business executives do not . This claim to the exercise of a public trust justifies the privilege of self-regulation by professional associations . In the 20th century , some services like goods production and entertainment came to be industrialized and provided by corporations , while others like medicine and law and higher education continued to be supplied by generalist professionals working alone or in partnerships . Many doctors would use the same hospital , or as many professors would inhabit the same campus , without being employees in the sense that someone who works for IBM is an IBM employee . All of this is changing , as a result of technology and new business models . The Internet combined with advanced software is eliminating one traditional role of doctors and lawyers : accessing information buried in medical treatises or rows of legal volumes . The need for informed interpretation remains . Even so , anyone with access to WebMD and similar websites is pretty well equipped for self-diagnosis for many simple maladies . And LegalZoom and similar firms have software that can help people write their own wills and other documents . What remains are legally enforced cartels and monopolies in medicine and the law , governing who can authorize prescription drugs and who can argue cases in court . But sooner or later these guild monopolies may come to be viewed as anachronistic and eradicated by legislation . The professions will be replaced , not by universal amateurism , but by the extension of the corporate model to the fields of medicine , law and perhaps higher education . Doctors will be replaced by medical services corporations , lawyers by legal services firms . There will continue to be legal standards and regulations , but the subject of regulation , as in other industries , will be the firm as a whole , not the independent practitioner . In American medicine , the transition is already well underway . American physicians are rapidly abandoning private practice for salaried jobs with hospitals and other employers . In 2014 , according to the AMA , 60 percent of family doctors and pediatricians and 50 percent of surgeons were salaried employees . The professoriate is in an advanced state of decay . The tenured university professor may soon go the way of the medieval knight and the 18th century dancing master . The number of nontenured faculty teaching at accredited colleges and universities has risen from fewer than half in 1975 to nearly two-thirds today . Many of these teachers are poorly paid adjuncts without benefits . The class division ( no pun intended ) between academic sweatshop workers and privileged tenured faculty is not likely to last . Whether higher education is nominally public , nonprofit or for-profit , its transition from a service provided by largely independent professionals to an industrialized sector seems inevitable . For the most part , consumers will probably benefit from the industrialization of the former professions , in the same way that they benefited from the replacement of village blacksmiths by more efficient industrial enterprises . But one consequence may be the annihilation of the social elite that has underpinned capital-P Progressivism in the U.S. since the late 19th century . Early 20th century Progressives tended to have backgrounds in the mainline Protestant clergy , the professoriate and the law . Woodrow Wilson , a professor who was the son of a Protestant pastor , was typical . From Professor Wilson to Professor Obama , academics and also lawyers have provided much of the leadership and support for left-of-center causes . The expansion of the progressive professoriate compensated for the decline of the liberal Protestant clergy . Elite professionals have long been associated with a distinct kind of technocratic progressivism—believing in research-informed nonpartisan problem-solving , carried out by administrators or judges shielded from politics and invested with considerable discretion . It is no accident that the ideal public servant of this kind of progressivism—the highly educated , apolitical expert—is a kind of idealized self-image of the professional . The disinterested , technocratic progressivism of the American professional elite has always had to share the left-of-center part of the American political spectrum with other , less upscale political traditions , like social democratic labor unionism and Jeffersonian and Jacksonian populism . In the late 20th century , the New Democrats associated with Bill Clinton and Al Gore represented , among other things , a rebellion of the expanded professional class created by the GI Bill and student loans against the “ Old Democrats ” of the farmer-labor alliance , led by less-educated union bosses and rural and small-town populist politicians . By reviving the dusty old term “ progressive ” and styling themselves as “ Wilsonians ” rather than “ Rooseveltians , ” the New Democrats signaled their identification with early-1900s elite Progressives rather than with mid-century New Deal “ liberals ” identified with organized labor and Southern and Western populism . As the social base of elite progressivism is wiped out by technology and corporatization , it is safe to predict that these rival traditions of labor liberalism and populism will become more powerful on the center-left , if only by default . The next American center-left will probably speak in the emotional , streetwise accents of populism rather than in the measured tones of technocratic , professional-class expert progressivism . Even if the populist , like Elizabeth Warren , is a professor .

Nobody is talking about it, but the professions are collapsing. And as they collapse, they will take a certain kind of center-left progressivism with them. There will be some sort of liberal left in the future, but it probably will not resemble the school of progressivism familiar from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama, a school rooted in the professional class. For more than a century, the American upper middle class has been divided between “professionals” and “managers.” The elite professions—doctors, lawyers and professors—have shared several characteristics. Although professionals may choose to specialize, they are essentially generalists. The ideal professional is self-employed or works with partners, instead of working in a corporate or public bureaucracy. Doctors and lawyers, though not professors, are paid fees for specific services to specific clients, not wages. Membership of the profession is limited, both by requirements that practitioners obtain expensive credentials and by politically influential cartels—the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Bar Association (ABA). The credentials and the cartels artificially restrict the supply of practitioners, driving up their fees. Advertisement: Contrast the managers. While some are self-employed, most work in corporate hierarchies. They have far less control over their schedules and jobs than independent professionals. Within the firm, they usually specialize in finance or human resources or marketing. They are paid wages and sometimes stock options, tying their remuneration to the success of the firm and the industry. The educational requirements of managers are lower than those of professionals. Many do well with B.A.s, and the MBA program takes only two years. There is no cartel for managers like the AMA or ABA, and nothing like state bar or medical licensing exams. The differences in working conditions are reflected in different worldviews. American academics and lawyers, and to some degree doctors, tend to see themselves as having special professional responsibilities to the public as a whole, rather like civil servants, in a way that American business executives do not. This claim to the exercise of a public trust justifies the privilege of self-regulation by professional associations. In the 20th century, some services like goods production and entertainment came to be industrialized and provided by corporations, while others like medicine and law and higher education continued to be supplied by generalist professionals working alone or in partnerships. Many doctors would use the same hospital, or as many professors would inhabit the same campus, without being employees in the sense that someone who works for IBM is an IBM employee. Advertisement: All of this is changing, as a result of technology and new business models. The Internet combined with advanced software is eliminating one traditional role of doctors and lawyers: accessing information buried in medical treatises or rows of legal volumes. The need for informed interpretation remains. Even so, anyone with access to WebMD and similar websites is pretty well equipped for self-diagnosis for many simple maladies. And LegalZoom and similar firms have software that can help people write their own wills and other documents. What remains are legally enforced cartels and monopolies in medicine and the law, governing who can authorize prescription drugs and who can argue cases in court. But sooner or later these guild monopolies may come to be viewed as anachronistic and eradicated by legislation. Advertisement: The professions will be replaced, not by universal amateurism, but by the extension of the corporate model to the fields of medicine, law and perhaps higher education. Doctors will be replaced by medical services corporations, lawyers by legal services firms. There will continue to be legal standards and regulations, but the subject of regulation, as in other industries, will be the firm as a whole, not the independent practitioner. In American medicine, the transition is already well underway. American physicians are rapidly abandoning private practice for salaried jobs with hospitals and other employers. In 2014, according to the AMA, 60 percent of family doctors and pediatricians and 50 percent of surgeons were salaried employees. Advertisement: The professoriate is in an advanced state of decay. The tenured university professor may soon go the way of the medieval knight and the 18th century dancing master. The number of nontenured faculty teaching at accredited colleges and universities has risen from fewer than half in 1975 to nearly two-thirds today. Many of these teachers are poorly paid adjuncts without benefits. The class division (no pun intended) between academic sweatshop workers and privileged tenured faculty is not likely to last. Whether higher education is nominally public, nonprofit or for-profit, its transition from a service provided by largely independent professionals to an industrialized sector seems inevitable. For the most part, consumers will probably benefit from the industrialization of the former professions, in the same way that they benefited from the replacement of village blacksmiths by more efficient industrial enterprises. But one consequence may be the annihilation of the social elite that has underpinned capital-P Progressivism in the U.S. since the late 19th century. Early 20th century Progressives tended to have backgrounds in the mainline Protestant clergy, the professoriate and the law. Woodrow Wilson, a professor who was the son of a Protestant pastor, was typical. From Professor Wilson to Professor Obama, academics and also lawyers have provided much of the leadership and support for left-of-center causes. The expansion of the progressive professoriate compensated for the decline of the liberal Protestant clergy. Advertisement: Elite professionals have long been associated with a distinct kind of technocratic progressivism—believing in research-informed nonpartisan problem-solving, carried out by administrators or judges shielded from politics and invested with considerable discretion. It is no accident that the ideal public servant of this kind of progressivism—the highly educated, apolitical expert—is a kind of idealized self-image of the professional. The disinterested, technocratic progressivism of the American professional elite has always had to share the left-of-center part of the American political spectrum with other, less upscale political traditions, like social democratic labor unionism and Jeffersonian and Jacksonian populism. In the late 20th century, the New Democrats associated with Bill Clinton and Al Gore represented, among other things, a rebellion of the expanded professional class created by the GI Bill and student loans against the “Old Democrats” of the farmer-labor alliance, led by less-educated union bosses and rural and small-town populist politicians. By reviving the dusty old term “progressive” and styling themselves as “Wilsonians” rather than “Rooseveltians,” the New Democrats signaled their identification with early-1900s elite Progressives rather than with mid-century New Deal “liberals” identified with organized labor and Southern and Western populism. As the social base of elite progressivism is wiped out by technology and corporatization, it is safe to predict that these rival traditions of labor liberalism and populism will become more powerful on the center-left, if only by default. The next American center-left will probably speak in the emotional, streetwise accents of populism rather than in the measured tones of technocratic, professional-class expert progressivism. Even if the populist, like Elizabeth Warren, is a professor.

www.salon.com

left

Uyzc6AHuKT6jHTIX

test

3QXho2w41d26OfrH

opioid_crisis

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/sacklers-transferred-billion-scrutiny-opioid-crisis-grew-york/story?id=65603423

Sacklers transferred $1 billion as scrutiny from opioid crisis grew: New York AG

The New York attorney general 's office , as part of an ongoing case against Purdue Pharma and some members of the Sackler family , said in court filings on Friday it 's discovered approximately $ 1 billion the family may have been trying to hide from parties suing them over the opioid crisis . The filing reflects documents the New York AG 's office said it 's obtained as a result of subpoenas issued to a number of financial institutions believed to have information related to the defendants in the case . According to Friday 's filings , the documents produced by one unnamed institution reflect about $ 1 billion in wire transfers `` between and among the Defendants and their shell companies during the same time frame that they were draining Purdue of its opioids proceeds . '' `` While the Sacklers continue to lowball victims and skirt a responsible settlement , we refuse to allow the family to misuse the courts in an effort to shield their financial misconduct , '' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement released Friday . `` The limited number of documents provided to us so far underscore the necessity for compliance with every subpoena , '' James added . `` Records from one financial institution alone have shown approximately $ 1 billion in wire transfers between the Sacklers , entities they control , and different financial institutions , including those that have funneled funds into Swiss bank accounts . '' The New York AG 's office is continuing to investigate whether the transactions were a deliberate attempt by the family that owns Purdue Pharma to conceal assets from litigants . Purdue Pharma , maker of OxyContin , is facing thousands of lawsuits linked to the opioid crisis that 's killed tens of thousands of people in the U.S . The company said earlier this week it had reached a tentative settlement with thousands of local governments and more than 20 states to pay $ 3 billion up front and then more from the sale of Mundipharma , a sister company of Purdue Pharma also owned by the Sacklers . Purdue would pay up to $ 12 billion , and the Sackler family would relinquish control of the company , The Associated Press reported , citing anonymous sources with knowledge of the talks . The agreement would not include an admission of guilt . `` This apparent settlement is a slap in the face to everyone who has had to bury a loved one due to this family 's destruction and greed , '' Shapiro said in a statement . `` It allows the Sackler family to walk away billionaires and admit no wrongdoing . '' James , in response to the proposed settlement , told ███ in a statement that the deal `` does n't account for the depth of pain and destruction caused by Purdue and the Sacklers '' and that it was `` an insult , plain and simple . '' She added : `` As attorney general , I will continue to seek justice for victims and fight to hold bad actors accountable , no matter how powerful they may be . '' A spokesperson for Mortimer D.A . Sackler , formerly a Purdue board member , said in a statement to The New York Times : `` This is a cynical attempt by a hostile A.G. 's office to generate defamatory headlines to try to torpedo a mutually beneficial settlement that is supported by so many other states and would result in billions of dollars going to communities and individuals across the country that need help . ''

The New York attorney general's office, as part of an ongoing case against Purdue Pharma and some members of the Sackler family, said in court filings on Friday it's discovered approximately $1 billion the family may have been trying to hide from parties suing them over the opioid crisis. The filing reflects documents the New York AG's office said it's obtained as a result of subpoenas issued to a number of financial institutions believed to have information related to the defendants in the case. According to Friday's filings, the documents produced by one unnamed institution reflect about $1 billion in wire transfers "between and among the Defendants and their shell companies during the same time frame that they were draining Purdue of its opioids proceeds." "While the Sacklers continue to lowball victims and skirt a responsible settlement, we refuse to allow the family to misuse the courts in an effort to shield their financial misconduct," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement released Friday. "The limited number of documents provided to us so far underscore the necessity for compliance with every subpoena," James added. "Records from one financial institution alone have shown approximately $1 billion in wire transfers between the Sacklers, entities they control, and different financial institutions, including those that have funneled funds into Swiss bank accounts." George Frey/Reuters The New York AG's office is continuing to investigate whether the transactions were a deliberate attempt by the family that owns Purdue Pharma to conceal assets from litigants. Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, is facing thousands of lawsuits linked to the opioid crisis that's killed tens of thousands of people in the U.S. The company said earlier this week it had reached a tentative settlement with thousands of local governments and more than 20 states to pay $3 billion up front and then more from the sale of Mundipharma, a sister company of Purdue Pharma also owned by the Sacklers. Purdue would pay up to $12 billion, and the Sackler family would relinquish control of the company, The Associated Press reported, citing anonymous sources with knowledge of the talks. The agreement would not include an admission of guilt. Some state attorneys general said that wasn't enough. "This apparent settlement is a slap in the face to everyone who has had to bury a loved one due to this family's destruction and greed," Shapiro said in a statement. "It allows the Sackler family to walk away billionaires and admit no wrongdoing." James, in response to the proposed settlement, told ABC News in a statement that the deal "doesn't account for the depth of pain and destruction caused by Purdue and the Sacklers" and that it was "an insult, plain and simple." She added: "As attorney general, I will continue to seek justice for victims and fight to hold bad actors accountable, no matter how powerful they may be." A spokesperson for Mortimer D.A. Sackler, formerly a Purdue board member, said in a statement to The New York Times: "This is a cynical attempt by a hostile A.G.'s office to generate defamatory headlines to try to torpedo a mutually beneficial settlement that is supported by so many other states and would result in billions of dollars going to communities and individuals across the country that need help."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

3QXho2w41d26OfrH

test

wbK9wQwW1u5Q7Ytu

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-trump-tapes-exist/story?id=47414342

If the Trump tapes exist

Veronica Stracqualursi

Interested in The Note ? Add The Note as an interest to stay up to date on the latest The Note news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest -- ANALYSIS - ABC ’ s RICK KLEIN : If there are tapes , or even just “ tapes , ” what would they reveal ? Words , surely - many predictable , some profane , some belonging to President Trump , others to his staff and visitors . But it ’ s the words we know about – those said in public – that are causing trouble for the president , in virtually every aspect of his job . The president uses his words to attack major institutions of government , taking them down a notch with insults and accusations . But because his words matter , Trump is undermining his own credibility and the credibility of the White House itself . The six days since the firing of James Comey have brought new reasons to question words from the White House press office and the vice president of the United States . And this week -- with the travel ban back in court , a major cyberattack , rumors of a White House staff shakeup , and the president set to leave on his first foreign trip -- Trump doesn ’ t even need his own words to trip him up . One thing the president ’ s words have done is wake up people at institutions he ’ s challenged . And if tapes do exist , expect the folks at one of those institutions – the Congress , the courts , the agencies – to make sure they ’ re heard . -- FEDERAL JUDGES TO HEAR APPEAL ON TRUMP 'S REVISED TRAVEL BAN : Trump administration attorneys head back to a federal appeals court Monday seeking to reverse a judge ’ s March order that blocked the president ’ s second travel ban just hours before it was to go into effect -- a ruling the president called an “ unprecedented judicial overreach ” that made America “ look weak. ” The arguments to be heard Monday in Seattle -- before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit –- follow U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson ’ s March 16 decision that thwarted implementation of the overhauled version of Trump ’ s controversial policy , which the administration contends is a vital component of a strategy to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country . ABC ’ s JAMES HILL and LAUREN PEARLE have more : http : //abcn.ws/2qIpY0K -- COMEY ASSOCIATES PREDICT PUBLIC TESTIMONY , DESCRIBE DISCOMFORT WITH TRUMP DINNER : Associates of fired FBI Director James Comey believe that the former director 's first comments on his termination would likely come in an open session before Congress , ███ has learned . Comey declined an invitation to speak to a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday and was replaced on a panel testifying before that committee last Thursday by his temporary replacement , Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe , ABC 's PIERRE THOMAS reports . http : //abcn.ws/2r7d38n SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR WOULD 'LOVE ' COMEY TO TESTIFY IN OPEN HEARING . Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner , D-Va. said that he would `` love '' to have former FBI Director James Comey testify in a public hearing about his firing . `` I think Jim Comey deserves his chance to lay out to the American public his side of the facts , '' Warner told ABC 's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS in an interview on `` This Week '' on Sunday morning . `` How he was treated was pretty awful by the president . '' Comey was invited to speak before the committee in a closed session Tuesday , but declined the invitation , ABC 's NICKI ROSSOLL writes . http : //abcn.ws/2rfnQuA NIKKI HALEY : TRUMP IS 'CEO OF THE COUNTRY , ' CAN 'FIRE ANYONE HE WANTS . ' U.S . Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley defended President Trump 's firing of former FBI director James Comey , saying that he can `` fire anyone he wants . '' `` The president is the CEO of the country , '' Haley told ABC 's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS on `` This Week '' Sunday . `` He can hire and fire anyone he wants . '' She added that she believes the criticism of Trump stems from discomfort with his propensity to act on his decisions , notes ABC 's MICHAEL EDISON HAYDEN . http : //abcn.ws/2pL759l FORMER DNI CLAPPER SAYS RUSSIA LIKELY SEES COMEY 'S FIRING AS 'ANOTHER VICTORY . ' Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Russia likely sees President Trump 's firing of FBI Director James Comey as `` another victory on the scoreboard for them . '' “ What 's unfolded now , here , the leader of the -- the lead of the investigation about potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign has been removed . So the Russians have to consider this as a , you know , another victory on the scoreboard for them , ” Clapper told ABC 's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS on “ This Week ” Sunday . ABC 's QUINN SCANLAN has more : http : //abcn.ws/2reMDOu U.S . BELIEVES NORTH KOREA LAUNCHED KN-17 MISSILE . The U.S. believes the ballistic missile North Korea launched on Saturday was a KN-17 medium range missile and not a new intermediate range missile , as had been speculated . The launch marked the first successful test of the missile , three previous launches in April had ended in failure , explains ABC 's LUIS MARTINEZ . The initial assessment by U.S. intelligence is that the missile launched by North Korea was a KN-17 , a medium range ballistic missile , according to two U.S. officials . http : //abcn.ws/2rgncgt @ carenbohan : Priebus recently warned senior staff : Quit trying to secretly slip news articles to Trump . http : //politi.co/2pB7Gyt via @ ShaneGoldmacher @ BrianRoss : Law enforcement officials say the worst of the global cyberattack may be yet to come : http : //abcn.ws/2qj8160 @ TheBrodyFile : . @ TheBrodyFile EXCLUSIVE : . @ realDonaldTrump Administration To Significantly Expand Pro-Life Mexico City Policy http : //www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/05/14/brody-file-exclusive-trump-administration-to-significantly-expand-pro-life-mexico-city-policy @ PreetBharara : Here 's an Op-ed I wrote . Opinion | Preet Bharara : Are there still public servants who will say no to the president ? http : //wapo.st/2qIvuk2 @ jeffzeleny : WH hopes to name ambassador to Vatican before @ realDonaldTrump meets @ Pontifex . @ CallyGingrich is leading choice , pending ethics review .

NOTABLES Interested in The Note? Add The Note as an interest to stay up to date on the latest The Note news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest --ANALYSIS - ABC’s RICK KLEIN: If there are tapes, or even just “tapes,” what would they reveal? Words, surely - many predictable, some profane, some belonging to President Trump, others to his staff and visitors. But it’s the words we know about – those said in public – that are causing trouble for the president, in virtually every aspect of his job. The president uses his words to attack major institutions of government, taking them down a notch with insults and accusations. But because his words matter, Trump is undermining his own credibility and the credibility of the White House itself. The six days since the firing of James Comey have brought new reasons to question words from the White House press office and the vice president of the United States. And this week -- with the travel ban back in court, a major cyberattack, rumors of a White House staff shakeup, and the president set to leave on his first foreign trip -- Trump doesn’t even need his own words to trip him up. One thing the president’s words have done is wake up people at institutions he’s challenged. And if tapes do exist, expect the folks at one of those institutions – the Congress, the courts, the agencies – to make sure they’re heard. --FEDERAL JUDGES TO HEAR APPEAL ON TRUMP'S REVISED TRAVEL BAN: Trump administration attorneys head back to a federal appeals court Monday seeking to reverse a judge’s March order that blocked the president’s second travel ban just hours before it was to go into effect -- a ruling the president called an “unprecedented judicial overreach” that made America “look weak.” The arguments to be heard Monday in Seattle -- before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit –- follow U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson’s March 16 decision that thwarted implementation of the overhauled version of Trump’s controversial policy, which the administration contends is a vital component of a strategy to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country. ABC’s JAMES HILL and LAUREN PEARLE have more: http://abcn.ws/2qIpY0K --COMEY ASSOCIATES PREDICT PUBLIC TESTIMONY, DESCRIBE DISCOMFORT WITH TRUMP DINNER: Associates of fired FBI Director James Comey believe that the former director's first comments on his termination would likely come in an open session before Congress, ABC News has learned. Comey declined an invitation to speak to a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday and was replaced on a panel testifying before that committee last Thursday by his temporary replacement, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, ABC's PIERRE THOMAS reports. http://abcn.ws/2r7d38n SPEED READ with ABC’s ADAM KELSEY SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR WOULD 'LOVE' COMEY TO TESTIFY IN OPEN HEARING. Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner, D-Va. said that he would "love" to have former FBI Director James Comey testify in a public hearing about his firing. "I think Jim Comey deserves his chance to lay out to the American public his side of the facts," Warner told ABC's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS in an interview on "This Week" on Sunday morning. "How he was treated was pretty awful by the president." Comey was invited to speak before the committee in a closed session Tuesday, but declined the invitation, ABC's NICKI ROSSOLL writes. http://abcn.ws/2rfnQuA NIKKI HALEY: TRUMP IS 'CEO OF THE COUNTRY,' CAN 'FIRE ANYONE HE WANTS.' U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley defended President Trump's firing of former FBI director James Comey, saying that he can "fire anyone he wants." "The president is the CEO of the country," Haley told ABC's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS on "This Week" Sunday. "He can hire and fire anyone he wants." She added that she believes the criticism of Trump stems from discomfort with his propensity to act on his decisions, notes ABC's MICHAEL EDISON HAYDEN. http://abcn.ws/2pL759l FORMER DNI CLAPPER SAYS RUSSIA LIKELY SEES COMEY'S FIRING AS 'ANOTHER VICTORY.' Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Russia likely sees President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey as "another victory on the scoreboard for them." “What's unfolded now, here, the leader of the -- the lead of the investigation about potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign has been removed. So the Russians have to consider this as a, you know, another victory on the scoreboard for them,” Clapper told ABC's GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS on “This Week” Sunday. ABC's QUINN SCANLAN has more: http://abcn.ws/2reMDOu U.S. BELIEVES NORTH KOREA LAUNCHED KN-17 MISSILE. The U.S. believes the ballistic missile North Korea launched on Saturday was a KN-17 medium range missile and not a new intermediate range missile, as had been speculated. The launch marked the first successful test of the missile, three previous launches in April had ended in failure, explains ABC's LUIS MARTINEZ. The initial assessment by U.S. intelligence is that the missile launched by North Korea was a KN-17, a medium range ballistic missile, according to two U.S. officials. http://abcn.ws/2rgncgt WHO’S TWEETING? @carenbohan: Priebus recently warned senior staff: Quit trying to secretly slip news articles to Trump. http://politi.co/2pB7Gyt via @ShaneGoldmacher @BrianRoss: Law enforcement officials say the worst of the global cyberattack may be yet to come: http://abcn.ws/2qj8160 @TheBrodyFile: .@TheBrodyFile EXCLUSIVE: .@realDonaldTrump Administration To Significantly Expand Pro-Life Mexico City Policy http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/05/14/brody-file-exclusive-trump-administration-to-significantly-expand-pro-life-mexico-city-policy @PreetBharara: Here's an Op-ed I wrote. Opinion | Preet Bharara: Are there still public servants who will say no to the president? http://wapo.st/2qIvuk2 @jeffzeleny: WH hopes to name ambassador to Vatican before @realDonaldTrump meets @Pontifex. @CallyGingrich is leading choice, pending ethics review.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

wbK9wQwW1u5Q7Ytu

test

iMlbpMIllp4Xk4aA

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower/u-s-house-impeachment-inquiry-to-intensify-trump-remains-defiant-idUSKBN1WF0DN

U.S. House impeachment inquiry to intensify; Trump remains defiant

2019-10-01

David Morgan

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - The U.S. House of Representatives ’ impeachment probe into President Donald Trump intensified on Monday , as Trump raged about the inquiry and news reports suggested he had used additional diplomatic channels to go after his adversaries . Three House committees said a subpoena for documents had been sent to Trump ’ s lawyer Rudy Giuliani . The former New York mayor had said on television he asked the government of Ukraine to “ target ” former Vice President Joe Biden , who is seeking the Democratic nomination to run against Trump in the 2020 election . Giuliani said in a tweet the subpoena raised legal issues including attorney-client privilege . “ It will be given appropriate consideration , ” he added . The Democratic-led House initiated an impeachment inquiry against Trump last week after a whistleblower report raised concerns that Trump tried to leverage nearly $ 400 million in U.S. aid in exchange for investigating Biden from Ukraine ’ s leader in July . U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took part in the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which the matter was discussed , the Wall Street Journal reported , something likely to draw the attention of House investigators . The New York Times reported that Trump had sought the help of another world leader , Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia , with a U.S. Justice Department probe into the origins of what became Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election . In a recent telephone call , Trump asked Morrison to assist Attorney General William Barr with the probe , which Trump hopes will discredit Mueller ’ s now-closed investigation , the Times reported . “ The Democrats clearly don ’ t want the truth to come out anymore as it might hurt them politically , but this call relates to a DOJ inquiry publicly announced months ago to uncover exactly what happened , ” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said in response to the Times story . “ The Australian Government has always been ready to assist and cooperate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation . The PM confirmed this readiness once again in conversation with the President . ” Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials in Britain and Italy to seek their assistance as well with that investigation , the Washington Post reported . In the Giuliani document request , the chairmen of three House committees said he had “ stated more recently that you are in possession of evidence - in the form of text messages , phone records , and other communications - indicating that you were not acting alone and that other Trump Administration officials may have been involved in this scheme . ” A Sept. 26-30 ███/Ipsos opinion poll found that 45 % of American adults believed Trump “ should be impeached , ” compared with 37 % in a similar poll that ran last week . Forty-one percent said Trump should not be impeached and 15 % said they “ don ’ t know . ” Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on Monday to put to rest speculation he would use his position to derail any impeachment effort by the Democratic-led House by avoiding a trial at all . The Republicans control the Senate and have been largely muted about the allegations and inquiries into fellow-Republican Trump . If the House approves bringing charges , known as “ articles of impeachment , ” against a president , the process moves to the Senate , where there would be a trial . “ I would have no choice but to take it up , ” McConnell told CNBC . “ Under the Senate rules , we are required to take it up if the House does go down that path . “ The Senate impeachment rules are very clear . ” Trump spent much of the day directing his ire at the Democrat leading the House inquiry , suggesting on Twitter that U.S. Representative Adam Schiff , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , should be arrested for “ treason . ” Later , speaking to reporters at the White House , Trump accused Schiff of distorting his conversation with Zelenskiy at a House hearing last week . “ Adam Schiff made up a phony call and he read it to Congress and he read it to the people of the United States and it ’ s a disgrace , ” Trump said . In those comments , Schiff said the call to Zelenskiy “ reads like a classic organized crime shakedown ” and parodied the president ’ s remarks . A spokesman for Schiff did not respond to a request for comment on Trump ’ s remarks . A U.S. intelligence official filed a whistleblower complaint citing the July 25 telephone call in which Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate Biden and his son Hunter , who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company . The whistleblower has not been publicly identified , but Trump said on Monday that “ we ’ re trying to find out about a whistleblower . We have a whistleblower who reports things that were incorrect . ” U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a ceremonial swearing-in for Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia at the White House in Washington , U.S. , September 30 , 2019 . ███/Leah Millis Trump has also accused the whistleblower and White House officials who gave the whistleblower information of being spies and suggested they may be guilty of treason . “ The Intel Community Whistleblower is entitled to anonymity , ” Andrew Bakaj , an attorney for the whistleblower , said on Twitter shortly after the president ’ s remarks . “ Law and policy support this and the individual is not to be retaliated against . Doing so is a violation of federal law . ” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday called on the committee ’ s Republican chairman , Lindsey Graham , a close ally of Trump , to convene hearings to investigate the administration ’ s handling of the whistleblower ’ s complaint , and said the panel should act to “ protect witnesses from intimidation . ” “ This Committee should not sit idly by as the President threatens potential witnesses , whose testimony may be crucial to congressional investigations into credible allegations against him , ” the Democrats wrote in a letter to Graham . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants to move “ expeditiously ” on the impeachment inquiry , perhaps paving the way for an impeachment vote on the House floor early next year . While McConnell said on Monday that he would be forced to hold a trial , he did not commit to letting it run its full course . “ How long you ’ re on it is a whole different matter , ” McConnell told CNBC . According to a Senate Republican leadership aide , any senator could attempt to have the articles dismissed in the early stages of the trial , which would trigger a vote with a majority of the Senate needing to be in favor for it to succeed . Democrats accuse Trump of pressuring a vulnerable U.S. ally to get dirt on a rival for personal political gain . The phone call with Zelenskiy came after Trump froze nearly $ 400 million in aid intended to help Ukraine deal with an insurgency by Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country . The aid was later provided . Schiff said on Sunday he expected the whistleblower to appear before the panel very soon . The U.S. Congress is on a two-week recess but members of the Intelligence Committee will return to Washington this week to carry out an investigation likely to produce new subpoenas for documents and other material . The committee is scheduled to hold a closed-door hearing on Friday with the intelligence community ’ s inspector general , Michael Atkinson , who has concluded that the whistleblower complaint was of urgent concern and appeared credible . House investigators are set to take the first witness testimony from two people mentioned in the whistleblower ’ s complaint . On Wednesday , three House committees - Intelligence , Foreign Affairs and Oversight - are due to get a deposition from former U.S . Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , whom Trump labeled “ bad news ” during his call with Zelenskiy . On Thursday , the committees are set to get a deposition from Kurt Volker , who resigned last week as Trump ’ s special representative for Ukraine after the whistleblower complaint named him as one of two U.S. diplomats who followed up with Ukrainian officials a day after Trump ’ s call to Zelenskiy .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives’ impeachment probe into President Donald Trump intensified on Monday, as Trump raged about the inquiry and news reports suggested he had used additional diplomatic channels to go after his adversaries. Three House committees said a subpoena for documents had been sent to Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani. The former New York mayor had said on television he asked the government of Ukraine to “target” former Vice President Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to run against Trump in the 2020 election. Giuliani said in a tweet the subpoena raised legal issues including attorney-client privilege. “It will be given appropriate consideration,” he added. The Democratic-led House initiated an impeachment inquiry against Trump last week after a whistleblower report raised concerns that Trump tried to leverage nearly $400 million in U.S. aid in exchange for investigating Biden from Ukraine’s leader in July. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took part in the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which the matter was discussed, the Wall Street Journal reported, something likely to draw the attention of House investigators. The New York Times reported that Trump had sought the help of another world leader, Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, with a U.S. Justice Department probe into the origins of what became Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a recent telephone call, Trump asked Morrison to assist Attorney General William Barr with the probe, which Trump hopes will discredit Mueller’s now-closed investigation, the Times reported. “The Democrats clearly don’t want the truth to come out anymore as it might hurt them politically, but this call relates to a DOJ inquiry publicly announced months ago to uncover exactly what happened,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said in response to the Times story. An Australian government spokesperson said in an email: “The Australian Government has always been ready to assist and cooperate with efforts that help shed further light on the matters under investigation. The PM confirmed this readiness once again in conversation with the President.” Barr has held private meetings overseas with foreign intelligence officials in Britain and Italy to seek their assistance as well with that investigation, the Washington Post reported. In the Giuliani document request, the chairmen of three House committees said he had “stated more recently that you are in possession of evidence - in the form of text messages, phone records, and other communications - indicating that you were not acting alone and that other Trump Administration officials may have been involved in this scheme.” He was given until Oct. 15 to respond. SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT RISES -POLL A Sept. 26-30 Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll found that 45% of American adults believed Trump “should be impeached,” compared with 37% in a similar poll that ran last week. Forty-one percent said Trump should not be impeached and 15% said they “don’t know.” Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared on Monday to put to rest speculation he would use his position to derail any impeachment effort by the Democratic-led House by avoiding a trial at all. The Republicans control the Senate and have been largely muted about the allegations and inquiries into fellow-Republican Trump. If the House approves bringing charges, known as “articles of impeachment,” against a president, the process moves to the Senate, where there would be a trial. “I would have no choice but to take it up,” McConnell told CNBC. “Under the Senate rules, we are required to take it up if the House does go down that path. “The Senate impeachment rules are very clear.” Trump spent much of the day directing his ire at the Democrat leading the House inquiry, suggesting on Twitter that U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, should be arrested for “treason.” Later, speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump accused Schiff of distorting his conversation with Zelenskiy at a House hearing last week. “Adam Schiff made up a phony call and he read it to Congress and he read it to the people of the United States and it’s a disgrace,” Trump said. In those comments, Schiff said the call to Zelenskiy “reads like a classic organized crime shakedown” and parodied the president’s remarks. A spokesman for Schiff did not respond to a request for comment on Trump’s remarks. TRUMP SEEKS WHISTLEBLOWER’S IDENTITY A U.S. intelligence official filed a whistleblower complaint citing the July 25 telephone call in which Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate Biden and his son Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. The whistleblower has not been publicly identified, but Trump said on Monday that “we’re trying to find out about a whistleblower. We have a whistleblower who reports things that were incorrect.” U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during a ceremonial swearing-in for Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia at the White House in Washington, U.S., September 30, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis Trump has also accused the whistleblower and White House officials who gave the whistleblower information of being spies and suggested they may be guilty of treason. “The Intel Community Whistleblower is entitled to anonymity,” Andrew Bakaj, an attorney for the whistleblower, said on Twitter shortly after the president’s remarks. “Law and policy support this and the individual is not to be retaliated against. Doing so is a violation of federal law.” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday called on the committee’s Republican chairman, Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, to convene hearings to investigate the administration’s handling of the whistleblower’s complaint, and said the panel should act to “protect witnesses from intimidation.” “This Committee should not sit idly by as the President threatens potential witnesses, whose testimony may be crucial to congressional investigations into credible allegations against him,” the Democrats wrote in a letter to Graham. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants to move “expeditiously” on the impeachment inquiry, perhaps paving the way for an impeachment vote on the House floor early next year. While McConnell said on Monday that he would be forced to hold a trial, he did not commit to letting it run its full course. “How long you’re on it is a whole different matter,” McConnell told CNBC. According to a Senate Republican leadership aide, any senator could attempt to have the articles dismissed in the early stages of the trial, which would trigger a vote with a majority of the Senate needing to be in favor for it to succeed. Democrats accuse Trump of pressuring a vulnerable U.S. ally to get dirt on a rival for personal political gain. The phone call with Zelenskiy came after Trump froze nearly $400 million in aid intended to help Ukraine deal with an insurgency by Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country. The aid was later provided. Schiff said on Sunday he expected the whistleblower to appear before the panel very soon. MOVING AHEAD The U.S. Congress is on a two-week recess but members of the Intelligence Committee will return to Washington this week to carry out an investigation likely to produce new subpoenas for documents and other material. The committee is scheduled to hold a closed-door hearing on Friday with the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, who has concluded that the whistleblower complaint was of urgent concern and appeared credible. House investigators are set to take the first witness testimony from two people mentioned in the whistleblower’s complaint. Slideshow (2 Images) On Wednesday, three House committees - Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight - are due to get a deposition from former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, whom Trump labeled “bad news” during his call with Zelenskiy. On Thursday, the committees are set to get a deposition from Kurt Volker, who resigned last week as Trump’s special representative for Ukraine after the whistleblower complaint named him as one of two U.S. diplomats who followed up with Ukrainian officials a day after Trump’s call to Zelenskiy.

www.reuters.com

center

iMlbpMIllp4Xk4aA

test

DEvTsNCDjrXECTYI

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/jury-weighs-ex-trump-aide-manaforts-fate-for-third-day-idUSKCN1L50V2

Jury weighs ex-Trump aide Manafort's fate for third day

2018-08-20

Nathan Layne

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - The jury in the bank and tax fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended its third day of deliberations on Monday without reaching a verdict . The judge said the jury would reconvene on Tuesday morning . The case is the first to go to trial stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russia ’ s role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election , although the charges largely predate Manafort ’ s five months working on Donald Trump ’ s successful campaign . Manafort faces five counts of filing false tax returns , four counts of failing to disclose offshore bank accounts , and nine counts of bank fraud . If convicted on all the charges , he could spend the rest of his life in prison . A conviction would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller ’ s Russia inquiry as a political witch hunt , while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel . In a break with convention , Trump weighed in on the trial on Friday , calling the case against Manafort at the federal court in Alexandria , Virginia , “ very sad ” and lauding his former associate as a “ very good person . ” On Monday , Trump accused Mueller ’ s team of “ enjoying ruining people ’ s lives ” and trying to influence the elections in November when Republicans will try to hold on to control of Congress . “ Mueller ’ s Angry Dems are looking to impact the election . They are a National Disgrace ! ” Trump wrote on Twitter . Trump ’ s tweet was in reference to a New York Times report that White House Counsel Don McGahn had cooperated extensively with Mueller . Before dismissing them on Friday , Judge T.S . Ellis reminded the jurors , who are not sequestered , to refrain from discussing the case or investigating it on their own during the weekend . Defense attorneys Kevin Downing ( R ) , Thomas Zehnle ( 2nd R ) and Richard Westling ( L ) walk at the end of the third day of jury deliberations in the trial against Paul Manafort , President Trump 's former campaign chairman who is facing bank and tax fraud charges , in Alexandria , Virginia , U.S. , August 20 , 2018 . ███/Joshua Roberts Some legal experts expressed concern , however , that jurors might still see Trump ’ s comments - inadvertently or otherwise . Another headline from Friday that could grab the attention of jurors concerned Ellis ’ disclosure that he had received threats related to the trial and was being protected by U.S. marshals . The jury was not present when he made those remarks . “ In a high profile case , the general assumption is that some outside information may accidentally reach a jury , despite jurors ’ best efforts to avoid relevant news , ” said jury consultant Roy Futterman . “ Given the judge ’ s statement , the jurors may reasonably assume that they may be at some risk , which may change the tenor of their deliberations , perhaps raising tensions or speeding things up . ” On Thursday , the jury asked for a definition of “ reasonable doubt ” and clarification on the law governing the reporting of foreign bank accounts , but it did not ask any similar questions on Friday or Monday . Shanlon Wu , who represented Manafort ’ s former protege Rick Gates before he pleaded guilty in February and cooperated with the prosecution , said the lack of questions might bode better for the prosecution than the defense . He said it suggested “ they were working hard and working well together , and there was no dissension . ” “ I think that ’ s a good sign for the prosecution , ” Wu said . Still , he said he saw a chance of acquittals on the four counts of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts , citing the jury ’ s technical question on Thursday about the ownership and control threshold requirements for such disclosures .

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - The jury in the bank and tax fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended its third day of deliberations on Monday without reaching a verdict. The judge said the jury would reconvene on Tuesday morning. The case is the first to go to trial stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, although the charges largely predate Manafort’s five months working on Donald Trump’s successful campaign. Manafort faces five counts of filing false tax returns, four counts of failing to disclose offshore bank accounts, and nine counts of bank fraud. If convicted on all the charges, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. A conviction would undermine efforts by Trump and some Republican lawmakers to paint Mueller’s Russia inquiry as a political witch hunt, while an acquittal would be a setback for the special counsel. In a break with convention, Trump weighed in on the trial on Friday, calling the case against Manafort at the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, “very sad” and lauding his former associate as a “very good person.” On Monday, Trump accused Mueller’s team of “enjoying ruining people’s lives” and trying to influence the elections in November when Republicans will try to hold on to control of Congress. “Mueller’s Angry Dems are looking to impact the election. They are a National Disgrace!” Trump wrote on Twitter. Trump’s tweet was in reference to a New York Times report that White House Counsel Don McGahn had cooperated extensively with Mueller. Before dismissing them on Friday, Judge T.S. Ellis reminded the jurors, who are not sequestered, to refrain from discussing the case or investigating it on their own during the weekend. Defense attorneys Kevin Downing (R), Thomas Zehnle (2nd R) and Richard Westling (L) walk at the end of the third day of jury deliberations in the trial against Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman who is facing bank and tax fraud charges, in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., August 20, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts Some legal experts expressed concern, however, that jurors might still see Trump’s comments - inadvertently or otherwise. Another headline from Friday that could grab the attention of jurors concerned Ellis’ disclosure that he had received threats related to the trial and was being protected by U.S. marshals. The jury was not present when he made those remarks. “In a high profile case, the general assumption is that some outside information may accidentally reach a jury, despite jurors’ best efforts to avoid relevant news,” said jury consultant Roy Futterman. “Given the judge’s statement, the jurors may reasonably assume that they may be at some risk, which may change the tenor of their deliberations, perhaps raising tensions or speeding things up.” On Thursday, the jury asked for a definition of “reasonable doubt” and clarification on the law governing the reporting of foreign bank accounts, but it did not ask any similar questions on Friday or Monday. Shanlon Wu, who represented Manafort’s former protege Rick Gates before he pleaded guilty in February and cooperated with the prosecution, said the lack of questions might bode better for the prosecution than the defense. Slideshow (8 Images) He said it suggested “they were working hard and working well together, and there was no dissension.” “I think that’s a good sign for the prosecution,” Wu said. Still, he said he saw a chance of acquittals on the four counts of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts, citing the jury’s technical question on Thursday about the ownership and control threshold requirements for such disclosures.

www.reuters.com

center

DEvTsNCDjrXECTYI

test

aMGkvFlpLyQrX6iu

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/12/americas_post_midterm_inferno_tea_party_garbage_media_nonsense_and_economic_hell/

America’s post-midterm inferno: Tea Party garbage, media nonsense and economic hell

2014-11-12

Robert Hennelly

A full week after the alleged “ shellacking “ of President Obama and the Democrats , the country remains a “ stucknation ” locked in a partisan standoff where both factions hold each other in contempt and have a long list of past grievances they want to relitigate . For several years now , the two parties have so amped up the partisan rhetoric that what used to be middle ground is nothing but scorched earth . It 's a machine fueled by animus , but raises hundreds of millions of dollars for the warring factions and keeps the nation from a necessary reconciliation that 's a prerequisite for moving forward . Listening to this cacophony that passes for political discourse , an alien from outer space would come to the conclusion that Americans really can ’ t stand each other and just don ’ t want to defeat their opponents but annihilate them . History is never shaped by one thing , but a confluence of trends and events . We have a president who just can ’ t figure out why everybody is not as smart as he is , and a disloyal opposition that so lusts for his demise they would shut down the government to make a rhetorical point . For many Democratic partisans , the reactionary right is waging a war on women ’ s reproductive rights and working around the clock to strip the right to vote from people of color . A key core belief of many Tea Party Republicans is that Democrats can only win elections if they steal them . This delegitimizing of the nation ’ s political process popped up for Democrats in Gore v. Bush in 2000 and now has captured conservatives , who pretty much refute the results of every election except for the ones they win . ( A notable exception was Ed Gillespie ’ s concession to Sen. Mark Warner , which went some distance in restoring the notion of a Virginian gentleman . ) Just spend an hour listening to national talk show host Michael Savage and his many less talented imitators that blanket the airwaves . You will hear such a deep hatred for the president you ’ ll understand that Savage and his crowd just don ’ t have contempt for the president -- but for the tens of millions of their fellow Americans that voted for him twice . Even as ISIS does its thing Savage has described the sitting president as the “ enemy within ” who wants to spread Ebola , open the door to “ illegals , ” all so as to make the U.S. a third-world nation in a kind of egalitarian “ marxist ” exercise aimed at collapsing capitalism . These statements are made despite the president ’ s record deportations and unprecedented profits enjoyed by U.S. corporations during the president ’ s tenure . A mediocre chief executive he may be , but he certainly is not a marxist . While largely ignored by the mainstream media , Savage ’ s millions of loyal listeners are also voracious readers who sent his recently released “ Stop the Coming Civil War : My Savage Truth ” on to the Barnes and Nobles big seller list . The bookseller ’ s website says Savage tells his readers “ our nation is in real trouble and the seeds of a second conflagration have been sown . ” This near violent alienation extends into the global warming debate with one side insisting that as long as there is a God we need not worry about environmental consequences and we must burn as much fossil fuel as possible to fire up prosperity for future generations . Their opponents see these “ climate change deniers ” as a clear and present danger to the planet , funded by fossil fuel profiteers , whose only reason for existing is accumulating as much material wealth as possible so as to extend their dominion over a quickly dying planet . There is just no reconciling these alienated factions . Billions of dollars are backing up both narratives , even as the homeless stretch out in the street and West Africa begs for the basics . No wonder most Americans decided to sit out Choice 2014 . In the aftermath of the 2014 midterms , the milquetoast political press offers a ho-hum narrative dominated by the politicians ' personal story . What ’ s President Obama ’ s legacy ? Which Republican will claim the 2016 nomination ? How do the results of 2014 impact former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s chances to win the presidency ? Rank them . Sort them . Do whatever your cyberalgorithms tell you will get the most eyeballs . The political reporting is so fixated on who 's winning or falling behind that the horse race eclipses the actual economic and social conditions of the country . What they seem to be missing is just how badly polarized the nation is and just how many American households are still falling behind . As for the voters ' hearts and minds , they get their shot during the exit polls . Based on those polls Republicans would be mistaken to interpret their victory as some kind of blank check . As the New York Times reported , voters surveyed this time around were skeptical of both parties . They believed the U.S. economy is rigged for the 1 percent and are doubtful their children will do better than they have . There is something that is ruminating out there beyond the Beltway and the safe green zone of the corporate media that acts as its buffer . Looking at the “ right way-wrong way ” survey data by the NBC News/Wall Street Journal it has pretty much been all downhill from right after the Sept. 11 attack . That was when just over 70 percent of those surveyed thought the nation was headed in the right direction as ground zero still smoldered , the nation pulled together and the world embraced us as a victim of terrorism . By this summer , more than 12 years into our global war on terror , and a few years into the “ recovery , ” that same poll was totally upside down with 70 percent now saying the nation was headed in the wrong direction . In the immediate run-up to the midterms the president said U.S. intelligence missed the rise of ISIS , the Secret Service left the front door of the White House and the Centers for Disease Control fumbled the initial response of Ebola . Most all the Democrats ran away from the president . Consistently the president was a couple of beats behind the breaking news where his handlers must have thought it was safe . Whether it was responding to the wave of undocumented children crossing the border , ISIS or Ebola the White House waited for events to play out for weeks and even months , and only when the media declared a “ crisis , ” would we get presidential action . It was as if President Obama ’ s heart wasn ’ t in doing his job . Off course for the Savage contingent this passiveness was extrapolated as premeditation and diabolical planning to collapse the nation into an oozing morass of disease and lawless chaos . The president ’ s poor performance , whatever the reason for it , had consequences down ballot . Republicans not only won the U.S. Senate but they now hold 31 of the nation ’ s governorships , replacing Democrats in Arkansas , Illinois , Massachusetts and Maryland . The GOP now has total control , that is the governorship and the state legislatures , in 21 states compared to the Democrats who now have a third of that many . In the state races there were no doubt local issues also in play . Yet New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie , who led the Republican Governors Association 's bid to capture as many state capitals as possible , says in the 35 states he visited voters expressed major anxiety about the president ’ s lack of leadership . “ I wouldn ’ t call it fear . I ’ d call it anxiety , really anxious . I think the best way to describe it was a woman I met who told me she was in her 80s from Vero Beach and she said to me , 'Governor what 's happened to our country ? We used to control events , now events control us . ' ” “ I think the reason folks are anxious is they feel like the president is weak and as a result our country is perceived to be weak , ” Christie told reporters after he voted . “ I think the country is looking for the president to be strong and I wish he would be . He ’ s my president too. ” Up against Michael Savage Christie sounds like Eisenhower , a throwback to the Republican Party that pledged allegiance to the flag and respected the occupant of the White House , no matter what his party affiliation , because they respected the office and by extension the broader electorate . This nation ’ s existential crisis started well before President Obama was on the scene , as any graph over the growing wealth disparity will illustrate . What ails us goes deeper than a passive and detached president who 's reliably two beats behind the news wave and a Republican Party leadership committed to derailing his presidency at any cost . Even as the factions continue their war of attrition on each other , the American worker continued to fall behind , thanks to stagnant or declining wages despite increased productivity . These are the same economic conditions candidate Barack Obama railed against , and before him candidate Bill Clinton . Yet from 1979 until 2013 productivity grew by almost 65 percent but average workers only saw their compensation increase by a measly 8 percent increase in those 33 years . More recently , from 2007 until 2013 the median U.S. income dropped every year and when adjusted for inflation was the lowest since 1995 . All you need to know about the frame of mind of Americans for the 2014 midterm was in the small print of the latest Department of Labor report on employment that came a couple of days after the election . “ In October , the number of long-term unemployed ( those jobless for 27 weeks or more ) was little changed at 2.9 million , ” writes the Department of Labor , which translates to roughly a third of the unemployed . Civilian labor force participation continued its steady decline , hovering now at 62.8 percent , flat since April . Last month the DOL reported 7 million people were consigned to part-time work , even though they wanted full-time opportunities . Also in October , DOL said 2.2 million people were “ marginally attached to the labor force , ” a disconcerting stat DOL says “ was little changed from a year earlier. ” “ These individuals were not in the labor force ” but “ had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months . They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey . ” At the same time that most U.S. households were stuck in neutral or slipping back into reverse , the top 1 percent continued to buzz by in overdrive leaving the rest of the U.S. in their dust . From the first half of 2013 to the first half of 2014 , real hourly wages fell across the board with the exception of states that raised the minimum wage . Meanwhile “ the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of the post financial crisis growth since 2009 , while the bottom 90 percent became poorer , ” according to the World Economic Forum ’ s Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014 . And while the business press chirped out happy faces over the officially declining unemployment number , the rest of the stats in the latest Department of Labor data described the ongoing wasting of a nation through workforce and wage stagnation . Americans are trying to walk up the downward escalator whose motor is driven by corporate greed and bipartisan complicity . While corporations keep a lid on compensation and hiring they have increasingly become more skilled at stashing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits offshore , shifting their tax burden onto the same population that they have been squeezing for decades . By some estimates as much as $ 2 trillion remains stashed offshore , kneecapping any real recovery . This creates a phony scarcity to help build back the pressure to get their tax cuts , shrink the federal government , help rescind the social contract and break what ’ s left of the American labor movement . Having totally captured both political parties it is in the interests of corporations to fund the great American political kabuki dance that perpetuates the myth that on the issues that matter most to the corporations there ’ s a big difference between how both parties would govern . This partisan sideshow keeps the electorate distracted from the widening income disparity , wealth concentration and tax shifting that has happened under the leadership of both political parties for decades . In 2008 we went for `` hope and change , '' but six years later there 's this sense we are still on a downward trajectory , despite the booming stock market and gas prices dropping so fast experts are worried . Our kids are burdened with billions in debt and now the very same Wall Street vultures that created the mortgage meltdown are coming back to buy up foreclosed homes so they can rent them to the serfs who now can ’ t afford their own castle . It is this gnawing insecurity about the prospects for our families that is the psychological fallout from the Great Recession and our wars without end . For our grandparents it was shorthanded as the `` Depression era '' mentality . It defined every choice they made but also burnished a sense of national purpose , self-sacrifice and collectivity . It beat fascism on two fronts , came home , had a parade , built the interstate highway system , and sent their soldiers to school for free . But back then we had FDR who united the population against the speculators . Today most people grapple with their economic dislocation in isolation . The TV says we are in a recovery so it must be just me , my family , my household falling behind . Every day the TV says the market is up and yet that seems to have less and less to do with the average American family 's economic well-being . Yes , we are a war-prone republic , but we have always had periods when we collectively stood down , albeit briefly . Now we are told we are in a further notice eternal war where peace comes only when we leave this earthly plain . I do n't know if the human psyche is wired for that . But there is something else at work structurally that the media also shies away from because it undermines our superpower status narrative and the notion of our exceptionalism . Even talking about it one risks looking unpatriotic . For many Americans this has been the linchpin for their sense of well-being in an ever-changing world . We are just not up to coming to grips with the notion that planetary peace , prosperity and stability is truly a multilateral project . Where ’ s the national pride in that ? When the president was n't propping up the phony Bush war on terror narrative , he spoke eloquently about this reality as he did at West Point . President Obama is presiding in a period where in the scheme of world affairs , save the nuclear war option , the presidency is shrinking . This globally integrated marketplace we were so hell-bent to create has geopolitical consequences . You can ’ t rely on China to finance your federal debt and not expect to lose leverage in the world . While Republicans like to put the shrinking of the presidency on the current occupant of the White House , it ignores structural things like that and the well-documented choice by U.S. multinationals and hedge funds to bet against America because they can make more money someplace else . Ironically , these very hedge fund players that helped fund Christie ’ s Republican Governors Association , like Elliot Management ’ s Paul Singer who gave over a million dollars to the RGA , are the same crowd looking to profit from the inversion deals being cut by U.S. corporations to abandon the U.S. to reduce their U.S. tax liability . So is it now , `` ask not what your country can do for you '' but which country gives you the highest rate of return ?

A full week after the alleged “shellacking “ of President Obama and the Democrats, the country remains a “stucknation” locked in a partisan standoff where both factions hold each other in contempt and have a long list of past grievances they want to relitigate. For several years now, the two parties have so amped up the partisan rhetoric that what used to be middle ground is nothing but scorched earth. It's a machine fueled by animus, but raises hundreds of millions of dollars for the warring factions and keeps the nation from a necessary reconciliation that's a prerequisite for moving forward. Advertisement: Listening to this cacophony that passes for political discourse, an alien from outer space would come to the conclusion that Americans really can’t stand each other and just don’t want to defeat their opponents but annihilate them. No wonder Putin sent his armor into the Ukraine. History is never shaped by one thing, but a confluence of trends and events. We have a president who just can’t figure out why everybody is not as smart as he is, and a disloyal opposition that so lusts for his demise they would shut down the government to make a rhetorical point. Advertisement: For many Democratic partisans, the reactionary right is waging a war on women’s reproductive rights and working around the clock to strip the right to vote from people of color. A key core belief of many Tea Party Republicans is that Democrats can only win elections if they steal them. This delegitimizing of the nation’s political process popped up for Democrats in Gore v. Bush in 2000 and now has captured conservatives, who pretty much refute the results of every election except for the ones they win. (A notable exception was Ed Gillespie’s concession to Sen. Mark Warner, which went some distance in restoring the notion of a Virginian gentleman.) Just spend an hour listening to national talk show host Michael Savage and his many less talented imitators that blanket the airwaves. You will hear such a deep hatred for the president you’ll understand that Savage and his crowd just don’t have contempt for the president -- but for the tens of millions of their fellow Americans that voted for him twice. Advertisement: Even as ISIS does its thing Savage has described the sitting president as the “enemy within” who wants to spread Ebola, open the door to “illegals,” all so as to make the U.S. a third-world nation in a kind of egalitarian “marxist” exercise aimed at collapsing capitalism. These statements are made despite the president’s record deportations and unprecedented profits enjoyed by U.S. corporations during the president’s tenure. A mediocre chief executive he may be, but he certainly is not a marxist. While largely ignored by the mainstream media, Savage’s millions of loyal listeners are also voracious readers who sent his recently released “Stop the Coming Civil War: My Savage Truth” on to the Barnes and Nobles big seller list. The bookseller’s website says Savage tells his readers “our nation is in real trouble and the seeds of a second conflagration have been sown.” Advertisement: This near violent alienation extends into the global warming debate with one side insisting that as long as there is a God we need not worry about environmental consequences and we must burn as much fossil fuel as possible to fire up prosperity for future generations. Their opponents see these “climate change deniers” as a clear and present danger to the planet, funded by fossil fuel profiteers, whose only reason for existing is accumulating as much material wealth as possible so as to extend their dominion over a quickly dying planet. There is just no reconciling these alienated factions. Billions of dollars are backing up both narratives, even as the homeless stretch out in the street and West Africa begs for the basics. No wonder most Americans decided to sit out Choice 2014. In the aftermath of the 2014 midterms, the milquetoast political press offers a ho-hum narrative dominated by the politicians' personal story. What’s President Obama’s legacy? Which Republican will claim the 2016 nomination? How do the results of 2014 impact former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chances to win the presidency? Advertisement: Rank them. Sort them. Do whatever your cyberalgorithms tell you will get the most eyeballs. The political reporting is so fixated on who's winning or falling behind that the horse race eclipses the actual economic and social conditions of the country. What they seem to be missing is just how badly polarized the nation is and just how many American households are still falling behind. As for the voters' hearts and minds, they get their shot during the exit polls. Based on those polls Republicans would be mistaken to interpret their victory as some kind of blank check. As the New York Times reported, voters surveyed this time around were skeptical of both parties. They believed the U.S. economy is rigged for the 1 percent and are doubtful their children will do better than they have. There is something that is ruminating out there beyond the Beltway and the safe green zone of the corporate media that acts as its buffer. Looking at the “right way-wrong way” survey data by the NBC News/Wall Street Journal it has pretty much been all downhill from right after the Sept. 11 attack. That was when just over 70 percent of those surveyed thought the nation was headed in the right direction as ground zero still smoldered, the nation pulled together and the world embraced us as a victim of terrorism. Advertisement: By this summer, more than 12 years into our global war on terror, and a few years into the “recovery,” that same poll was totally upside down with 70 percent now saying the nation was headed in the wrong direction. In the immediate run-up to the midterms the president said U.S. intelligence missed the rise of ISIS, the Secret Service left the front door of the White House and the Centers for Disease Control fumbled the initial response of Ebola. Most all the Democrats ran away from the president. Consistently the president was a couple of beats behind the breaking news where his handlers must have thought it was safe. Whether it was responding to the wave of undocumented children crossing the border, ISIS or Ebola the White House waited for events to play out for weeks and even months, and only when the media declared a “crisis,” would we get presidential action. It was as if President Obama’s heart wasn’t in doing his job. Off course for the Savage contingent this passiveness was extrapolated as premeditation and diabolical planning to collapse the nation into an oozing morass of disease and lawless chaos. The president’s poor performance, whatever the reason for it, had consequences down ballot. Republicans not only won the U.S. Senate but they now hold 31 of the nation’s governorships, replacing Democrats in Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland. The GOP now has total control, that is the governorship and the state legislatures, in 21 states compared to the Democrats who now have a third of that many. Advertisement: In the state races there were no doubt local issues also in play. Yet New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who led the Republican Governors Association's bid to capture as many state capitals as possible, says in the 35 states he visited voters expressed major anxiety about the president’s lack of leadership. “I wouldn’t call it fear. I’d call it anxiety, really anxious. I think the best way to describe it was a woman I met who told me she was in her 80s from Vero Beach and she said to me, 'Governor what's happened to our country? We used to control events, now events control us.'” “I think the reason folks are anxious is they feel like the president is weak and as a result our country is perceived to be weak,” Christie told reporters after he voted. “I think the country is looking for the president to be strong and I wish he would be. He’s my president too.” Up against Michael Savage Christie sounds like Eisenhower, a throwback to the Republican Party that pledged allegiance to the flag and respected the occupant of the White House, no matter what his party affiliation, because they respected the office and by extension the broader electorate. That America now only exists in history. This nation’s existential crisis started well before President Obama was on the scene, as any graph over the growing wealth disparity will illustrate. What ails us goes deeper than a passive and detached president who's reliably two beats behind the news wave and a Republican Party leadership committed to derailing his presidency at any cost. Even as the factions continue their war of attrition on each other, the American worker continued to fall behind, thanks to stagnant or declining wages despite increased productivity. Advertisement: These are the same economic conditions candidate Barack Obama railed against, and before him candidate Bill Clinton. Yet from 1979 until 2013 productivity grew by almost 65 percent but average workers only saw their compensation increase by a measly 8 percent increase in those 33 years. More recently, from 2007 until 2013 the median U.S. income dropped every year and when adjusted for inflation was the lowest since 1995. All you need to know about the frame of mind of Americans for the 2014 midterm was in the small print of the latest Department of Labor report on employment that came a couple of days after the election. “In October, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2.9 million,” writes the Department of Labor, which translates to roughly a third of the unemployed. Civilian labor force participation continued its steady decline, hovering now at 62.8 percent, flat since April. Last month the DOL reported 7 million people were consigned to part-time work, even though they wanted full-time opportunities. Also in October, DOL said 2.2 million people were “marginally attached to the labor force,” a disconcerting stat DOL says “was little changed from a year earlier.” “These individuals were not in the labor force” but “had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.” At the same time that most U.S. households were stuck in neutral or slipping back into reverse, the top 1 percent continued to buzz by in overdrive leaving the rest of the U.S. in their dust. From the first half of 2013 to the first half of 2014, real hourly wages fell across the board with the exception of states that raised the minimum wage. Meanwhile “the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of the post financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer,” according to the World Economic Forum’s Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014. Advertisement: And while the business press chirped out happy faces over the officially declining unemployment number, the rest of the stats in the latest Department of Labor data described the ongoing wasting of a nation through workforce and wage stagnation. Americans are trying to walk up the downward escalator whose motor is driven by corporate greed and bipartisan complicity. While corporations keep a lid on compensation and hiring they have increasingly become more skilled at stashing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits offshore, shifting their tax burden onto the same population that they have been squeezing for decades. By some estimates as much as $2 trillion remains stashed offshore, kneecapping any real recovery. This creates a phony scarcity to help build back the pressure to get their tax cuts, shrink the federal government, help rescind the social contract and break what’s left of the American labor movement. Having totally captured both political parties it is in the interests of corporations to fund the great American political kabuki dance that perpetuates the myth that on the issues that matter most to the corporations there’s a big difference between how both parties would govern. This partisan sideshow keeps the electorate distracted from the widening income disparity, wealth concentration and tax shifting that has happened under the leadership of both political parties for decades. In 2008 we went for "hope and change," but six years later there's this sense we are still on a downward trajectory, despite the booming stock market and gas prices dropping so fast experts are worried. Our kids are burdened with billions in debt and now the very same Wall Street vultures that created the mortgage meltdown are coming back to buy up foreclosed homes so they can rent them to the serfs who now can’t afford their own castle. It is this gnawing insecurity about the prospects for our families that is the psychological fallout from the Great Recession and our wars without end. For our grandparents it was shorthanded as the "Depression era" mentality. It defined every choice they made but also burnished a sense of national purpose, self-sacrifice and collectivity. It beat fascism on two fronts, came home, had a parade, built the interstate highway system, and sent their soldiers to school for free. But back then we had FDR who united the population against the speculators. Now the speculators divide and prosper. Today most people grapple with their economic dislocation in isolation. The TV says we are in a recovery so it must be just me, my family, my household falling behind. Every day the TV says the market is up and yet that seems to have less and less to do with the average American family's economic well-being. Yes, we are a war-prone republic, but we have always had periods when we collectively stood down, albeit briefly. Now we are told we are in a further notice eternal war where peace comes only when we leave this earthly plain. I don't know if the human psyche is wired for that. But there is something else at work structurally that the media also shies away from because it undermines our superpower status narrative and the notion of our exceptionalism. Even talking about it one risks looking unpatriotic. For many Americans this has been the linchpin for their sense of well-being in an ever-changing world. We are just not up to coming to grips with the notion that planetary peace, prosperity and stability is truly a multilateral project. Where’s the national pride in that? When the president wasn't propping up the phony Bush war on terror narrative, he spoke eloquently about this reality as he did at West Point. President Obama is presiding in a period where in the scheme of world affairs, save the nuclear war option, the presidency is shrinking. This globally integrated marketplace we were so hell-bent to create has geopolitical consequences. You can’t rely on China to finance your federal debt and not expect to lose leverage in the world. While Republicans like to put the shrinking of the presidency on the current occupant of the White House, it ignores structural things like that and the well-documented choice by U.S. multinationals and hedge funds to bet against America because they can make more money someplace else. Ironically, these very hedge fund players that helped fund Christie’s Republican Governors Association, like Elliot Management’s Paul Singer who gave over a million dollars to the RGA, are the same crowd looking to profit from the inversion deals being cut by U.S. corporations to abandon the U.S. to reduce their U.S. tax liability. So is it now, "ask not what your country can do for you" but which country gives you the highest rate of return?

www.salon.com

left

aMGkvFlpLyQrX6iu

test

oyy8yQ5r20nbWgkj

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48263249

Trump-Russia probe: Barr 'assigns prosecutor to review inquiry'

US Attorney General William Barr has assigned a senior federal prosecutor to examine the origins of the Russia investigation . John Durham , the US attorney in Connecticut , has reportedly been asked to determine whether the collection of intelligence on the Trump campaign was lawful . President Donald Trump has long called for such an investigation . He has branded the Russia inquiry a `` witch hunt '' by his opponents . Critics of Mr Barr , however , have accused him of acting on behalf of the president rather than in the interests of US justice . Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday , Mr Trump said he had not directed Mr Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia probe . `` I did n't ask him to do that ... But I think it 's a great thing that he did , '' Mr Trump said . `` I am so proud of our attorney general . '' Last month , Mr Barr told members of Congress that he believed `` spying did occur '' on the Trump campaign in 2016 , adding : `` The question is whether it was adequately predicated . And I 'm not suggesting that it was n't adequately predicated . But I need to explore that . '' He gave no details but said he was gathering a team to look into the origins of the investigation , which was led by special counsel Robert Mueller . Mr Durham , who has a background in investigating wrongdoing and corruption among public officials , will not be acting as a special counsel in the same way Mr Mueller did , reports say . But he will be tasked with exploring whether the government acted lawfully and appropriately when collecting intelligence ahead of the 2016 election . Mr Trump and his supporters have often accused the FBI and the Department of Justice of illegally monitoring his campaign . This is the third known inquiry into the early days of the Russia investigation . A Department of Justice inspector general is also examining the origins of the investigation , and the US attorney in Utah has also been asked to look into aspects of it . Further details of the latest review are limited and the Justice Department has yet to comment . Mr Durham is also exploring whether former FBI general counsel James Baker disclosed confidential information to the media , the New York Times reports . Mr Baker denies wrongdoing , and it is unclear if this line of inquiry relates directly to the Russia investigation . Mr Mueller 's 448-page report did not conclude that there was a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential election . However , it did detail 10 instances where Mr Trump possibly attempted to impede the investigation . The report concluded that Russia had interfered in the election `` in sweeping and systematic fashion '' . That interference took the form of an extensive social media campaign and hacking into Democratic Party servers by Russian military intelligence , the report said . Mr Trump and his supporters immediately jumped on the fact that no collusion was found . `` After three years of lies and smears and slander , the Russia hoax is finally dead , '' the president said at the time . He called for an investigation into the report . On Tuesday , the president 's lawyers welcomed news of Mr Barr 's review . `` He made a sensible choice , '' Rudy Giuliani said . `` I believe Barr has selected an excellent person . '' `` The origins of this investigation have to be examined thoroughly , and the appointment of a US attorney would be the appropriate course of action , '' another of Mr Trump 's lawyers , Jay Sekulow , said . Meanwhile , leading Democrats have demanded that the Mueller report be published in full . They have pledged to make use of the party 's majority control of committees in the House of Representatives to continue investigating the president . Earlier this month , a US House of Representatives panel voted to hold Mr Barr in contempt of Congress for not releasing an unredacted copy of the report . The judiciary committee took the rare step as tensions rose over its findings . US Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Mr Barr of lying to Congress but a justice department spokeswoman called it a `` baseless attack '' .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption William Barr told Congress he believed "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign US Attorney General William Barr has assigned a senior federal prosecutor to examine the origins of the Russia investigation. John Durham, the US attorney in Connecticut, has reportedly been asked to determine whether the collection of intelligence on the Trump campaign was lawful. President Donald Trump has long called for such an investigation. He has branded the Russia inquiry a "witch hunt" by his opponents. Critics of Mr Barr, however, have accused him of acting on behalf of the president rather than in the interests of US justice. Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Tuesday, Mr Trump said he had not directed Mr Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia probe. "I didn't ask him to do that... But I think it's a great thing that he did," Mr Trump said. "I am so proud of our attorney general." Last month, Mr Barr told members of Congress that he believed "spying did occur" on the Trump campaign in 2016, adding: "The question is whether it was adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting that it wasn't adequately predicated. But I need to explore that." He gave no details but said he was gathering a team to look into the origins of the investigation, which was led by special counsel Robert Mueller. How would this differ from the Mueller inquiry itself? Mr Durham, who has a background in investigating wrongdoing and corruption among public officials, will not be acting as a special counsel in the same way Mr Mueller did, reports say. But he will be tasked with exploring whether the government acted lawfully and appropriately when collecting intelligence ahead of the 2016 election. Mr Trump and his supporters have often accused the FBI and the Department of Justice of illegally monitoring his campaign. This is the third known inquiry into the early days of the Russia investigation. A Department of Justice inspector general is also examining the origins of the investigation, and the US attorney in Utah has also been asked to look into aspects of it. Further details of the latest review are limited and the Justice Department has yet to comment. Mr Durham is also exploring whether former FBI general counsel James Baker disclosed confidential information to the media, the New York Times reports. Mr Baker denies wrongdoing, and it is unclear if this line of inquiry relates directly to the Russia investigation. What did the Mueller report find? Mr Mueller's 448-page report did not conclude that there was a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential election. However, it did detail 10 instances where Mr Trump possibly attempted to impede the investigation. The report concluded that Russia had interfered in the election "in sweeping and systematic fashion". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The Mueller report - in 60 seconds That interference took the form of an extensive social media campaign and hacking into Democratic Party servers by Russian military intelligence, the report said. Mr Trump and his supporters immediately jumped on the fact that no collusion was found. "After three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russia hoax is finally dead," the president said at the time. He called for an investigation into the report. How have Trump's lawyers reacted? On Tuesday, the president's lawyers welcomed news of Mr Barr's review. "He made a sensible choice," Rudy Giuliani said. "I believe Barr has selected an excellent person." "The origins of this investigation have to be examined thoroughly, and the appointment of a US attorney would be the appropriate course of action," another of Mr Trump's lawyers, Jay Sekulow, said. Meanwhile, leading Democrats have demanded that the Mueller report be published in full. They have pledged to make use of the party's majority control of committees in the House of Representatives to continue investigating the president. Earlier this month, a US House of Representatives panel voted to hold Mr Barr in contempt of Congress for not releasing an unredacted copy of the report. The judiciary committee took the rare step as tensions rose over its findings. US Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Mr Barr of lying to Congress but a justice department spokeswoman called it a "baseless attack".

www.bbc.com

center

oyy8yQ5r20nbWgkj

test

GD83xT6AfNWKsnkY

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-pence-hhs/

As Trump rewrites public health rules, Pence sees conservative agenda born again

2019-05-30

In a sweeping social policy shift , the Trump administration is seeking to remake health rules at home and abroad for women , gay and transgender people , restricting access to abortion , curtailing support for contraception and narrowing the scope of civil rights in healthcare . The turnaround has its foundations in the quiet , behind-the-scenes influence of Vice President Mike Pence , who has been driven throughout his political career by his evangelical Christian beliefs to restrict abortion and prioritize the rights of religious conservatives . Pence has been in the spotlight for leading the administration ’ s failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare . But other changes , affecting health policy domestically and abroad , are moving ahead with far less attention . Under the direction of two secretaries recommended by Pence , the Department of Health and Human Services has moved to slash funds from teen pregnancy-prevention programs , curb abortion both in the United States and abroad and strip civil protections for transgender patients . The administration has emphasized abstinence programs , led by appointees who believe contraception harms women , and pushed to cut government funds for Planned Parenthood – a longtime cause for Pence while he was in Congress . Planned Parenthood , a national network of healthcare providers , offers infertility services , contraception and abortions . Public health civil rights offices , marshaled to strengthen LGBT rights under Obama , have been retooled into a new Office of Conscience and Religious Freedom . This month , the office unveiled a final “ conscience rule ” to strengthen protections for healthcare workers who object to performing abortions and sterilizations or treating gay and transgender patients . And the HHS , along with the State Department – headed by Pence ally Mike Pompeo , also an evangelical Christian – has expanded the campaign beyond U.S. borders . Trump-appointed officials are seeking to delete language in international documents at the United Nations they contend promotes access to abortion and expands healthcare rights to transgender individuals . “ There has never been anything like it , ” Marjorie Dannenfelser , president of the Susan B. Anthony List , an anti-abortion group , said of her working relationship with Pence . “ The policy I believe can ’ t get done without Vice President Pence and his team . ” A cadre of religious conservatives appointed in the early days of the administration is driving the changes , largely from within HHS , which administers most government health programs , along with the State Department and White House . Many appointees come from religious and conservative groups , some of whom regularly protested outside abortion clinics during the Obama years . In the Trump-Pence West Wing , “ everywhere I turn are colleagues , mentors and friends who have fought in the pro-life trenches for decades , ” Katy Talento , who handled health policy in the White House , told an anti-abortion group in Texas . She last week announced plans to leave the administration . “ I still can ’ t believe they let us all in the complex every day . ” Emboldened by the movement and by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court , states including Alabama and Missouri have passed laws in recent weeks that nearly outlaw abortion , spurring nationwide protests . The shift has generated legal challenges , and chunks of the agenda are bottlenecked in the courts . Recently , a federal judge in Washington State blocked new rules meant to cut funding from facilities offering abortion . The campaign has been more successful abroad . Pompeo in March held a rare news conference to say the administration was strengthening an effort to combat abortion globally . “ We ’ re determined to make sure that we don ’ t allow taxpayers ’ dollars to get to those places , ” he said , citing groups performing or referring abortions , and announcing a cut in funds to Latin America . Pompeo ’ s declaration marked an expansion of the Mexico City Policy , which requires foreign non-governmental groups that receive U.S. health aid not provide , refer or counsel on abortions . Implemented by every Republican administration since 1984 , the policy in the past applied to U.S. family planning funds , or about $ 600 million . In one of his first acts as president , Trump signed an order expanding the rule to cover nearly all U.S. global health aid , or more than $ 8 billion . Nationally , this public health battle has often been pushed to the background by the nonstop churn of Trump ’ s tweets and controversies . “ One of the benefits of Trump ’ s Twitter approach is it creates headlines , and that ’ s what it ’ s intended to do , and underneath those headlines , everyone else in the administration can go about peacefully doing their job , ” said David McIntosh , president of the conservative Club for Growth and a longtime Pence friend . HHS has “ released several very important , significant regulations that changed the nature of Obamacare , of healthcare , with very little coverage in the press . ” The effort has startled some public health veterans . “ It ’ s very , very extreme , ” said Megan Huchko , director of the Center for Global Reproductive Health at Duke University . “ It seems we ’ re moving backward in pretty profound ways . ” The vice president declined interview requests for this article . Administration officials say his voice matters . Kellyanne Conway , senior counselor to the president , praised Pence ’ s advocacy on cutting federal support for Planned Parenthood . “ It means a great deal to the president to hear that from somebody who had been a legislator on Capitol Hill for 12 years , a governor for four , and somebody who like the president is trusted by the small c conservative movement as a full-spectrum conservative , ” Conway said . One senior HHS official told ███ the agency is correcting the course set by the Obama administration on the government ’ s role in enforcing LGBT rights and whether providers have to perform abortions . “ Our rights to religious freedom have too long been treated as a second-class right compared to others and it ’ s time for that to change , ” said Roger Severino , director of the agency ’ s Civil Rights Division . When Trump secured the GOP nomination in 2016 , he had yet to win over skeptical evangelical voters who questioned his varying stances on critical issues , most notably abortion . Trump previously had said he supported a woman ’ s right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy . His selection of Pence as his running mate helped him win over those voters . The Trump-Pence ticket ultimately secured 80 percent of white born-again and evangelical Christians . In a White House marked by turnover , the amiable Pence has been a quiet presence prodding the administration to align with his faith-based agenda . Aides describe him as a man whose effectiveness is rooted in a willingness to shun the limelight and put like-minded proteges in crucial jobs . “ Pence ’ s influence has come from … getting people who have the same worldview as Pence in key positions at things you care about and then trusting them to make decisions , ” said Paul Winfree , who served as deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under Trump and is now at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank . The vice president ’ s allies and former aides are salted throughout the administration , carrying out significant shifts in federal health insurance programs . One change cheered by the religious right made it easier for employers to not cover contraception . A key Pence ally is Seema Verma , a healthcare consultant who worked with him in Indiana , now administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . Under Verma , the agency has worked to roll back Obamacare ’ s expansion of Medicaid , the insurance program for the poor and disabled that covers more than 70 million Americans . Both HHS secretaries under Trump were pushed by Pence : Tom Price , an ally in Congress who was fired in 2017 for using expensive charter flights for public business , and Alex Azar , who worked as a senior pharmaceutical company executive and lobbyist in Indianapolis while Pence was governor . At a January event , Azar called Pence “ my friend and mentor . ” The agency took on a new religious tone . Price hosted a Bible study on Wednesday mornings for members of Congress and political appointees , a former senior HHS official said .

In a sweeping social policy shift, the Trump administration is seeking to remake health rules at home and abroad for women, gay and transgender people, restricting access to abortion, curtailing support for contraception and narrowing the scope of civil rights in healthcare. The turnaround has its foundations in the quiet, behind-the-scenes influence of Vice President Mike Pence, who has been driven throughout his political career by his evangelical Christian beliefs to restrict abortion and prioritize the rights of religious conservatives. Pence has been in the spotlight for leading the administration’s failed effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. But other changes, affecting health policy domestically and abroad, are moving ahead with far less attention. Under the direction of two secretaries recommended by Pence, the Department of Health and Human Services has moved to slash funds from teen pregnancy-prevention programs, curb abortion both in the United States and abroad and strip civil protections for transgender patients. The administration has emphasized abstinence programs, led by appointees who believe contraception harms women, and pushed to cut government funds for Planned Parenthood – a longtime cause for Pence while he was in Congress. Planned Parenthood, a national network of healthcare providers, offers infertility services, contraception and abortions. Public health civil rights offices, marshaled to strengthen LGBT rights under Obama, have been retooled into a new Office of Conscience and Religious Freedom. This month, the office unveiled a final “conscience rule” to strengthen protections for healthcare workers who object to performing abortions and sterilizations or treating gay and transgender patients. And the HHS, along with the State Department – headed by Pence ally Mike Pompeo, also an evangelical Christian – has expanded the campaign beyond U.S. borders. Trump-appointed officials are seeking to delete language in international documents at the United Nations they contend promotes access to abortion and expands healthcare rights to transgender individuals. “There has never been anything like it,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, said of her working relationship with Pence. “The policy I believe can’t get done without Vice President Pence and his team.” A cadre of religious conservatives appointed in the early days of the administration is driving the changes, largely from within HHS, which administers most government health programs, along with the State Department and White House. Many appointees come from religious and conservative groups, some of whom regularly protested outside abortion clinics during the Obama years. In the Trump-Pence West Wing, “everywhere I turn are colleagues, mentors and friends who have fought in the pro-life trenches for decades,” Katy Talento, who handled health policy in the White House, told an anti-abortion group in Texas. She last week announced plans to leave the administration. “I still can’t believe they let us all in the complex every day.” Emboldened by the movement and by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court, states including Alabama and Missouri have passed laws in recent weeks that nearly outlaw abortion, spurring nationwide protests. The shift has generated legal challenges, and chunks of the agenda are bottlenecked in the courts. Recently, a federal judge in Washington State blocked new rules meant to cut funding from facilities offering abortion. The campaign has been more successful abroad. Pompeo in March held a rare news conference to say the administration was strengthening an effort to combat abortion globally. “We’re determined to make sure that we don’t allow taxpayers’ dollars to get to those places,” he said, citing groups performing or referring abortions, and announcing a cut in funds to Latin America. Pompeo’s declaration marked an expansion of the Mexico City Policy, which requires foreign non-governmental groups that receive U.S. health aid not provide, refer or counsel on abortions. Implemented by every Republican administration since 1984, the policy in the past applied to U.S. family planning funds, or about $600 million. In one of his first acts as president, Trump signed an order expanding the rule to cover nearly all U.S. global health aid, or more than $8 billion. Nationally, this public health battle has often been pushed to the background by the nonstop churn of Trump’s tweets and controversies. “One of the benefits of Trump’s Twitter approach is it creates headlines, and that’s what it’s intended to do, and underneath those headlines, everyone else in the administration can go about peacefully doing their job,” said David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth and a longtime Pence friend. HHS has “released several very important, significant regulations that changed the nature of Obamacare, of healthcare, with very little coverage in the press.” The effort has startled some public health veterans. “It’s very, very extreme,” said Megan Huchko, director of the Center for Global Reproductive Health at Duke University. “It seems we’re moving backward in pretty profound ways.” The vice president declined interview requests for this article. Administration officials say his voice matters. Kellyanne Conway, senior counselor to the president, praised Pence’s advocacy on cutting federal support for Planned Parenthood. “It means a great deal to the president to hear that from somebody who had been a legislator on Capitol Hill for 12 years, a governor for four, and somebody who like the president is trusted by the small c conservative movement as a full-spectrum conservative,” Conway said. One senior HHS official told Reuters the agency is correcting the course set by the Obama administration on the government’s role in enforcing LGBT rights and whether providers have to perform abortions. “Our rights to religious freedom have too long been treated as a second-class right compared to others and it’s time for that to change,” said Roger Severino, director of the agency’s Civil Rights Division. “It seems we’re moving backward in pretty profound ways.” The Pence effect When Trump secured the GOP nomination in 2016, he had yet to win over skeptical evangelical voters who questioned his varying stances on critical issues, most notably abortion. Trump previously had said he supported a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. His selection of Pence as his running mate helped him win over those voters. The Trump-Pence ticket ultimately secured 80 percent of white born-again and evangelical Christians. In a White House marked by turnover, the amiable Pence has been a quiet presence prodding the administration to align with his faith-based agenda. Aides describe him as a man whose effectiveness is rooted in a willingness to shun the limelight and put like-minded proteges in crucial jobs. “Pence’s influence has come from … getting people who have the same worldview as Pence in key positions at things you care about and then trusting them to make decisions,” said Paul Winfree, who served as deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under Trump and is now at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. The vice president’s allies and former aides are salted throughout the administration, carrying out significant shifts in federal health insurance programs. One change cheered by the religious right made it easier for employers to not cover contraception. A key Pence ally is Seema Verma, a healthcare consultant who worked with him in Indiana, now administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Under Verma, the agency has worked to roll back Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor and disabled that covers more than 70 million Americans. Both HHS secretaries under Trump were pushed by Pence: Tom Price, an ally in Congress who was fired in 2017 for using expensive charter flights for public business, and Alex Azar, who worked as a senior pharmaceutical company executive and lobbyist in Indianapolis while Pence was governor. At a January event, Azar called Pence “my friend and mentor.” The agency took on a new religious tone. Price hosted a Bible study on Wednesday mornings for members of Congress and political appointees, a former senior HHS official said.

www.reuters.com

center

GD83xT6AfNWKsnkY

test

krI45oxVgs1BHxIM

lgbt_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/clinton-urges-supreme-court-to-overturn-doma/

Clinton urges Supreme Court to overturn DOMA

2013-03-07

( CNN ) – Former President Bill Clinton , who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996 , is now calling on the Supreme Court to rule the same law unconstitutional . The law , which defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman , denies federal benefits to same-sex couples in the nine states where same-sex couples can now legally wed . `` On March 27 , DOMA will come before the Supreme Court and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom , equality and justice above all , and is therefore constitutional , '' Clinton wrote in an op-ed published online Thursday night by The Washington Post . He continued : `` As the president who signed the act into law , I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and , in fact , incompatible with our Constitution . '' When it first became law , Clinton wrote `` it was a very different time . '' He added that many supporters of the bill believed its passage would `` defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage , which would have ended the debate for a generation or more . '' Under those circumstances , he wrote , the bill came to his desk , opposed by 81 out of 535 members of Congress . Fast forward to 2013 , and the climate is much different . Nine states ( plus the District of Columbia ) have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage and public opinion polls shows a majority of Americans think it should be legal . According to a CBS News poll conducted last month , 54 % of Americans think same-sex couples should have the right to legally wed , while 39 % oppose same-sex marriage . Looking back , Clinton said he had hoped DOMA would not provide an excuse for discrimination . `` I know now that , even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination , the law is itself discriminatory , '' he wrote . `` It should be overturned . '' Same-sex couples who are legally married in the United States are still denied `` more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples '' because of the law , he wrote . While he previously opposed same-sex marriage , Clinton went public in 2009 with a change of heart . `` I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide , and I still think that the American people should be able to play this out in debates , '' Clinton told CNN 's Anderson Cooper in September 2009 . `` But me , Bill Clinton personally , I changed my position . '' `` I am no longer opposed to that , '' he added . `` I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime , they ought to be able to do it . '' In his op-ed , Clinton wrote that `` while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures , in the end they catch up to our core values . '' `` I join with the Obama administration , the petitioner Edith Windsor and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act , '' he wrote .

7 years ago (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996, is now calling on the Supreme Court to rule the same law unconstitutional. The law, which defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, denies federal benefits to same-sex couples in the nine states where same-sex couples can now legally wed. Follow @politicalticker "On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional," Clinton wrote in an op-ed published online Thursday night by The Washington Post. He continued: "As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution." When it first became law, Clinton wrote "it was a very different time." He added that many supporters of the bill believed its passage would "defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more." Under those circumstances, he wrote, the bill came to his desk, opposed by 81 out of 535 members of Congress. Fast forward to 2013, and the climate is much different. Nine states (plus the District of Columbia) have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage and public opinion polls shows a majority of Americans think it should be legal. According to a CBS News poll conducted last month, 54% of Americans think same-sex couples should have the right to legally wed, while 39% oppose same-sex marriage. Looking back, Clinton said he had hoped DOMA would not provide an excuse for discrimination. "I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory," he wrote. "It should be overturned." Same-sex couples who are legally married in the United States are still denied "more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples" because of the law, he wrote. While he previously opposed same-sex marriage, Clinton went public in 2009 with a change of heart. "I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this out in debates," Clinton told CNN's Anderson Cooper in September 2009. "But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position." "I am no longer opposed to that," he added. "I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it." In his op-ed, Clinton wrote that "while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values." "I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act," he wrote. - CNN's Paul Steinhauser and Dave Alsup contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

krI45oxVgs1BHxIM

test

LsFkoPPaq8wDjVHR

education

AP Fact Check

https://apnews.com/d2cd7f24d270ca2274004f397e1999cc

Trump team’s false comfort on schools, virus

2020-07-13

Calvin Woodward, Hope Yen, Christopher Rugaber

FILE - In this April 27 , 2020 , file photo , a worker passes public school buses parked at a depot in Manchester , N.H. As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education , public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher . ( AP Photo/Charles Krupa , File ) FILE - In this April 27 , 2020 , file photo , a worker passes public school buses parked at a depot in Manchester , N.H. As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education , public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher . ( AP Photo/Charles Krupa , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump ’ s aides are misrepresenting the record on kids and the coronavirus as they push for schools to reopen . White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday inaccurately characterized what the chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said on the matter . A day earlier , Education Secretary Betsy DeVos also was wrong in stating that the research shows there is no danger “ in any way ” if kids are in school . Their comments came as Trump continued to spread falsehoods about a pandemic that is taking a disproportionate hit on the U.S. and is not under control . McENANY : “ Just last week you heard Dr. Redfield say that children are not spreading this. ” — Monday on Fox News Channel ’ s “ Fox and Friends ” THE FACTS : No , Dr. Robert Redfield , the CDC director , did not say that . He said officials don ’ t have evidence that children are “ driving ” infections at this point . But they have not ruled out that children spread the virus to adults . Dr. Deborah Birx , the White House coronavirus coordinator , said last week the government doesn ’ t have enough data to show whether and to what degree kids can infect others . The bulk of data has been collected from adults and particularly from those who were sick , leaving questions about children still unanswered , Birx said . She said children under 10 are the least tested age group . The officials did not reach a conclusion that “ children are not spreading this. ” Nor does the evidence prove that they are . The government has counted tens of thousands of children who have been infected with the virus and in some cases hospitalized . Overall , public health officials believe the virus is less dangerous to children than adults . DEVOS : “ There ’ s nothing in the data that suggests that kids being in school is in any way dangerous. ” — Sunday on “ Fox News Sunday . ” THE FACTS : Not so . Like McEnany , DeVos is suggesting certainty where none exists as she urged schools to provide full-time , in-person learning in the fall even with community transmission of COVID-19 rising in many parts of the U.S . It ’ s premature to claim that there are no risks “ in any way ” seen in data . How significant a risk has not been established . The CDC in April studied the pandemic ’ s effect on different ages in the U.S. and reviewed preliminary research in China , where the coronavirus started . It said social distancing is important for children , too , for their own safety and that of others . “ Whereas most COVID-19 cases in children are not severe , serious COVID-19 illness resulting in hospitalization still occurs in this age group , ” the CDC study says . In May , the CDC also warned doctors to be on the lookout for a rare but life-threatening inflammatory reaction in some children who ’ ve had the coronavirus . The condition had been reported in more than 100 children in New York and in some kids in several other states and in Europe , with some deaths . The agency ’ s current guidance for communities on the reopening of K-12 schools says the goal is to “ help protect students , teachers , administrators , and staff and slow the spread of COVID-19. ” The guidance says “ full sized , in person classes ” present the “ highest risk ” of spreading the virus and advises face masks , spreading out of desks , staggered schedules , eating meals in classrooms instead of the cafeteria and “ staying home when appropriate ” to help avert spikes in virus cases . TRUMP : “ Deaths in the U.S. are way down. ” — tweet on July 6 , one of at least a half dozen heralding a drop in daily deaths from the virus . THE FACTS : It ’ s true that deaths dipped as infections spiked in many parts of the country . But deaths lag sickness . And now , the widely expected upturn in U.S. deaths has begun , driven by fatalities in states in the South and West , according to data analyzed by The Associated Press . “ It ’ s a false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death , ” Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said Tuesday . He advised Americans : “ Don ’ t get yourself into false complacency . ” The new AP analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University shows the seven-day rolling average for daily reported deaths in the U.S. increased to 664 on Friday from 578 two weeks ago , as deaths rose in more than half the states . That ’ s still well below the lethal numbers of April . “ It ’ s consistently picking up , ” said William Hanage , a Harvard University infectious diseases researcher . “ And it ’ s picking up at the time you ’ d expect it to . ” TRUMP : “ For the 1/100th time , the reason we show so many Cases , compared to other countries that haven ’ t done nearly as well as we have , is that our TESTING is much bigger and better . We have tested 40,000,000 people . If we did 20,000,000 instead , Cases would be half , etc . NOT REPORTED ! ” — tweet Thursday . THE FACTS : His notion that infections are high only because the U.S. diagnostic testing has increased is false . His own top public health officials have shot down this line of thinking . Infections are rising because people are infecting each other more than they were when most everyone was hunkered down . It ’ s true that increased testing also contributes to the higher numbers . When you look harder , you ’ re going to see more . But the testing has uncovered a worrisome trend : The percentage of tests coming back positive for the virus is on the rise across nearly the entire country . That ’ s a clear demonstration that sickness is spreading and that the U.S. testing system is falling short . “ A high rate of positive tests indicates a government is only testing the sickest patients who seek out medical attention and is not casting a wide enough net , ” says the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center , a primary source of updated information on the pandemic . Americans are being confronted with long lines at testing sites , often disqualified if they are not showing symptoms and , if tested , forced to wait many days for results . TRUMP on the coronavirus : “ We have the lowest Mortality Rate in the World. ” – tweet Tuesday . An accurate death rate is impossible to know . Every country tests and counts people differently , and some are unreliable in reporting cases . Without knowing the true number of people who become infected , it can not be determined what portion of them die . Using a count kept by Johns Hopkins University , you can compare the number of recorded deaths with the number of reported cases . That count shows the U.S. experiencing more deaths as a percentage of cases than most other countries now being hit hard with the pandemic . The statistics look better for the U.S. when the list is expanded to include European countries that were slammed early on by the virus but now appear to have it under control . Even then , the U.S. is not shown to be among the best in avoiding death . Such calculations , though , do not provide a reliable measurement of actual death rates , because of the variations in testing and reporting , and the Johns Hopkins tally is not meant to be such a measure . The only way to tell how many cases have gone uncounted , and therefore what percentage of infected people have died from the disease , is to do another kind of test comprehensively , of people ’ s blood , to find how many people bear immune system antibodies to the virus . Globally , that is only being done in select places . TRUMP : “ Job growth is biggest in history. ” — tweet Wednesday . THE FACTS : Yes , but only because it is following the greatest job losses in history , by far . The U.S. economy shed more than 22 million jobs in March and April , wiping out nearly a decade of job growth in just two months , as the viral outbreak intensified and nearly all states shut down nonessential businesses . Since then , 7.5 million , or about one-third , of those jobs have been recovered as businesses reopened . Even after those gains , the unemployment rate is 11.1 % , down from April and May but otherwise higher than at any point since the Depression . TRUMP : “ Economy and Jobs are growing MUCH faster than anyone ( except me ! ) expected. ” — tweet Wednesday . THE FACTS : Not really . It ’ s true that May ’ s gain of 2.7 million jobs was unexpected . Economists had forecast another month of job losses . But most economists projected hiring would sharply rebound by June or at the latest July , once businesses began to reopen . The gains kicked in a month earlier than forecast . Now , though , coronavirus cases are rising in most states , imperiling the climb back . In six states representing one-third of the economy — Arizona , California , Colorado , Florida , Michigan , and Texas — governors are reversing their reopening plans , and the restart is on pause in 15 other states . Such reversals are keeping layoffs elevated and threatening to weaken hiring . TRUMP campaign ad , playing out a scenario where a person needing help calls the police in a Biden presidency and gets a voice recording : “ You have reached the 911 police emergency line . Due to defunding of the police department , we ’ re sorry but no one is here to take your call. ” The ad closes with the message : “ You won ’ t be safe in Joe Biden ’ s America . ” THE FACTS : Biden has not joined the call of protesters who demanded “ defund the police ” after Floyd ’ s killing . He ’ s proposed more money for police , conditioned to improvements in their practices . “ I don ’ t support defunding the police , “ Biden said last month in a CBS interview . But he said he would support tying federal aid to police based on whether “ they meet certain basic standards of decency , honorableness and , in fact , are able to demonstrate they can protect the community , everybody in the community . ” Biden ’ s criminal justice agenda , released long before he became the Democrats ’ presumptive presidential nominee , proposes more federal money for “ training that is needed to avert tragic , unjustifiable deaths ” and hiring more officers to ensure that departments are racially and ethnically reflective of the populations they serve . Specifically , he calls for a $ 300 million infusion into existing federal community policing grant programs . That adds up to more money for police , not defunding law enforcement . Biden also wants the federal government to spend more on education , social services and struggling areas of cities and rural America , to address root causes of crime . Democrats , meanwhile , have pointed to Trump ’ s repeated proposals in the administration ’ s budget to cut community policing and mediation programs at the Justice Department . Congressional Republicans say the program can be effectively merged with other divisions , but Democrats have repeatedly blocked the effort . The program has been used to help provide federal oversight of local police departments . Despite proposed cuts , Attorney General William Barr last month said that the department would use the COPS program funding to hire over 2,700 police officers at nearly 600 departments across the country . VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE : Biden “ said that he would , quote , absolutely cut funding for law enforcement. ” — remarks Thursday in Philadelphia . REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE email : “ In the wake of rioting , looting , and tragic murders ripping apart communities across the country , Joe Biden said ‘ Yes , absolutely ’ he wants to defund the police. ” — email Wednesday from Steve Guest , RNC ’ s rapid response director . THE FACTS : That ’ s misleading , a selective use of Biden ’ s words on the subject . The RNC email links to an excerpted video clip of Biden ’ s conversation with liberal activist Ady Barkan , who endorsed Biden on Wednesday after supporting Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries . A full recording of that conversation , provided by the Biden campaign to The Associated Press , shows he again declined to support defunding police . Barkan raises the issue of police reform and asks whether Biden would funnel money into social services , mental health counseling and affordable housing to help reduce civilian interactions with police . Biden responds that he is calling for increased funding for mental health providers but “ that ’ s not the same as getting rid of or defunding all the police ” and that both approaches are needed , including more money for community police . Asked again by Barkan , “ so we agree that we can redirect some of the funding , ” Biden then answers “ absolutely yes . ” Biden then gives the caveat that he means “ not just redirect ” federal money potentially but “ condition ” it on police improvements . “ If they don ’ t eliminate choke holds , they don ’ t get ( federal ) grants , if they don ’ t do the following , they don ’ t get any help , ” Biden replied . “ The vast majority of all police departments are funded by the locality , funded by the municipality , funded by the state , ” he added . “ It ’ s only the federal government comes in on top of that , and so it says you want help , you have to do the following reforms . ” BIDEN : “ President Trump claimed to the American people that he was a wartime leader , but instead of taking responsibility , Trump has waved a white flag , revealing that he ordered the slowing of testing and having his administration tell Americans that they simply need to ’ live with it. ” – statement Wednesday marking the rise in U.S. coronavirus infections to more than 3 million . THE FACTS : To be clear , the government did not slow testing on the orders of the president . Trump at first denied he was joking when he told a Tulsa , Oklahoma , rally on June 20 that he said “ to my people , ‘ Slow the testing down , please ’ ” because “ they test and they test. ” Days later he said he didn ’ t really mean it . In any event , a succession of his public-health officials testified to Congress that the president never asked them to slow testing and that they were doing all they could to increase it . But testing remains markedly insufficient . EDITOR ’ S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims by political figures .

FILE - In this April 27, 2020, file photo, a worker passes public school buses parked at a depot in Manchester, N.H. As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education, public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File) FILE - In this April 27, 2020, file photo, a worker passes public school buses parked at a depot in Manchester, N.H. As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education, public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s aides are misrepresenting the record on kids and the coronavirus as they push for schools to reopen . White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday inaccurately characterized what the chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said on the matter. A day earlier, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos also was wrong in stating that the research shows there is no danger “in any way” if kids are in school. No such conclusion has been reached. ADVERTISEMENT Their comments came as Trump continued to spread falsehoods about a pandemic that is taking a disproportionate hit on the U.S. and is not under control . A look at recent claims and reality: SCHOOLS McENANY: “Just last week you heard Dr. Redfield say that children are not spreading this.” — Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends” THE FACTS: No, Dr. Robert Redfield, the CDC director, did not say that. He said officials don’t have evidence that children are “driving” infections at this point. But they have not ruled out that children spread the virus to adults. Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus coordinator, said last week the government doesn’t have enough data to show whether and to what degree kids can infect others. The bulk of data has been collected from adults and particularly from those who were sick, leaving questions about children still unanswered, Birx said. She said children under 10 are the least tested age group. The officials did not reach a conclusion that “children are not spreading this.” Nor does the evidence prove that they are. The government has counted tens of thousands of children who have been infected with the virus and in some cases hospitalized. Overall, public health officials believe the virus is less dangerous to children than adults. ___ DEVOS: “There’s nothing in the data that suggests that kids being in school is in any way dangerous.” — Sunday on “Fox News Sunday.” THE FACTS: Not so. Like McEnany, DeVos is suggesting certainty where none exists as she urged schools to provide full-time, in-person learning in the fall even with community transmission of COVID-19 rising in many parts of the U.S. It’s premature to claim that there are no risks “in any way” seen in data. How significant a risk has not been established. ADVERTISEMENT The CDC in April studied the pandemic’s effect on different ages in the U.S. and reviewed preliminary research in China, where the coronavirus started. It said social distancing is important for children, too, for their own safety and that of others. Full Coverage: AP Fact Check “Whereas most COVID-19 cases in children are not severe, serious COVID-19 illness resulting in hospitalization still occurs in this age group,” the CDC study says. In May, the CDC also warned doctors to be on the lookout for a rare but life-threatening inflammatory reaction in some children who’ve had the coronavirus. The condition had been reported in more than 100 children in New York and in some kids in several other states and in Europe, with some deaths. The agency’s current guidance for communities on the reopening of K-12 schools says the goal is to “help protect students, teachers, administrators, and staff and slow the spread of COVID-19.” The guidance says “full sized, in person classes” present the “highest risk” of spreading the virus and advises face masks, spreading out of desks, staggered schedules, eating meals in classrooms instead of the cafeteria and “staying home when appropriate” to help avert spikes in virus cases. ___ VIRUS TRUMP: “Deaths in the U.S. are way down.” — tweet on July 6, one of at least a half dozen heralding a drop in daily deaths from the virus. THE FACTS: It’s true that deaths dipped as infections spiked in many parts of the country. But deaths lag sickness. And now, the widely expected upturn in U.S. deaths has begun , driven by fatalities in states in the South and West, according to data analyzed by The Associated Press. “It’s a false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Tuesday. He advised Americans: “Don’t get yourself into false complacency.” The new AP analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University shows the seven-day rolling average for daily reported deaths in the U.S. increased to 664 on Friday from 578 two weeks ago, as deaths rose in more than half the states. That’s still well below the lethal numbers of April. “It’s consistently picking up,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University infectious diseases researcher. “And it’s picking up at the time you’d expect it to.” ___ TRUMP: “For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!” — tweet Thursday. THE FACTS: His notion that infections are high only because the U.S. diagnostic testing has increased is false. His own top public health officials have shot down this line of thinking. Infections are rising because people are infecting each other more than they were when most everyone was hunkered down. It’s true that increased testing also contributes to the higher numbers. When you look harder, you’re going to see more. But the testing has uncovered a worrisome trend: The percentage of tests coming back positive for the virus is on the rise across nearly the entire country. That’s a clear demonstration that sickness is spreading and that the U.S. testing system is falling short. “A high rate of positive tests indicates a government is only testing the sickest patients who seek out medical attention and is not casting a wide enough net,” says the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center , a primary source of updated information on the pandemic. Americans are being confronted with long lines at testing sites, often disqualified if they are not showing symptoms and, if tested, forced to wait many days for results. ___ TRUMP on the coronavirus: “We have the lowest Mortality Rate in the World.” – tweet Tuesday. THE FACTS: This statement is wholly unsupported. An accurate death rate is impossible to know. Every country tests and counts people differently, and some are unreliable in reporting cases. Without knowing the true number of people who become infected, it cannot be determined what portion of them die. Using a count kept by Johns Hopkins University , you can compare the number of recorded deaths with the number of reported cases. That count shows the U.S. experiencing more deaths as a percentage of cases than most other countries now being hit hard with the pandemic. The statistics look better for the U.S. when the list is expanded to include European countries that were slammed early on by the virus but now appear to have it under control. Even then, the U.S. is not shown to be among the best in avoiding death. Such calculations, though, do not provide a reliable measurement of actual death rates, because of the variations in testing and reporting, and the Johns Hopkins tally is not meant to be such a measure. The only way to tell how many cases have gone uncounted, and therefore what percentage of infected people have died from the disease, is to do another kind of test comprehensively, of people’s blood, to find how many people bear immune system antibodies to the virus. Globally, that is only being done in select places. ___ ECONOMY TRUMP: “Job growth is biggest in history.” — tweet Wednesday. THE FACTS: Yes, but only because it is following the greatest job losses in history, by far. The U.S. economy shed more than 22 million jobs in March and April, wiping out nearly a decade of job growth in just two months, as the viral outbreak intensified and nearly all states shut down nonessential businesses. Since then, 7.5 million, or about one-third, of those jobs have been recovered as businesses reopened. Even after those gains, the unemployment rate is 11.1%, down from April and May but otherwise higher than at any point since the Depression. ___ TRUMP: “Economy and Jobs are growing MUCH faster than anyone (except me!) expected.” — tweet Wednesday. THE FACTS: Not really. It’s true that May’s gain of 2.7 million jobs was unexpected. Economists had forecast another month of job losses. But most economists projected hiring would sharply rebound by June or at the latest July, once businesses began to reopen. The gains kicked in a month earlier than forecast. Now, though, coronavirus cases are rising in most states, imperiling the climb back. In six states representing one-third of the economy — Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and Texas — governors are reversing their reopening plans , and the restart is on pause in 15 other states. Such reversals are keeping layoffs elevated and threatening to weaken hiring. ___ TRUMP TEAM ON BIDEN TRUMP campaign ad, playing out a scenario where a person needing help calls the police in a Biden presidency and gets a voice recording: “You have reached the 911 police emergency line. Due to defunding of the police department, we’re sorry but no one is here to take your call.” The ad closes with the message: “You won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America.” THE FACTS: Biden has not joined the call of protesters who demanded “defund the police” after Floyd’s killing. He’s proposed more money for police, conditioned to improvements in their practices. “I don’t support defunding the police,“ Biden said last month in a CBS interview. But he said he would support tying federal aid to police based on whether “they meet certain basic standards of decency, honorableness and, in fact, are able to demonstrate they can protect the community, everybody in the community.” Biden’s criminal justice agenda, released long before he became the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee, proposes more federal money for “training that is needed to avert tragic, unjustifiable deaths” and hiring more officers to ensure that departments are racially and ethnically reflective of the populations they serve. Specifically, he calls for a $300 million infusion into existing federal community policing grant programs. That adds up to more money for police, not defunding law enforcement. Biden also wants the federal government to spend more on education, social services and struggling areas of cities and rural America, to address root causes of crime. Democrats, meanwhile, have pointed to Trump’s repeated proposals in the administration’s budget to cut community policing and mediation programs at the Justice Department. Congressional Republicans say the program can be effectively merged with other divisions, but Democrats have repeatedly blocked the effort. The program has been used to help provide federal oversight of local police departments. Despite proposed cuts, Attorney General William Barr last month said that the department would use the COPS program funding to hire over 2,700 police officers at nearly 600 departments across the country. ___ VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Biden “said that he would, quote, absolutely cut funding for law enforcement.” — remarks Thursday in Philadelphia. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE email: “In the wake of rioting, looting, and tragic murders ripping apart communities across the country, Joe Biden said ‘Yes, absolutely’ he wants to defund the police.” — email Wednesday from Steve Guest, RNC’s rapid response director. THE FACTS: That’s misleading, a selective use of Biden’s words on the subject. The RNC email links to an excerpted video clip of Biden’s conversation with liberal activist Ady Barkan , who endorsed Biden on Wednesday after supporting Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries. A full recording of that conversation, provided by the Biden campaign to The Associated Press, shows he again declined to support defunding police. Barkan raises the issue of police reform and asks whether Biden would funnel money into social services, mental health counseling and affordable housing to help reduce civilian interactions with police. Biden responds that he is calling for increased funding for mental health providers but “that’s not the same as getting rid of or defunding all the police” and that both approaches are needed, including more money for community police. Asked again by Barkan, “so we agree that we can redirect some of the funding,” Biden then answers “absolutely yes.” Biden then gives the caveat that he means “not just redirect” federal money potentially but “condition” it on police improvements. “If they don’t eliminate choke holds, they don’t get (federal) grants, if they don’t do the following, they don’t get any help,” Biden replied. “The vast majority of all police departments are funded by the locality, funded by the municipality, funded by the state,” he added. “It’s only the federal government comes in on top of that, and so it says you want help, you have to do the following reforms.” ___ BIDEN ON TRUMP BIDEN: “President Trump claimed to the American people that he was a wartime leader, but instead of taking responsibility, Trump has waved a white flag, revealing that he ordered the slowing of testing and having his administration tell Americans that they simply need to ’live with it.” – statement Wednesday marking the rise in U.S. coronavirus infections to more than 3 million. THE FACTS: To be clear, the government did not slow testing on the orders of the president. Trump at first denied he was joking when he told a Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally on June 20 that he said “to my people, ‘Slow the testing down, please’” because “they test and they test.” Days later he said he didn’t really mean it. In any event, a succession of his public-health officials testified to Congress that the president never asked them to slow testing and that they were doing all they could to increase it. But testing remains markedly insufficient. ___ Associated Press writers Mike Stobbe and Nicky Forster in New York and Lindsey Tanner in Chicago contributed to this report. ___ EDITOR’S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims by political figures. ___ Find AP Fact Checks at https://apnews.com/APFactCheck . Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck .

www.apnews.com

left

LsFkoPPaq8wDjVHR

test

IxhckBpAgSD3kiU6

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/george-washingtons-cabinet-of-warmongers/

George Washington’s Cabinet of Warmongers

Thomas Craughwell, Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison

Fair Warning : Before reading any further , you may want to retreat to your safe space , and remember to bring along your 101 Mandalas coloring book . Here we go : Seventy percent of George Washington ’ s first cabinet were military men . And let ’ s not forget that Washington had served as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution , so if we include him in our calculations , then 80 percent of the first presidential cabinet in the history of the United States was comprised of men with military experience . Thomas Jefferson , the Secretary of State , was the sole civilian . Washington hand-picked every member of his cabinet . For Secretary of the Treasury , he chose Alexander Hamilton . Hamilton had been born on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean . He was illegitimate . John Adams , who detested Hamilton , once described him as the “ bastard brat of a Scottish peddler. ” A nasty assessment that was nonetheless true . We don ’ t know who Hamilton ’ s father was , and his mother died while Hamilton was still a boy . In spite of these setbacks , he made his way to America , where he became an ardent supporter of American independence . When the Revolution began in 1775 , Hamilton joined a militia company . At age 22 he was an artillery officer ; that is how he met Washington . General Nathaniel Greene urged Washington to invite the young man to join his staff . Hamilton , Greene said , had a lot to recommend him : he had military experience , he was highly intelligent , and he was fluent in several languages . Washington had taken a shine to the young man , so he took him on as an aide-de-camp . Hamilton had become , as the good people at Mount Vernon put it , “ a member of Washington ’ s military family . ” Throughout the war , Hamilton chafed to get back on the battlefield , but Washington held him back . He would not put such a valuable young man at risk . Finally , at the Battle of Yorktown , Washington let Hamilton go into combat . Hamilton proved himself , leading a heroic — and successful — charge against the last British redoubt outside the town . For the post of Attorney General , Washington chose Edmund Randolph . Socially , Randolph stood at the opposite end of the spectrum from Alexander Hamilton . He was a member of one of the wealthiest , most distinguished families in Virginia . He was a champion of American independence , a point of view that put him at odds with his father , a committed Loyalist . When war broke out , Edmund ’ s father packed up and moved to England . Randolph had no military training , but he was eager to serve . Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry wrote to Washington , recommending Randolph and asking the commander to take the 22-year-old patriot under his wing and give him some experience of the military . Washington agreed , and Randolph joined Hamilton as one of the general ’ s as aides-de-camp . Randolph ’ s military career did not last long . Toward the end of 1775 , his uncle died and Randolph was called home to settle his uncle ’ s estate and take over management of the Randolph fortune . Henry Knox was America ’ s first Secretary of War ( today we call the office Secretary of Defense ) . He was from Boston , the son of Scots-Irish immigrants . He made his living as a bookbinder , but in his spare moments he studied engineering and military tactics . When the Revolution began in April , 1775 , Knox enlisted . He designed an artillery rampart in Roxbury , which Washington inspected and admired . Soon thereafter Washington named Knox his chief of artillery . Knox ’ s trade may have been bookbinding , but he was a natural military man . The British had occupied Boston , and Washington wanted them out . The Americans had mounted a siege shortly after the Battle of Lexington and Concord , but to be honest , the Minute Men were not much a threat . That is when Knox suggested to Washington that they could get the British out of town much quicker if they had artillery . Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys had just seized Fort Ticonderoga on the shores of Lake Champlain in upstate New York . Washington ordered Knox to set out at once and bring back all the ordinance from Ticonderoga . At the fort Knox found 59 cannons and mortars , plus an ample supply of gunpowder — exactly what the Americans needed to pound the British and drive them out of Boston . In the meantime , winter had overtaken the expedition . Undeterred , Knox assembled 80 teams of oxen , built ice sledges for the smaller guns and casks of gunpowder , and hauled the lot back to Boston . Washington was delighted . For seven weeks the Ticonderoga artillery bombarded British positions , until at last , on St. Patrick ’ s Day , 1776 , the British retreated to their ships and sailed for Nova Scotia . And that is only one of General Knox ’ s contributions to the Revolution . He also made all the arrangements for Washington ’ s crossing of the Delaware , and he took charge of the placement of the artillery outside Yorktown . Even the first Postmaster General , Samuel Osgood , was a military man . At the Battle of Lexington and Concord , he led a company of local militia , and as the British ran back to Boston , Osgood and his men went in pursuit , picking off the redcoats with sniper fire . During the Siege of Boston , Osgood was given the rank of Major . When he joined the staff of General Artemas Ward — the man who fortified Bunker Hill — he was promoted to Colonel . The hand-wringing of the left over the generals Trump has appointed or is considering for appointment to national security positions his cabinet is absurd . In the first place , we are at war , in Iraq , in Afghanistan , and essentially in Syria . Even more compelling is that we are at war with the Islamic State , arguably the most insidious enemy we have ever faced , a hateful , hate-filled organization that sinks terrorism to new depths . They aren ’ t a conventional army that limits its activities to the battlefields of the Middle East . Rather , their “ soldiers ” have fanned out across the globe , killing God only knows how many civilians , including Americans here in America . In this crisis , if the choice comes down an Ivy League academic who specializes in civilian-military relations and a general , give me the general everyday . Military men have leadership skills . They know how to get a job done . They are unswervingly loyal . And they have been defending the American people and our Constitution for 227 years . In all that time we ’ ve never had a military coup . No junta has ever taken over the White House . Even George Washington ’ s cabinet , top heavy as it was with veterans of the military , did their jobs , went home to their families , and passed the Republic , intact , to the next administration . If history is any indication , our liberties are not in danger , no matter how many generals serve on President-elect ’ s Trump ’ s cabinet .

Fair Warning: Before reading any further, you may want to retreat to your safe space, and remember to bring along your 101 Mandalas coloring book. Here we go: Seventy percent of George Washington’s first cabinet were military men. And let’s not forget that Washington had served as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolution, so if we include him in our calculations, then 80 percent of the first presidential cabinet in the history of the United States was comprised of men with military experience. Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was the sole civilian. Washington hand-picked every member of his cabinet. For Secretary of the Treasury, he chose Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had been born on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean. He was illegitimate. John Adams, who detested Hamilton, once described him as the “bastard brat of a Scottish peddler.” A nasty assessment that was nonetheless true. We don’t know who Hamilton’s father was, and his mother died while Hamilton was still a boy. In spite of these setbacks, he made his way to America, where he became an ardent supporter of American independence. When the Revolution began in 1775, Hamilton joined a militia company. At age 22 he was an artillery officer; that is how he met Washington. General Nathaniel Greene urged Washington to invite the young man to join his staff. Hamilton, Greene said, had a lot to recommend him: he had military experience, he was highly intelligent, and he was fluent in several languages. Washington had taken a shine to the young man, so he took him on as an aide-de-camp. Hamilton had become, as the good people at Mount Vernon put it, “a member of Washington’s military family.” Throughout the war, Hamilton chafed to get back on the battlefield, but Washington held him back. He would not put such a valuable young man at risk. Finally, at the Battle of Yorktown, Washington let Hamilton go into combat. Hamilton proved himself, leading a heroic — and successful — charge against the last British redoubt outside the town. For the post of Attorney General, Washington chose Edmund Randolph. Socially, Randolph stood at the opposite end of the spectrum from Alexander Hamilton. He was a member of one of the wealthiest, most distinguished families in Virginia. He was a champion of American independence, a point of view that put him at odds with his father, a committed Loyalist. When war broke out, Edmund’s father packed up and moved to England. Randolph had no military training, but he was eager to serve. Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry wrote to Washington, recommending Randolph and asking the commander to take the 22-year-old patriot under his wing and give him some experience of the military. Washington agreed, and Randolph joined Hamilton as one of the general’s as aides-de-camp. Randolph’s military career did not last long. Toward the end of 1775, his uncle died and Randolph was called home to settle his uncle’s estate and take over management of the Randolph fortune. Henry Knox was America’s first Secretary of War (today we call the office Secretary of Defense). He was from Boston, the son of Scots-Irish immigrants. He made his living as a bookbinder, but in his spare moments he studied engineering and military tactics. When the Revolution began in April, 1775, Knox enlisted. He designed an artillery rampart in Roxbury, which Washington inspected and admired. Soon thereafter Washington named Knox his chief of artillery. Knox’s trade may have been bookbinding, but he was a natural military man. The British had occupied Boston, and Washington wanted them out. The Americans had mounted a siege shortly after the Battle of Lexington and Concord, but to be honest, the Minute Men were not much a threat. That is when Knox suggested to Washington that they could get the British out of town much quicker if they had artillery. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys had just seized Fort Ticonderoga on the shores of Lake Champlain in upstate New York. Washington ordered Knox to set out at once and bring back all the ordinance from Ticonderoga. At the fort Knox found 59 cannons and mortars, plus an ample supply of gunpowder — exactly what the Americans needed to pound the British and drive them out of Boston. In the meantime, winter had overtaken the expedition. Undeterred, Knox assembled 80 teams of oxen, built ice sledges for the smaller guns and casks of gunpowder, and hauled the lot back to Boston. Washington was delighted. For seven weeks the Ticonderoga artillery bombarded British positions, until at last, on St. Patrick’s Day, 1776, the British retreated to their ships and sailed for Nova Scotia. And that is only one of General Knox’s contributions to the Revolution. He also made all the arrangements for Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, and he took charge of the placement of the artillery outside Yorktown. Even the first Postmaster General, Samuel Osgood, was a military man. At the Battle of Lexington and Concord, he led a company of local militia, and as the British ran back to Boston, Osgood and his men went in pursuit, picking off the redcoats with sniper fire. During the Siege of Boston, Osgood was given the rank of Major. When he joined the staff of General Artemas Ward — the man who fortified Bunker Hill — he was promoted to Colonel. The hand-wringing of the left over the generals Trump has appointed or is considering for appointment to national security positions his cabinet is absurd. In the first place, we are at war, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and essentially in Syria. Even more compelling is that we are at war with the Islamic State, arguably the most insidious enemy we have ever faced, a hateful, hate-filled organization that sinks terrorism to new depths. They aren’t a conventional army that limits its activities to the battlefields of the Middle East. Rather, their “soldiers” have fanned out across the globe, killing God only knows how many civilians, including Americans here in America. In this crisis, if the choice comes down an Ivy League academic who specializes in civilian-military relations and a general, give me the general everyday. Military men have leadership skills. They know how to get a job done. They are unswervingly loyal. And they have been defending the American people and our Constitution for 227 years. In all that time we’ve never had a military coup. No junta has ever taken over the White House. Even George Washington’s cabinet, top heavy as it was with veterans of the military, did their jobs, went home to their families, and passed the Republic, intact, to the next administration. If history is any indication, our liberties are not in danger, no matter how many generals serve on President-elect’s Trump’s cabinet.

www.spectator.org

right

IxhckBpAgSD3kiU6

test

gccJ1WYrNajCbkP6

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gay-rights-republican-divide/2015/04/05/id/636523/

Gay Rights Will Continue to Divide Republicans: Albert R. Hunt

2015-04-05

Albert Hunt

Gay rights wo n't fade as a political issue . The Republican base won ’ t let it . Prominent Republicans calculated that if the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutionally protected , the issue would become settled law and disappear politically . This would be welcome , they reasoned , as the party was on the wrong side of the politics and history . Then Indiana enacted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act last month that critics said would allow private enterprises to discriminate against gays and lesbians . Arkansas followed with a similar measure . After vehement opposition from businesses in both states , Republican governors forced modifications that make it more difficult to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation . But a leading indicator was the reaction of Republican presidential candidates : They leapt to defend the initial Indiana law . Jeb Bush expressed all-out support in an interview on a conservative radio talk show and then modified his position at a Silicon Valley fundraiser . Social conservatives are determined to keep this issue alive , reasoning that the environment that produced changes in the laws last week will become more favorable after they have had time to stir up the grassroots . That will pose problems for Republicans in a general election ; the politics have changed dramatically compared with a decade ago , when Republican political guru Karl Rove used the issue against Democrats . Crucial elements of the Republican base have n't changed . Most , not all , evangelical/born-again white Christians are troubled by gay rights . This group accounts for more than 40 percent of the Republicans nationally and for more than 50 percent of the vote in the important early Iowa and South Carolina Republican presidential tests . That guarantees Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee will make these issues uncomfortable for Jeb Bush and Scott Walker . Nineteen states have religious freedom laws , and some go beyond the 1993 federal law . Four -- Connecticut , Illinois , New Mexico and Rhode Island -- have measures that include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation . But Indiana postponed the matter of prohibiting anti-gay discrimination . In Georgia recently , as the legislature drafted a measure supported by religious conservatives , a Republican tried to amend it to clarify that it wouldn ’ t permit discrimination against gays and lesbians ; the bill ’ s sponsor suggested that would defeat the law 's purpose . The politically powerful religious or conservative right can be expected to set litmus tests for Republican presidential candidates : opposing new anti-discrimination measures designed to protect gays and lesbians and guarding against what they warn is a slippery slope on matters including adoptions by same-sex couples . Many of these social activists sincerely worry that it 's white people of religion who face discrimination ; some believe that same-sex marriage , gay rights in general , violate the law of God . There are parallels to race . Religion was often cited as a rationale for segregation ; if God intended whites and blacks to be together , why did he create different races , fundamentalists would ask . There were similar issues with discrimination in public accommodations and housing . It wasn ’ t until 1967 that the Supreme Court gave constitutional protection to interracial marriage . Today , these issues create a genuine schism among Republican constituencies , with much of the business community showing support for gay rights . These are n't just West Coast or high-tech firms , but companies based in Middle America , such as Eli Lilly and Wal-Mart . The religious right sees this as a battle between economics and morality . Politically , however , the most telling reaction to the Indiana law was that of well-known athletes usually not considered part of any left-wing crusade . The basketball great Charles Barkley suggested the collegiate basketball tournament should n't be held in Indiana , and Pat Haden , former all-star quarterback and now athletic director at the University of Southern California , boycotted an athletic event in the Hoosier state .

Gay rights won't fade as a political issue. The Republican base won’t let it. Prominent Republicans calculated that if the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutionally protected, the issue would become settled law and disappear politically. This would be welcome, they reasoned, as the party was on the wrong side of the politics and history. Then Indiana enacted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act last month that critics said would allow private enterprises to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Arkansas followed with a similar measure. After vehement opposition from businesses in both states, Republican governors forced modifications that make it more difficult to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But a leading indicator was the reaction of Republican presidential candidates: They leapt to defend the initial Indiana law. Jeb Bush expressed all-out support in an interview on a conservative radio talk show and then modified his position at a Silicon Valley fundraiser. Social conservatives are determined to keep this issue alive, reasoning that the environment that produced changes in the laws last week will become more favorable after they have had time to stir up the grassroots. That will pose problems for Republicans in a general election; the politics have changed dramatically compared with a decade ago, when Republican political guru Karl Rove used the issue against Democrats. Crucial elements of the Republican base haven't changed. Most, not all, evangelical/born-again white Christians are troubled by gay rights. This group accounts for more than 40 percent of the Republicans nationally and for more than 50 percent of the vote in the important early Iowa and South Carolina Republican presidential tests. That guarantees Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee will make these issues uncomfortable for Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Nineteen states have religious freedom laws, and some go beyond the 1993 federal law. Four -- Connecticut, Illinois, New Mexico and Rhode Island -- have measures that include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. But Indiana postponed the matter of prohibiting anti-gay discrimination. In Georgia recently, as the legislature drafted a measure supported by religious conservatives, a Republican tried to amend it to clarify that it wouldn’t permit discrimination against gays and lesbians; the bill’s sponsor suggested that would defeat the law's purpose. The politically powerful religious or conservative right can be expected to set litmus tests for Republican presidential candidates: opposing new anti-discrimination measures designed to protect gays and lesbians and guarding against what they warn is a slippery slope on matters including adoptions by same-sex couples. Many of these social activists sincerely worry that it's white people of religion who face discrimination; some believe that same-sex marriage, gay rights in general, violate the law of God. There are parallels to race. Religion was often cited as a rationale for segregation; if God intended whites and blacks to be together, why did he create different races, fundamentalists would ask. There were similar issues with discrimination in public accommodations and housing. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court gave constitutional protection to interracial marriage. Today, these issues create a genuine schism among Republican constituencies, with much of the business community showing support for gay rights. These aren't just West Coast or high-tech firms, but companies based in Middle America, such as Eli Lilly and Wal-Mart. The religious right sees this as a battle between economics and morality. Politically, however, the most telling reaction to the Indiana law was that of well-known athletes usually not considered part of any left-wing crusade. The basketball great Charles Barkley suggested the collegiate basketball tournament shouldn't be held in Indiana, and Pat Haden, former all-star quarterback and now athletic director at the University of Southern California, boycotted an athletic event in the Hoosier state.

www.newsmax.com

right

gccJ1WYrNajCbkP6

test

d7SvLxE4DMaW9VkF

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48898231

Trump administration is 'inept and insecure', says UK ambassador

The Trump administration has been labelled `` inept '' , insecure and incompetent in leaked emails from the UK ambassador to Washington . Sir Kim Darroch said that the White House was `` uniquely dysfunctional '' and `` divided '' under Donald Trump . But he also warned that the US president should not be written off . The Foreign Office said the leak of the memos to the Mail on Sunday was `` mischievous '' but did not deny their accuracy . The White House has not yet responded to the revelation of the contents of the memos , but it could test the so-called `` special relationship '' between the US and UK . In the messages , Sir Kim said : `` We do n't really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal ; less dysfunctional ; less unpredictable ; less faction-riven ; less diplomatically clumsy and inept . '' He questioned whether this White House `` will ever look competent '' . Although Sir Kim said Mr Trump was `` dazzled '' by his state visit to the UK in June , the ambassador warns that his administration will remain self-interested , adding : `` This is still the land of America First '' . Differences between the US and the UK on climate change , media freedoms and the death penalty might come to the fore as the countries seek to improve trading relations after Brexit , the memos said . To get through to the president , `` you need to make your points simple , even blunt '' , he said . The leader of the Brexit party , Nigel Farage , has criticised Sir Kim for his comments , branding the ambassador `` totally unsuitable for the job '' and saying the `` sooner he is gone the better '' . However , Justice Secretary David Guake said it is very important that ambassadors give `` honest and unvarnished advice to their country '' . He said : `` It is disgraceful that it 's been leaked , but we should expect our ambassadors to tell the truth , as they see it . '' In a message sent last month , Sir Kim branded US policy on Iran as `` incoherent , chaotic '' . Mr Trump 's publicly stated reason for calling off an airstrike against Tehran with 10 minutes to go - that it would cause 150 casualties - `` does n't stand up '' , Sir Kim said . Instead , he suggested the president was `` never fully on board '' and did not want to reverse his campaign promise not to involve the US in foreign conflicts . Sir Kim said it was `` unlikely that US policy on Iran is going to become more coherent any time soon '' because `` this is a divided administration '' . The leaked files date from 2017 to the present day , covering the ambassador 's early impressions that media reports of `` vicious infighting and chaos '' in the White House were `` mostly true '' . They also give an assessment of allegations about collusion between the Trump election campaign and Russia , saying `` the worst can not be ruled out '' . The investigation by Robert Mueller has since found those claims were not proven . A Foreign Office spokesman said the views of diplomats were `` not necessarily the views of ministers or indeed the government . But we pay them to be candid '' . He said ministers and civil servants would handle this advice `` in the right way '' and ambassadors should be able to offer it confidentially . The UK embassy in Washington has `` strong relations '' with the White House and these would continue , despite `` mischievous behaviour '' such as this leak , the spokesman said .

Image copyright AFP The Trump administration has been labelled "inept", insecure and incompetent in leaked emails from the UK ambassador to Washington. Sir Kim Darroch said that the White House was "uniquely dysfunctional" and "divided" under Donald Trump. But he also warned that the US president should not be written off. The Foreign Office said the leak of the memos to the Mail on Sunday was "mischievous" but did not deny their accuracy. The White House has not yet responded to the revelation of the contents of the memos, but it could test the so-called "special relationship" between the US and UK. In the messages, Sir Kim said: "We don't really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction-riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept." He questioned whether this White House "will ever look competent". Image copyright PA Media Image caption The UK ambassador in Washington says Trump needs "simple, even blunt" arguments Although Sir Kim said Mr Trump was "dazzled" by his state visit to the UK in June, the ambassador warns that his administration will remain self-interested, adding: "This is still the land of America First". Differences between the US and the UK on climate change, media freedoms and the death penalty might come to the fore as the countries seek to improve trading relations after Brexit, the memos said. To get through to the president, "you need to make your points simple, even blunt", he said. The leader of the Brexit party, Nigel Farage, has criticised Sir Kim for his comments, branding the ambassador "totally unsuitable for the job" and saying the "sooner he is gone the better". However, Justice Secretary David Guake said it is very important that ambassadors give "honest and unvarnished advice to their country". He said: "It is disgraceful that it's been leaked, but we should expect our ambassadors to tell the truth, as they see it." In a message sent last month, Sir Kim branded US policy on Iran as "incoherent, chaotic". Mr Trump's publicly stated reason for calling off an airstrike against Tehran with 10 minutes to go - that it would cause 150 casualties - "doesn't stand up", Sir Kim said. Instead, he suggested the president was "never fully on board" and did not want to reverse his campaign promise not to involve the US in foreign conflicts. 'Infighting and chaos' Sir Kim said it was "unlikely that US policy on Iran is going to become more coherent any time soon" because "this is a divided administration". The leaked files date from 2017 to the present day, covering the ambassador's early impressions that media reports of "vicious infighting and chaos" in the White House were "mostly true". They also give an assessment of allegations about collusion between the Trump election campaign and Russia, saying "the worst cannot be ruled out". The investigation by Robert Mueller has since found those claims were not proven. A Foreign Office spokesman said the views of diplomats were "not necessarily the views of ministers or indeed the government. But we pay them to be candid". He said ministers and civil servants would handle this advice "in the right way" and ambassadors should be able to offer it confidentially. The UK embassy in Washington has "strong relations" with the White House and these would continue, despite "mischievous behaviour" such as this leak, the spokesman said.

www.bbc.com

center

d7SvLxE4DMaW9VkF

test

hEHnd0lm5WojhrAO

banking_and_finance

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/8fa579da8fec873c7b96da7d263fec74

Report: Treasury fund to ease virus crisis off to slow start

2020-05-18

Matthew Daly

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wears a mask as he walks on the grounds of the White House , Thursday , May 14 , 2020 , in Washington . ( AP Photo/Alex Brandon ) Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wears a mask as he walks on the grounds of the White House , Thursday , May 14 , 2020 , in Washington . ( AP Photo/Alex Brandon ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have lent hardly any money under a $ 500 billion fund created by the economic rescue law passed in response to the coronavirus crisis , a congressional oversight panel says in a new report . The Treasury fund is being used to guarantee new , expansive Federal Reserve lending programs to companies , states and cities that could be leveraged to reach as much as $ 4.5 trillion . So far only one of the new Fed programs has started operating , a lending fund likely to be tapped by large public companies , the report by the Congressional Oversight Commission said . The program was started on May 11 with $ 37.5 billion from Treasury . The oversight panel issued its first report Monday even though it still does not have a chairman . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , have not agreed on a chair , leaving the five-member commission without a leader . The commission has four other members appointed by congressional leaders . They produced a 17-page report that contains mostly questions about how the Treasury fund is going to function . For instance , the panel asked how Treasury and the Fed will assess the program ’ s success or failure . If the agencies use economy-wide metrics , such as economic growth , unemployment rates or wage growth , “ how will they isolate the effects of this program from other factors , including other federal and state relief measures ? ″ the commission asked . Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is pledging to reveal names and other details of entities that borrow from emergency programs the central bank has set up to offset the economic hit from the pandemic . In prepared testimony for a Tuesday congressional hearing , Powell says the Fed will disclose amounts borrowed and interest rates levied under programs to provide credit for large corporations , state and local governments and medium-sized businesses . He and other officials “ recognize that the need for transparency is heightened when we are called upon to use our emergency powers , ” Powell ’ s testimony says . The Fed slashed its benchmark interest rate to near zero as stock markets plunged in March and bond markets froze . The Fed has also intervened by buying $ 2.1 trillion in bonds in an effort to keep interest rates low and smooth the flow of credit . Powell said Sunday on CBS ’ “ 60 Minutes ” that Congress and the Fed must be prepared to provide additional financial support to prevent permanent damage to the economy from widespread bankruptcies among small businesses and long-term unemployment . The $ 500 billion Treasury fund includes $ 46 billion to make loans and loan guarantees to the airline industry , which has been hit hard by the pandemic as air traffic has come to a near halt . None of that money has been disbursed . The Federal Reserve is setting up a Main Street Lending Program intended to facilitate lending by banks to small and medium-size businesses . The program would support lending up to $ 600 billion , with Treasury providing $ 75 billion to offset any potential losses . That program also has not disbursed any money , the report said . The economic rescue law , also known as the Cares Act , imposed a number of restrictions on the use of the Treasury fund . For example , none of the $ 500 billion can support an entity in which top Trump administration officials , members of Congress , or certain family members have a controlling interest . The Fed says it takes time to ensure that the program includes legal language that protects taxpayers . The Fed was criticized for failing to ensure such safeguards during the 2008 financial crisis , most notably to bail out insurance giant AIG . The failure by Pelosi and McConnell to agree on a chair for the oversight head has disappointed watchdog groups that have pushed for stricter oversight of the $ 2 trillion rescue law . Representatives for Pelosi and McConnell said they had no update on when the oversight position would be filled . Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is set to testify along with Powell on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee . Mnuchin says in prepared testimony that the Paycheck Protection Program to provide forgiveable loans to small businesses has processed more than 4.2 million loans worth over $ 530 billion . The program is working “ to keep tens of millions of hardworking Americans on the payroll , ″ Mnuchin says . The loans don ’ t have to be paid back as long as the borrower uses 75 % of the money to cover payroll .

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wears a mask as he walks on the grounds of the White House, Thursday, May 14, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wears a mask as he walks on the grounds of the White House, Thursday, May 14, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve have lent hardly any money under a $500 billion fund created by the economic rescue law passed in response to the coronavirus crisis , a congressional oversight panel says in a new report. The Treasury fund is being used to guarantee new, expansive Federal Reserve lending programs to companies, states and cities that could be leveraged to reach as much as $4.5 trillion. So far only one of the new Fed programs has started operating, a lending fund likely to be tapped by large public companies, the report by the Congressional Oversight Commission said. The program was started on May 11 with $37.5 billion from Treasury. The oversight panel issued its first report Monday even though it still does not have a chairman. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have not agreed on a chair, leaving the five-member commission without a leader. The commission has four other members appointed by congressional leaders. They produced a 17-page report that contains mostly questions about how the Treasury fund is going to function. For instance, the panel asked how Treasury and the Fed will assess the program’s success or failure. If the agencies use economy-wide metrics, such as economic growth, unemployment rates or wage growth, “how will they isolate the effects of this program from other factors, including other federal and state relief measures?″ the commission asked. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is pledging to reveal names and other details of entities that borrow from emergency programs the central bank has set up to offset the economic hit from the pandemic. In prepared testimony for a Tuesday congressional hearing, Powell says the Fed will disclose amounts borrowed and interest rates levied under programs to provide credit for large corporations, state and local governments and medium-sized businesses. He and other officials “recognize that the need for transparency is heightened when we are called upon to use our emergency powers,” Powell’s testimony says. The Fed slashed its benchmark interest rate to near zero as stock markets plunged in March and bond markets froze. The Fed has also intervened by buying $2.1 trillion in bonds in an effort to keep interest rates low and smooth the flow of credit. Powell said Sunday on CBS’ “60 Minutes” that Congress and the Fed must be prepared to provide additional financial support to prevent permanent damage to the economy from widespread bankruptcies among small businesses and long-term unemployment. The $500 billion Treasury fund includes $46 billion to make loans and loan guarantees to the airline industry, which has been hit hard by the pandemic as air traffic has come to a near halt. None of that money has been disbursed. The Federal Reserve is setting up a Main Street Lending Program intended to facilitate lending by banks to small and medium-size businesses. The program would support lending up to $600 billion, with Treasury providing $75 billion to offset any potential losses. That program also has not disbursed any money, the report said. The economic rescue law, also known as the Cares Act, imposed a number of restrictions on the use of the Treasury fund. For example, none of the $500 billion can support an entity in which top Trump administration officials, members of Congress, or certain family members have a controlling interest. The Fed says it takes time to ensure that the program includes legal language that protects taxpayers. The Fed was criticized for failing to ensure such safeguards during the 2008 financial crisis, most notably to bail out insurance giant AIG. The failure by Pelosi and McConnell to agree on a chair for the oversight head has disappointed watchdog groups that have pushed for stricter oversight of the $2 trillion rescue law. Representatives for Pelosi and McConnell said they had no update on when the oversight position would be filled. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is set to testify along with Powell on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee. Mnuchin says in prepared testimony that the Paycheck Protection Program to provide forgiveable loans to small businesses has processed more than 4.2 million loans worth over $530 billion. The program is working “to keep tens of millions of hardworking Americans on the payroll,″ Mnuchin says. The loans don’t have to be paid back as long as the borrower uses 75% of the money to cover payroll. ___ AP economics writers Christopher Rugaber and Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

hEHnd0lm5WojhrAO

test

QgxAO7KEsvcMXicA

treasury

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/26/irs-proposes-new-rules-for-tax-exempt-organizations/?hpt=po_c2

IRS proposes new rules for tax-exempt organizations

2013-11-26

( CNN ) - The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service proposed new rules Tuesday that more specifically define the political activity allowed for tax-exempt organizations . The proposed rules may affect the way groups that played big roles in the last two election cycles operate in the future . Those groups include the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS , the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and the Democratic group Priorities USA Action . As of now , certain tax-exempt organizations–known by the IRS designation 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) –can conduct political activity and as long their `` primary '' activity promotes `` social welfare . '' Groups can get around this by focusing on issues that are closely aligned to candidates , rather than encouraging voters to vote for or against the actual candidates . For example , a group may put out an ad blasting a Senate candidate ’ s position on a piece of legislation . But as long as the ad doesn ’ t urge voters to vote against the candidate , then the group can still be considered a tax-exempt , social welfare group . Also under current tax rules , donors to 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) s can remain anonymous . The IRS wants to introduce a new term : “ candidate-related political activity , '' which seeks to clarify what social welfare groups can and can not do when it comes to politics . The new term comes as a response to the lack of clarity over the less-specific term `` political activity , '' which led to the controversial targeting of some conservative and liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status by the IRS in recent years . Supporters of campaign finance reform say the current rules are too confusing , leading to lax government enforcement , and to abuse by private groups seeking to unduly influence federal elections . The IRS said it was not targeting groups out of political bias , but because it was trying to determine whether the groups ' primary activities were social welfare , rather than political activity . As spelled out by the IRS , `` candidate-related political activity ” includes : · Communications that expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party . · Communications that are made within 60 days of a general election ( or within 30 days of a primary election ) and clearly identify a candidate or political party . · Communications expenditures that must be reported to the Federal Election Commission . · Any contribution that is recognized under campaign finance law as a reportable contribution . · Grants to section 527 political organizations and other tax-exempt organizations that conduct candidate-related political activities ( note that a grantor can rely on a written certification from a grantee stating that it does not engage in , and will not use grant funds for , candidate-related political activity ) . · Distribution of any material prepared by or on behalf of a candidate or by a section 527 political organization . · Preparation or distribution of voter guides that refer to candidates ( or , in a general election , to political parties ) . · Holding an event within 60 days of a general election ( or within 30 days of a primary election ) at which a candidate appears as part of the program . According to a release about the rules , the proposal reduces `` the need to conduct fact-intensive inquiries , including inquiries into whether activities or communications are neutral and unbiased . '' “ This is part of ongoing efforts within the IRS that are improving our work in the tax-exempt area , ” IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel said in the release . “ Once final , this proposed guidance will continue moving us forward and provide clarity for this important segment of exempt organizations . ” Before the agency issues final guidance , it will first seek public comments on the new proposals , and go through other parts of the regulatory process . That could take many months and may not affect next November ’ s mid-term congressional elections . Groups challenging the new rules would likely wait until they are fully in place and enforced , before any lawsuits would be filed . Under its precedent , the Supreme Court has generally given deference to a government agency 's interpretation of a law it administers . The American Center for Law and Justice , which represents 41 organizations in a lawsuit against the IRS , released a statement decrying the proposed rules . “ These proposed new regulations put the First Amendment rights of Americans at even greater risk , ” said Jay Sekulow , Chief Counsel of the ACLJ . “ This is a feeble attempt by the Obama Administration to justify its own wrong-doing with the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups . ” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa , R-California , also blasted the proposed new rules as a `` effort by the Obama Administration to limit traditional advocacy efforts by social welfare organizations '' that will affect grassroots organizations instead the intended targets . `` The fact that the Administration 's new effort only applies to social welfare organizations - and not powerful unions or business groups - underscores that this is a crass political effort by the Administration to get what political advantage they can , when they can , '' Issa said in a statement . Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus , D-Montana , called the proposal `` an important step . '' `` Unfortunately , groups on both ends of the political spectrum have tried to take advantage of the ambiguity in the law when it comes to the tax treatment of 501 ( c ) 4s , '' Baucus said in a statement . `` We need to ensure clear standards and equal footing for the treatment of tax exempt social welfare organizations . ''

6 years ago (CNN) - The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service proposed new rules Tuesday that more specifically define the political activity allowed for tax-exempt organizations. The proposed rules may affect the way groups that played big roles in the last two election cycles operate in the future. Those groups include the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS, the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and the Democratic group Priorities USA Action. Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN As of now, certain tax-exempt organizations–known by the IRS designation 501(c)(4)–can conduct political activity and as long their "primary" activity promotes "social welfare." Groups can get around this by focusing on issues that are closely aligned to candidates, rather than encouraging voters to vote for or against the actual candidates. For example, a group may put out an ad blasting a Senate candidate’s position on a piece of legislation. But as long as the ad doesn’t urge voters to vote against the candidate, then the group can still be considered a tax-exempt, social welfare group. Also under current tax rules, donors to 501(c)(4)s can remain anonymous. The IRS wants to introduce a new term: “candidate-related political activity," which seeks to clarify what social welfare groups can and cannot do when it comes to politics. The new term comes as a response to the lack of clarity over the less-specific term "political activity," which led to the controversial targeting of some conservative and liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status by the IRS in recent years. Supporters of campaign finance reform say the current rules are too confusing, leading to lax government enforcement, and to abuse by private groups seeking to unduly influence federal elections. The IRS said it was not targeting groups out of political bias, but because it was trying to determine whether the groups' primary activities were social welfare, rather than political activity. As spelled out by the IRS, "candidate-related political activity” includes: 1. Communications · Communications that expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party. · Communications that are made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party. · Communications expenditures that must be reported to the Federal Election Commission. 2. Grants and Contributions · Any contribution that is recognized under campaign finance law as a reportable contribution. · Grants to section 527 political organizations and other tax-exempt organizations that conduct candidate-related political activities (note that a grantor can rely on a written certification from a grantee stating that it does not engage in, and will not use grant funds for, candidate-related political activity). 3. Activities Closely Related to Elections or Candidates · Voter registration drives and “get-out-the-vote” drives. · Distribution of any material prepared by or on behalf of a candidate or by a section 527 political organization. · Preparation or distribution of voter guides that refer to candidates (or, in a general election, to political parties). · Holding an event within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) at which a candidate appears as part of the program. According to a release about the rules, the proposal reduces "the need to conduct fact-intensive inquiries, including inquiries into whether activities or communications are neutral and unbiased." “This is part of ongoing efforts within the IRS that are improving our work in the tax-exempt area,” IRS Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel said in the release. “Once final, this proposed guidance will continue moving us forward and provide clarity for this important segment of exempt organizations.” Before the agency issues final guidance, it will first seek public comments on the new proposals, and go through other parts of the regulatory process. That could take many months and may not affect next November’s mid-term congressional elections. Groups challenging the new rules would likely wait until they are fully in place and enforced, before any lawsuits would be filed. Under its precedent, the Supreme Court has generally given deference to a government agency's interpretation of a law it administers. The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents 41 organizations in a lawsuit against the IRS, released a statement decrying the proposed rules. “These proposed new regulations put the First Amendment rights of Americans at even greater risk,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “This is a feeble attempt by the Obama Administration to justify its own wrong-doing with the IRS targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups.” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-California, also blasted the proposed new rules as a "effort by the Obama Administration to limit traditional advocacy efforts by social welfare organizations" that will affect grassroots organizations instead the intended targets. "The fact that the Administration's new effort only applies to social welfare organizations - and not powerful unions or business groups - underscores that this is a crass political effort by the Administration to get what political advantage they can, when they can," Issa said in a statement. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, called the proposal "an important step." "Unfortunately, groups on both ends of the political spectrum have tried to take advantage of the ambiguity in the law when it comes to the tax treatment of 501(c)4s," Baucus said in a statement. "We need to ensure clear standards and equal footing for the treatment of tax exempt social welfare organizations." - CNN’s Bill Mears and Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

QgxAO7KEsvcMXicA

test

kRclDw9Xq7uQyZqC

culture

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/fifty-years-after-his-death-jfks-legacy-lives-on/

Fifty Years After His Death, JFK’s Legacy Lives On

Isobel Markham

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy during a trip to Dallas in 1963 left a nation in mourning and America 's royal family torn apart . `` We 're very focused on family because it 's the only thing that got us through , '' former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy , the son of Ted Kennedy , who was born four years after the tragedy , told ABC 's Byron Pitts in an interview for `` This Week . '' `` It certainly got my dad through . '' After JFK 's brother , Robert , was also assassinated in 1968 , it was left to Ted Kennedy , the youngest of the brothers , to hold the family together . `` My father , frankly , was not just my father , '' Patrick Kennedy said . `` He was the father for my cousins , John and Caroline . And all my Robert Kennedy cousins too . '' Less than an hour after the Kennedys ' plane touched down JFK was shot , allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald . The horrifying events of that day still burn brightly in the minds of the men and women who were there . `` I saw Jackie . Pink hat and pink coat , '' said Tina Towner , who shot footage of the presidential motorcade from outside the Texas School Book Depository when she was only 13 years old . `` I heard three gunshots . '' Dan Rather , anchor of AXS-TV 's `` Dan Rather Reports , '' covered the trip for CBS News . He remembers a sense of foreboding before the president and Mrs. Kennedy traveled to Texas . `` Everybody knew if there was going to be trouble anywhere it would be in Dallas , '' he said . `` It 's very important to understand , when I say 'Well , there 's going to be trouble in Dallas , ' no one I knew of was thinking assassination . '' Dr. Ronald Jones was paged to Parkland Hospital Emergency Room with a message that the president had been shot . `` There was no sign of life in my opinion , '' Jones said . `` He had a fixed stare . His eyes were open . I never saw him move . I never saw him breathe . '' Fifty years after that tragic day , JFK 's legacy still lives on - not in spite of his untimely death , but because of it . `` He represents the best in us because it was cut short , '' award-winning documentary filmmaker Ken Burns told Martha Raddatz today on `` This Week . '' JFK 's three-year presidency was an `` evanescent moment , '' Burns said . `` It 's fleeting and it just stays there for a couple of seconds and we wish we could extend it . '' Although it is unclear what JFK might have accomplished had he lived , it is `` the hope and the ambition and the sense of possibility '' that his death left in the hearts of Americans that elevates him , Burns said . `` We invest that legacy with all of our hopes and all of our wishes , '' he said . Like `` This Week '' on Facebook . You can also follow the show on Twitter . Check out what time `` This Week '' airs in your area .

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy during a trip to Dallas in 1963 left a nation in mourning and America's royal family torn apart. "We're very focused on family because it's the only thing that got us through," former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the son of Ted Kennedy, who was born four years after the tragedy, told ABC's Byron Pitts in an interview for "This Week." "It certainly got my dad through." After JFK's brother, Robert, was also assassinated in 1968, it was left to Ted Kennedy, the youngest of the brothers, to hold the family together. "My father, frankly, was not just my father," Patrick Kennedy said. "He was the father for my cousins, John and Caroline. And all my Robert Kennedy cousins too." Less than an hour after the Kennedys' plane touched down JFK was shot, allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald. The horrifying events of that day still burn brightly in the minds of the men and women who were there. "I saw Jackie. Pink hat and pink coat," said Tina Towner, who shot footage of the presidential motorcade from outside the Texas School Book Depository when she was only 13 years old. "I heard three gunshots." ABC News Dan Rather, anchor of AXS-TV's "Dan Rather Reports," covered the trip for CBS News. He remembers a sense of foreboding before the president and Mrs. Kennedy traveled to Texas. "Everybody knew if there was going to be trouble anywhere it would be in Dallas," he said. "It's very important to understand, when I say 'Well, there's going to be trouble in Dallas,' no one I knew of was thinking assassination." Dr. Ronald Jones was paged to Parkland Hospital Emergency Room with a message that the president had been shot. "There was no sign of life in my opinion," Jones said. "He had a fixed stare. His eyes were open. I never saw him move. I never saw him breathe." Fifty years after that tragic day, JFK's legacy still lives on - not in spite of his untimely death, but because of it. "He represents the best in us because it was cut short," award-winning documentary filmmaker Ken Burns told Martha Raddatz today on "This Week." JFK's three-year presidency was an "evanescent moment," Burns said. "It's fleeting and it just stays there for a couple of seconds and we wish we could extend it." Although it is unclear what JFK might have accomplished had he lived, it is "the hope and the ambition and the sense of possibility" that his death left in the hearts of Americans that elevates him, Burns said. "We invest that legacy with all of our hopes and all of our wishes," he said. Like "This Week" on Facebook. You can also follow the show on Twitter. Check out what time "This Week" airs in your area.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

kRclDw9Xq7uQyZqC

test

TAVOm1O3NSti1DlF

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/27/donald-trump-first-100-days-president-ohio-voters

One nation, two Trumps: America as divided as ever after first 100 days

2017-04-27

Ed Pilkington

How did Donald Trump do in his first 100 days as US president ? The moment you step out into the beating heart of America , you realize that ’ s the wrong question . How did the Donald Trumps – plural – do in their first 100 days ? That ’ s the better line of inquiry . And no , it ’ s not a reference to Donald Jr , busily engorging the family business while his father makes America great again . The question to ask is : how did the two Donald Trumps do ? One man , two entirely contrary public figures . There ’ s Donald Trump , champion of the white conservative religious masses of rural and small-town America , the man bringing change to Washington , reviving the nation ’ s pride , teaching a lesson to foreigners with a well-targeted bombing raid or two . And then there ’ s Donald Trump as seen through the eyes of urban America , minority communities and progressive voters . This president is utterly incompetent , criminally corrupt , or both , is only interested in himself and his rich buddies , and has turned the White House into a reality TV show . It ’ s not hard to track down people who subscribe to one of these Donald Trumps . There are millions of them , scattered unevenly across the United States . In some places , the polar impressions co-exist side by side in their own hermetically sealed bubbles . Like in Ohio , where two neighboring communities straddling a county line have been following the progress of quite different Donald Trumps since the inauguration on 20 January . . To the west of the county border is Warrensville Heights , a city of 14,000 people that is 94 % African American . It lies on the outskirts of Cleveland in Cuyahoga County , one of the key strongholds in this crucial swing state for Hillary Clinton , with 66 % of the county voting for her on election day . To the east of the boundary is Chardon , in Geauga County , where a commanding 61 % voted for Trump . Chardon ’ s 5,000 residents are as white as Warrensville Heights ’ are black , even more so in fact , with the 2010 census recording a 98 % white population . “ We ’ re Anglo-Saxon , God-fearing Republicans , ” as one resident put it . Twenty miles and that county line between them . But when it comes to the 45th president , it ’ s as though these two communities are seeing him through alternate realities . We invited residents of Warrensville Heights , who voted Democratic in the presidential election , to tell us the word that came into their minds when they heard the phrase : “ Donald Trump ’ s first 100 days ” . Then we put it to Trump voters in Chardon . They said : So what did they mean ? Why , for instance , did Kim Williams , 47 , an African American woman who works at a loans and lottery company , Cash2Go , in Warrensville Heights , say “ stress ” when Trump ’ s 100 days was evoked ? Bold ? Look at what he ’ s done . I think he ’ s doing what ’ s best for America Ward Lawrence , salesman “ I say ‘ stress ’ down to how he ’ s handling things for the people , ” she said . “ Truthfully , I think he ’ s a puppet for rich folk . ” She checked off Trump ’ s travel ban for visitors from Muslim-majority countries , his deportations of non-criminal Latino immigrants , and his failed attempt to scrap the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) as evidence of his discrimination against minorities and in favour of the wealthy . Then she used a vivid metaphor to describe how she believes the president has been duping the American people . “ He offers us with real nice food – steak and fries – but when he comes to give it to you it ’ s presented on a trashcan lid . ” By similar measure , why did Ward Lawrence , 81 , a white salesman in Chardon , come up with “ bold ” when given the Trump test ? A clue perhaps was that he ’ d just spent three hours listening to Rush Limbaugh ’ s rightwing talk radio show . “ Bold ? Look at what he ’ s done . I think he ’ s doing what ’ s best for America … the Keystone pipeline , he threw out Environmental Protection Agency regulations , he told companies not to move jobs out of the country . ” No worries about climate change ? “ That ’ s a fabrication , ” he said . “ Entirely made up by people who benefit financially from it , starting with Al Gore . ” Lawrence has no doubt that 97 % of Chardon – his figure – would vote for Trump again . “ Oh yes , absolutely. ” And he , too , has a ripe metaphor for why that should be so . “ We suffered for eight years kissing Obama ’ s ass because he was black . Now Trump says it like it is . ” Trump expended much of his energy on the campaign trail last year , and a good deal of it since he entered the White House , talking about his devotion to the “ forgotten ” people . That was barely concealed code for white working-class and middle-class Americans . The strange thing about Ohio is that the equation is reversed . If anyone has been forgotten in these neighboring communities , it is the poor black inhabitants of Warrenville Heights . The area around Jack Racino , a horse racing and gambling casino in the center of the city , has a desolation epitomised by the local super mall that has closed and is being razed to rubble . Letters from its welcome sign , Randall Park , lie in great plastic shards in puddles of oily water where a couple of geese paddle forlornly . Life is tough enough for the residents of the “ friendly city ” , as Warrensville Heights styles itself . Median income for a household is $ 33,000 , compared with $ 54,000 in white Chardon . Infant mortality rates in Cuyahoga County are 11 deaths per 1,000 live births , twice the national average . Despite such hardship , Trump is proposing to make life worse for the folk of Warrensville Heights . It ’ s not just his ongoing efforts to scrap the ACA , also known as Obamacare , which would disproportionately impact poor families . He is also attempting in next year ’ s budget to cut back on meals for wheels services for elderly people , and free transport for them to hospitals . That ’ s why Gregory Gaines , 49 , a building worker whose mother-in-law is dependent on such assistance , thought of the word “ horrible ” to sum up Trump ’ s 100 days . “ Trump ’ s ethics aren ’ t right , ” he said . “ His thinking seems to be to take from those who have not , to give to those who have . ” But the president says he is on the side of the forgotten people . “ Forgotten people ? ” Gaines guffawed . “ We are the forgotten people . I ’ ve yet to see him do anything for the black community . ” Kay , 58 , who runs a school for hair and nail beauty stylists , chose the word “ clown ” . She said : “ I believe Trump ’ s so used to being on TV that ’ s how he ’ s running the country like a reality show . He says things he knows aren ’ t true , like the crowd size at his inauguration , but wears a mask that makes him look as though it ’ s true . ” Kay said she thought the assault on funding for the women ’ s health network Planned Parenthood was especially reprehensible . She was derisive also about the senior White House team , namely adviser Kellyanne Conway and press secretary Sean Spicer – “ they talk about fake news , but I heard more fake news from them than anybody ” – and daughter Ivanka – “ could I get a job description , maybe ? ” Across the road , Darius Smith , 29 , responded to the Trump test with the word “ money ” . He gave a simple reason : “ I think Donald Trump bought his way into the White House . ” Smith is a gold buyer , which sounds more glamorous than it is . Local residents bring their broken jewelry to him to pawn or sell . A glass showcase in the store is entirely bare , while Smith works at a counter behind iron security bars . Like most others in Warrensville Heights , he voted twice for Obama before backing Clinton in November . So how does he think Donald Trump has done in his first 100 days ? “ He hasn ’ t done anything yet . The travel ban didn ’ t go through , and that was a horrible idea . ” After a half-hour ’ s drive to Chardon , the outlook switches dramatically . There ’ s nothing forgotten about the town ’ s quaint square , with its pretty redbrick courthouse dating from 1869 , or the well-appointed shops serving the surrounding area ’ s prosperous farming community . Stalls are going up for the 88th annual maple festival this weekend , with bumper cars , a haunted house and “ old-fashioned ” lemonade and hot dog stands . It takes little imagination to get the size of a place that proclaims on its official placard : “ Chardon ’ s square and proud of it ” . Here in all-white Chardon , Donald Trump has metamorphosed into action man . “ Action ” was the word conjured up by Tim Overberger , 47 , a carpet installer shopping in the square . Wasn ’ t that quite a glowing review to give a president whose key policy efforts have come unstuck at the hands of the courts or his fellow Republicans in Congress ? “ I think he ’ s done stuff , ” Overberger protested , though he was hard-pressed to provide details . “ He ’ s signed some bills , though I don ’ t pay attention to that small stuff . He said he was going to bomb , and he did . ” His thinking seems to be to take from those who have not , to give to those who have Gregory Gaines , building worker Ed , 71 , a car mechanic , used the word “ fast ” to describe what he thought had been a highly productive start to Trump ’ s term in office . “ I like the fact that he ’ s sticking it to these other countries , like North Korea . At least he ’ s doing something . ” Jeanne Lose , 56 , is that rare animal in Chardon , a resident who is not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican . An independent , she voted for Trump in November , but that was the first time she had backed a conservative presidential candidate in her life . The decision was motivated in part by having been repulsed by Hillary Clinton ’ s surrogates . “ Beyoncé , ” she said . “ I really don ’ t like Beyoncé . ” Lose chose as her word “ illegals ” to signal her approval for Trump ’ s tough stance on deporting undocumented immigrants . “ I ’ ve got a son lives in Denver , he ’ s a plumber , and there are a lot of illegals out there taking work away from him . ” She liked the travel ban too , buying Trump ’ s line that it would protect the nation from terrorism . “ I just feel so bad for France , they are , like , getting beat up , ” she said . And so it went . The two Donald Trumps stayed doggedly in their respective bubbles , with virtually no common ground between them . Was there no hope of any communion after these first 100 days , no coming together of any description ? In Chardon , the only Trump voter to give an inch was Caroline Mansfield , 53 , chief deputy at the Geauga county treasurer ’ s office . “ Filter ” was the word that came into her mind , because she said the president could sometimes do with using one to moderate his public comments . She also conceded that Trump had found it very hard in his rookie days to achieve his objectives . But she quickly qualified the point : it was not his fault . “ He ’ s doing a great job . But there ’ s been so much opposition to him that it ’ s very difficult for him to get anything done . It ’ s time for us to unite and let him be the president . ” What does the business world make of Trump 100 days in ? The jury is still out Read more The only person truly prepared to cross the metaphorical county line between Trump and anti-Trump sentiments aptly chose the word “ surprising ” . Kendell Long , 27 , walking home in Warrensville Heights with his three-year-old son , Kendell Jr , said he was finding the new president hard to pin down . At first , everything Trump said or did horrified him . He hated the damage the president ’ s cuts would do to public services , such as Cleveland ’ s world-class hospitals , and he loathed his intemperate outbursts on Twitter or TV . “ There seemed like there was no control to what came out of his mouth . ” But over time Long , who studies psychology at night while holding down a day job at a Valvoline instant oil change franchise , was forced to reappraise , he said . “ I think Trump ’ s starting to think through what he says and does , way more than when he was running . ” Didn ’ t he worry about how his peers would respond if he stood up , even just a little , for the president ? “ I don ’ t care about what someone else feels , I only care about what ’ s good for me and my son , ” he said , holding Kendell Jr in his arms . “ As long as Trump ’ s not bringing trouble down on us , like wars and stuff , he ’ s not always such a bad thing . ”

How did Donald Trump do in his first 100 days as US president? The moment you step out into the beating heart of America, you realize that’s the wrong question. How did the Donald Trumps – plural – do in their first 100 days? That’s the better line of inquiry. And no, it’s not a reference to Donald Jr, busily engorging the family business while his father makes America great again. The question to ask is: how did the two Donald Trumps do? One man, two entirely contrary public figures. There’s Donald Trump, champion of the white conservative religious masses of rural and small-town America, the man bringing change to Washington, reviving the nation’s pride, teaching a lesson to foreigners with a well-targeted bombing raid or two. And then there’s Donald Trump as seen through the eyes of urban America, minority communities and progressive voters. This president is utterly incompetent, criminally corrupt, or both, is only interested in himself and his rich buddies, and has turned the White House into a reality TV show. It’s not hard to track down people who subscribe to one of these Donald Trumps. There are millions of them , scattered unevenly across the United States. In some places, the polar impressions co-exist side by side in their own hermetically sealed bubbles. Like in Ohio, where two neighboring communities straddling a county line have been following the progress of quite different Donald Trumps since the inauguration on 20 January . . To the west of the county border is Warrensville Heights, a city of 14,000 people that is 94% African American. It lies on the outskirts of Cleveland in Cuyahoga County, one of the key strongholds in this crucial swing state for Hillary Clinton, with 66% of the county voting for her on election day . To the east of the boundary is Chardon, in Geauga County, where a commanding 61% voted for Trump . Chardon’s 5,000 residents are as white as Warrensville Heights’ are black, even more so in fact, with the 2010 census recording a 98% white population. “We’re Anglo-Saxon, God-fearing Republicans,” as one resident put it. Twenty miles and that county line between them. But when it comes to the 45th president, it’s as though these two communities are seeing him through alternate realities. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Kim Williams inside Cash 2 Go in Warrensville Heights. Photograph: Paul Sobota/The Guardian ‘He’s a puppet for rich folk’ We invited residents of Warrensville Heights, who voted Democratic in the presidential election, to tell us the word that came into their minds when they heard the phrase: “Donald Trump’s first 100 days”. They came up with: Horrible Stress Clown Money Surprising Then we put it to Trump voters in Chardon. They said: Bold Fast Action Illegals Filter So what did they mean? Why, for instance, did Kim Williams, 47, an African American woman who works at a loans and lottery company, Cash2Go, in Warrensville Heights, say “stress” when Trump’s 100 days was evoked? Bold? Look at what he’s done. I think he’s doing what’s best for America Ward Lawrence, salesman “I say ‘stress’ down to how he’s handling things for the people,” she said. “Truthfully, I think he’s a puppet for rich folk.” She checked off Trump’s travel ban for visitors from Muslim-majority countries, his deportations of non-criminal Latino immigrants, and his failed attempt to scrap the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as evidence of his discrimination against minorities and in favour of the wealthy. Then she used a vivid metaphor to describe how she believes the president has been duping the American people. “He offers us with real nice food – steak and fries – but when he comes to give it to you it’s presented on a trashcan lid.” By similar measure, why did Ward Lawrence, 81, a white salesman in Chardon, come up with “bold” when given the Trump test? A clue perhaps was that he’d just spent three hours listening to Rush Limbaugh’s rightwing talk radio show. “Bold? Look at what he’s done. I think he’s doing what’s best for America … the Keystone pipeline, he threw out Environmental Protection Agency regulations, he told companies not to move jobs out of the country.” No worries about climate change? “That’s a fabrication,” he said. “Entirely made up by people who benefit financially from it, starting with Al Gore.” Lawrence has no doubt that 97% of Chardon – his figure – would vote for Trump again. “Oh yes, absolutely.” And he, too, has a ripe metaphor for why that should be so. “We suffered for eight years kissing Obama’s ass because he was black. Now Trump says it like it is.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Darius Smith inside 650 Gold in Warrensville Heights. Photograph: Paul Sobota/The Guardian ‘We are the forgotten people’ Trump expended much of his energy on the campaign trail last year, and a good deal of it since he entered the White House, talking about his devotion to the “forgotten” people. That was barely concealed code for white working-class and middle-class Americans. The strange thing about Ohio is that the equation is reversed. If anyone has been forgotten in these neighboring communities, it is the poor black inhabitants of Warrenville Heights. The area around Jack Racino, a horse racing and gambling casino in the center of the city, has a desolation epitomised by the local super mall that has closed and is being razed to rubble. Letters from its welcome sign, Randall Park, lie in great plastic shards in puddles of oily water where a couple of geese paddle forlornly. Life is tough enough for the residents of the “friendly city”, as Warrensville Heights styles itself. Median income for a household is $33,000, compared with $54,000 in white Chardon. Infant mortality rates in Cuyahoga County are 11 deaths per 1,000 live births, twice the national average. Despite such hardship, Trump is proposing to make life worse for the folk of Warrensville Heights. It’s not just his ongoing efforts to scrap the ACA, also known as Obamacare, which would disproportionately impact poor families. He is also attempting in next year’s budget to cut back on meals for wheels services for elderly people, and free transport for them to hospitals. That’s why Gregory Gaines, 49, a building worker whose mother-in-law is dependent on such assistance, thought of the word “horrible” to sum up Trump’s 100 days. “Trump’s ethics aren’t right,” he said. “His thinking seems to be to take from those who have not, to give to those who have.” But the president says he is on the side of the forgotten people. “Forgotten people?” Gaines guffawed. “We are the forgotten people. I’ve yet to see him do anything for the black community.” Kay, 58, who runs a school for hair and nail beauty stylists, chose the word “clown”. She said: “I believe Trump’s so used to being on TV that’s how he’s running the country like a reality show. He says things he knows aren’t true, like the crowd size at his inauguration, but wears a mask that makes him look as though it’s true.” Kay said she thought the assault on funding for the women’s health network Planned Parenthood was especially reprehensible. She was derisive also about the senior White House team, namely adviser Kellyanne Conway and press secretary Sean Spicer – “they talk about fake news, but I heard more fake news from them than anybody” – and daughter Ivanka –“could I get a job description, maybe?” Across the road, Darius Smith, 29, responded to the Trump test with the word “money”. He gave a simple reason: “I think Donald Trump bought his way into the White House.” Smith is a gold buyer, which sounds more glamorous than it is. Local residents bring their broken jewelry to him to pawn or sell. A glass showcase in the store is entirely bare, while Smith works at a counter behind iron security bars. Like most others in Warrensville Heights, he voted twice for Obama before backing Clinton in November. So how does he think Donald Trump has done in his first 100 days? “He hasn’t done anything yet. The travel ban didn’t go through, and that was a horrible idea.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jeanne Lose, an Independent, on the square in Chardon. Photograph: Paul Sobota/The Guardian ‘At least he’s doing something’ After a half-hour’s drive to Chardon, the outlook switches dramatically. There’s nothing forgotten about the town’s quaint square, with its pretty redbrick courthouse dating from 1869, or the well-appointed shops serving the surrounding area’s prosperous farming community. Stalls are going up for the 88th annual maple festival this weekend, with bumper cars, a haunted house and “old-fashioned” lemonade and hot dog stands. It takes little imagination to get the size of a place that proclaims on its official placard: “Chardon’s square and proud of it”. Here in all-white Chardon, Donald Trump has metamorphosed into action man. “Action” was the word conjured up by Tim Overberger, 47, a carpet installer shopping in the square. Wasn’t that quite a glowing review to give a president whose key policy efforts have come unstuck at the hands of the courts or his fellow Republicans in Congress? “I think he’s done stuff,” Overberger protested, though he was hard-pressed to provide details. “He’s signed some bills, though I don’t pay attention to that small stuff. He said he was going to bomb, and he did.” His thinking seems to be to take from those who have not, to give to those who have Gregory Gaines, building worker Ed, 71, a car mechanic, used the word “fast” to describe what he thought had been a highly productive start to Trump’s term in office. “I like the fact that he’s sticking it to these other countries, like North Korea. At least he’s doing something.” Jeanne Lose, 56, is that rare animal in Chardon, a resident who is not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. An independent, she voted for Trump in November, but that was the first time she had backed a conservative presidential candidate in her life. The decision was motivated in part by having been repulsed by Hillary Clinton’s surrogates. “Beyoncé,” she said. “I really don’t like Beyoncé.” Lose chose as her word “illegals” to signal her approval for Trump’s tough stance on deporting undocumented immigrants. “I’ve got a son lives in Denver, he’s a plumber, and there are a lot of illegals out there taking work away from him.” She liked the travel ban too, buying Trump’s line that it would protect the nation from terrorism. “I just feel so bad for France, they are, like, getting beat up,” she said. And so it went. The two Donald Trumps stayed doggedly in their respective bubbles, with virtually no common ground between them. Was there no hope of any communion after these first 100 days, no coming together of any description? Facebook Twitter Pinterest Caroline Mansfield on the square in Chardon. Photograph: Paul Sobota/The Guardian ‘He’s doing a great job’ In Chardon, the only Trump voter to give an inch was Caroline Mansfield, 53, chief deputy at the Geauga county treasurer’s office. “Filter” was the word that came into her mind, because she said the president could sometimes do with using one to moderate his public comments. She also conceded that Trump had found it very hard in his rookie days to achieve his objectives. But she quickly qualified the point: it was not his fault. “He’s doing a great job. But there’s been so much opposition to him that it’s very difficult for him to get anything done. It’s time for us to unite and let him be the president.” What does the business world make of Trump 100 days in? The jury is still out Read more The only person truly prepared to cross the metaphorical county line between Trump and anti-Trump sentiments aptly chose the word “surprising”. Kendell Long, 27, walking home in Warrensville Heights with his three-year-old son, Kendell Jr, said he was finding the new president hard to pin down. At first, everything Trump said or did horrified him. He hated the damage the president’s cuts would do to public services, such as Cleveland’s world-class hospitals, and he loathed his intemperate outbursts on Twitter or TV. “There seemed like there was no control to what came out of his mouth.” But over time Long, who studies psychology at night while holding down a day job at a Valvoline instant oil change franchise, was forced to reappraise, he said. “I think Trump’s starting to think through what he says and does, way more than when he was running.” Didn’t he worry about how his peers would respond if he stood up, even just a little, for the president? “I don’t care about what someone else feels, I only care about what’s good for me and my son,” he said, holding Kendell Jr in his arms. “As long as Trump’s not bringing trouble down on us, like wars and stuff, he’s not always such a bad thing.”

www.theguardian.com

left

TAVOm1O3NSti1DlF

test

c6pjbMHpSMV7p77T

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48461356

Trump assails 'totally conflicted' Robert Mueller

US President Donald Trump has launched a fierce personal attack on former special counsel Robert Mueller , describing him as `` totally conflicted '' . He said the man who led the inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election had `` wanted to be the FBI director , and I said 'no ' '' . The president also claimed the two had had a `` business dispute '' . Mr Mueller reiterated on Wednesday that his inquiry did not exonerate Mr Trump of obstruction of justice . Following Mr Mueller 's comments - his first public statement on his inquiry - Democratic presidential candidates called for the Republican president to be impeached . But the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives is sceptical of such a move . And any attempt to remove the president from office would almost certainly be rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate . At the White House on Thursday morning , Mr Trump said impeachment was a `` dirty , filthy disgusting word '' . He said Mr Mueller was a `` true Never Trumper '' , referring to his Republican critics during the 2016 White House race , and that his investigation was `` a giant presidential harassment '' . Mr Trump also referred to the special counsel 's team of investigators as `` some of the worst human beings on Earth '' . He claimed Mr Mueller had approached him at the Oval Office in 2017 seeking to regain his former position as FBI director . The president said : `` Robert Mueller should never have been chosen because he wanted the FBI job and he did n't get it and the next day he was picked as special counsel . '' But according to the Mueller report , former White House strategist Stephen Bannon told investigators that the special counsel had not gone to the White House job-seeking . Mr Bannon said Mr Trump 's oft-repeated claims about Mr Mueller 's supposed conflicts of interest were `` ridiculous '' . On Thursday , the president also told reporters he had `` a business dispute '' with Mr Mueller . It was not clear what Mr Trump was referring to , but in 2011 Mr Mueller suspended his membership with a Trump-owned golf course in northern Virginia . Afterwards , Mr Mueller requested to have his annual dues refunded but never heard back from the Trump Organization , according to a Washington Post report from last year . In a tweet earlier on Thursday , Mr Trump seemed to say for the first time that Moscow had played a role in helping him to get elected , while disavowing his own involvement . `` Russia , Russia , Russia ! That 's all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax ... And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected , '' he wrote . But on the White House lawn , he said : `` No , Russia did not help me get elected . You know who got me elected ? I got me elected . Russia did n't help me at all . '' Mr Mueller - who was FBI director under President George W Bush - made his first and only public comments over the two-year investigation in a statement to media on Wednesday . He said that charging a sitting president with a crime `` is not an option '' due to a long-standing US Department of Justice policy . `` If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime , we would have said so , '' Mr Mueller declared in a live broadcast , contradicting Mr Trump 's claims of exoneration . The special counsel 's 448-page report issued in April did not establish that Mr Trump conspired with Russia to sway the White House election , but listed 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice by the president . After a brief presidential ceasefire , hostilities against Robert Mueller have resumed . The president is clearly irked that Mr Mueller grabbed headlines yesterday when he reiterated the results of his investigation that were far from exoneration for the president . In the immediate aftermath of Mr Mueller 's report , the president had claimed complete vindication - and even agreed that the special counsel had acted honourably . The picture was n't as rosy once the report 's details were made public , however . And while Mr Mueller declined to determine whether the president had obstructed the investigation , his `` I ca n't say he 's not guilty '' conclusion was damning in its own way . Mr Mueller 's public statement put bullet points on those findings . So the president is going back on the attack , ensuring - if there were ever any doubt - that Mr Mueller , his report and subsequent action by Congress will continue to be mired in partisan warfare .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump: "Mueller is a true Never Trumper" US President Donald Trump has launched a fierce personal attack on former special counsel Robert Mueller, describing him as "totally conflicted". He said the man who led the inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election had "wanted to be the FBI director, and I said 'no'". The president also claimed the two had had a "business dispute". Mr Mueller reiterated on Wednesday that his inquiry did not exonerate Mr Trump of obstruction of justice. Following Mr Mueller's comments - his first public statement on his inquiry - Democratic presidential candidates called for the Republican president to be impeached. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US Attorney General William Barr: "Mueller could've reached a conclusion on obstruction" But the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives is sceptical of such a move. And any attempt to remove the president from office would almost certainly be rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate. At the White House on Thursday morning, Mr Trump said impeachment was a "dirty, filthy disgusting word". He said Mr Mueller was a "true Never Trumper", referring to his Republican critics during the 2016 White House race, and that his investigation was "a giant presidential harassment". Mr Trump also referred to the special counsel's team of investigators as "some of the worst human beings on Earth". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Robert Mueller: "No confidence that there was no crime" He claimed Mr Mueller had approached him at the Oval Office in 2017 seeking to regain his former position as FBI director. The president said: "Robert Mueller should never have been chosen because he wanted the FBI job and he didn't get it and the next day he was picked as special counsel." But according to the Mueller report, former White House strategist Stephen Bannon told investigators that the special counsel had not gone to the White House job-seeking. Mr Bannon said Mr Trump's oft-repeated claims about Mr Mueller's supposed conflicts of interest were "ridiculous". On Thursday, the president also told reporters he had "a business dispute" with Mr Mueller. It was not clear what Mr Trump was referring to, but in 2011 Mr Mueller suspended his membership with a Trump-owned golf course in northern Virginia. Afterwards, Mr Mueller requested to have his annual dues refunded but never heard back from the Trump Organization, according to a Washington Post report from last year. In a tweet earlier on Thursday, Mr Trump seemed to say for the first time that Moscow had played a role in helping him to get elected, while disavowing his own involvement. "Russia, Russia, Russia! That's all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax... And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected," he wrote. But on the White House lawn, he said: "No, Russia did not help me get elected. You know who got me elected? I got me elected. Russia didn't help me at all." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why no charge of obstruction of justice? A law professor breaks down the legal questions What did Mueller say? Mr Mueller - who was FBI director under President George W Bush - made his first and only public comments over the two-year investigation in a statement to media on Wednesday. He said that charging a sitting president with a crime "is not an option" due to a long-standing US Department of Justice policy. "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mr Mueller declared in a live broadcast, contradicting Mr Trump's claims of exoneration. The special counsel's 448-page report issued in April did not establish that Mr Trump conspired with Russia to sway the White House election, but listed 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice by the president. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The Mueller report - in 60 seconds Waging partisan warfare After a brief presidential ceasefire, hostilities against Robert Mueller have resumed. The president is clearly irked that Mr Mueller grabbed headlines yesterday when he reiterated the results of his investigation that were far from exoneration for the president. In the immediate aftermath of Mr Mueller's report, the president had claimed complete vindication - and even agreed that the special counsel had acted honourably. The picture wasn't as rosy once the report's details were made public, however. And while Mr Mueller declined to determine whether the president had obstructed the investigation, his "I can't say he's not guilty" conclusion was damning in its own way. Mr Mueller's public statement put bullet points on those findings. So the president is going back on the attack, ensuring - if there were ever any doubt - that Mr Mueller, his report and subsequent action by Congress will continue to be mired in partisan warfare.

www.bbc.com

center

c6pjbMHpSMV7p77T

test

9RFmwy3VeWmELt53

fbi

Reason

http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/30/why-didnt-the-fbi-give-hillary-clinton-i

Why Didn't the FBI Give Hillary Clinton Immunity and Spare Us the Drama?

2016-09-30

David Harsanyi, Jim Lindgren, Brian Doherty, Ronald Bailey, Eric Boehm, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis, Cosmo Wenman

Rather than striking immunity deals with virtually every person who had intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton 's illegal private server and emails , the Justice Department would have saved everyone some time by offering Clinton protection instead . FBI Director James Comey , who testified in front of two congressional committees this week , still maintains that he was unable to recommend that the DOJ charge Clinton with mishandling classified documents because of insufficient evidence proving `` intent '' —although the actions themselves are irrefutably illegal . Well , how exactly did he anticipate gathering this proof , when the DOJ had proactively shielded the five people tasked with setting up the private system and then destroying it ? Was he hoping to extract a confession directly from Clinton ? Why would , for instance , a Clinton functionary like Cheryl Mills help prosecutors once she 'd already secured safeguards against any criminal prosecution ? While testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee , Comey claimed that Mills was already `` cooperative '' and that the Justice Department had assured the FBI she had done nothing wrong . If she were accommodating and completely innocent , why would she seek—and be given—immunity ? A lawyer for Mills and Heather Samuelson , another one of the five , had already admitted the deal was struck to protect her clients from potential prosecution arising from `` classification '' on their laptops . Apparently , the DOJ was more convinced of their innocence than their lawyer was . In the FBI 's summary statement , Mills alleged that she did n't know about Clinton 's email server until after the secretary of state 's tenure was over . Emails since uncovered , however , show this to be untrue . Remember also that , President Obama claimed that he first learned about Clinton 's illegal server through `` news reports . '' If that 's true , why did he email Clinton on her private server under a pseudonym ? Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Clinton 's lawyers— '' it might have been Cheryl Mills '' —told Paul Combetta , Clinton 's IT specialist , to delete email files from Clinton 's secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved . And Comey assures us that none of this is obstruction of justice . Then , at another point , he told the committee that the DOJ agreed to give immunity because the FBI did n't feel like wrangling with lawyers for years . `` The FBI judgment was we need to get to that laptop . We need to see what it is , '' he explained . `` This investigation 's been going on for a year . '' And why is Comey , who does n't `` give a hoot about politics , '' concerned about timetables , rather than making the best case ? If the laptop was important enough to hasten a deal that protected a potential witness from prosecution , why was n't it important enough for the FBI to subpoena ? If Mills ' lawyer is worried about potential criminality , why take a plea bargain off the table ? Is this how it works for everyone ? It was rather amazing to hear Comey concede that the DOJ 's immunity spree was `` unusual . '' More unusual , perhaps , was that three of the people with those deals still ended up taking the Fifth , and another did n't even bother showing up when Congress called him . It 's also unusual that a high-profile case featuring numerous immunity deals resulted in no charges . To Comey , it was also `` very unusual '' that the FBI would conduct an interview with the target of an investigation—where wholly innocent Clinton was surrounded by nine lawyers—with two of the immunized witnesses in the case present . That 's something Comey admitted had never happened in his career . Jonathan Turley , a law professor at George Washington University , who first defended the FBI 's decision not to prosecute Clinton , put the decision in historical context : `` Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity , most would view Mills as the very last on any list . If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct , it is equivalent to immunizing H.R . Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate . '' Comey claimed that it was not his purview to decide who people use as their lawyers . That is true . What he failed to mention was that he determined the parameters of the interview . He could have pressured Clinton to leave Mills home , by impelling the target of the investigation to appear rather than allowing it to be voluntary interview . In a deposition about the email scandal , Mills claimed client-attorney privilege , though she was chief of staff , not Clinton 's lawyer , during her tenure at the State Debarment . Comey attempted to distance himself from the immunity deals by pointing out that he had not personally struck them . `` It 's a decision made by the Department of Justice , I do n't know at what level inside , '' Comey said in the House panel . He continued , saying , `` In our investigations , any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors , not the investigators . '' Surely , the DOJ does n't offer witnesses protection from prosecution in high-profile cases without asking FBI investigators . If they did , then it would suggest a politicized process—something this case reeks of already .

Rather than striking immunity deals with virtually every person who had intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton's illegal private server and emails, the Justice Department would have saved everyone some time by offering Clinton protection instead. FBI Director James Comey, who testified in front of two congressional committees this week, still maintains that he was unable to recommend that the DOJ charge Clinton with mishandling classified documents because of insufficient evidence proving "intent"—although the actions themselves are irrefutably illegal. Well, how exactly did he anticipate gathering this proof, when the DOJ had proactively shielded the five people tasked with setting up the private system and then destroying it? Was he hoping to extract a confession directly from Clinton? Why would, for instance, a Clinton functionary like Cheryl Mills help prosecutors once she'd already secured safeguards against any criminal prosecution? While testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Comey claimed that Mills was already "cooperative" and that the Justice Department had assured the FBI she had done nothing wrong. If she were accommodating and completely innocent, why would she seek—and be given—immunity? A lawyer for Mills and Heather Samuelson, another one of the five, had already admitted the deal was struck to protect her clients from potential prosecution arising from "classification" on their laptops. Apparently, the DOJ was more convinced of their innocence than their lawyer was. In the FBI's summary statement, Mills alleged that she didn't know about Clinton's email server until after the secretary of state's tenure was over. Emails since uncovered, however, show this to be untrue. Remember also that, President Obama claimed that he first learned about Clinton's illegal server through "news reports." If that's true, why did he email Clinton on her private server under a pseudonym? Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Clinton's lawyers—"it might have been Cheryl Mills"—told Paul Combetta, Clinton's IT specialist, to delete email files from Clinton's secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved. And Comey assures us that none of this is obstruction of justice. Then, at another point, he told the committee that the DOJ agreed to give immunity because the FBI didn't feel like wrangling with lawyers for years. "The FBI judgment was we need to get to that laptop. We need to see what it is," he explained. "This investigation's been going on for a year." So I guess Mills was less than cooperative. Yes? And why is Comey, who doesn't "give a hoot about politics," concerned about timetables, rather than making the best case? If the laptop was important enough to hasten a deal that protected a potential witness from prosecution, why wasn't it important enough for the FBI to subpoena? If Mills' lawyer is worried about potential criminality, why take a plea bargain off the table? Is this how it works for everyone? It was rather amazing to hear Comey concede that the DOJ's immunity spree was "unusual." More unusual, perhaps, was that three of the people with those deals still ended up taking the Fifth, and another didn't even bother showing up when Congress called him. It's also unusual that a high-profile case featuring numerous immunity deals resulted in no charges. To Comey, it was also "very unusual" that the FBI would conduct an interview with the target of an investigation—where wholly innocent Clinton was surrounded by nine lawyers—with two of the immunized witnesses in the case present. That's something Comey admitted had never happened in his career. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who first defended the FBI's decision not to prosecute Clinton, put the decision in historical context: "Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate." Comey claimed that it was not his purview to decide who people use as their lawyers. That is true. What he failed to mention was that he determined the parameters of the interview. He could have pressured Clinton to leave Mills home, by impelling the target of the investigation to appear rather than allowing it to be voluntary interview. In a deposition about the email scandal, Mills claimed client-attorney privilege, though she was chief of staff, not Clinton's lawyer, during her tenure at the State Debarment. Comey attempted to distance himself from the immunity deals by pointing out that he had not personally struck them. "It's a decision made by the Department of Justice, I don't know at what level inside," Comey said in the House panel. He continued, saying, "In our investigations, any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors, not the investigators." Surely, the DOJ doesn't offer witnesses protection from prosecution in high-profile cases without asking FBI investigators. If they did, then it would suggest a politicized process—something this case reeks of already. COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

www.reason.com

right

9RFmwy3VeWmELt53

test