Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

tJUfYHz1mdHytN4c

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/31/dinesh-dsouza-hitler-learned-democrats/

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

2017-07-31

"Dinesh DSouza"

The notion that Hitler learned anything—anything at all—from the Democratic Party here in the U.S. seems , on the face of it , surprising if not incredible . In reality , Hitler learned a great deal from the Democrats and from American progressives . He got some of his core policy strategies from them . Moreover , progressives of the time recognized their influence on Hitler and were proud of that fact . Why , then , haven ’ t we previously heard a word about this ? Why isn ’ t it mentioned in any of the history textbooks ? How come no one in the media ever talks about this ? Movies and documentaries about Hitler are notably silent on the topic . The reason , of course , is that we are victims of the big lie . The big lie , as Hitler himself once noted , is a lie so big that it is difficult to get one ’ s head around it . People are accustomed to small lies , which is why they can detect them . This , however , is a lie so big that it doesn ’ t merely conceal the close connection between Hitler and the left ; it also pretends that Hitler was a “ right winger ” and that his true American descendants are Trump and the Republican Party . Big lies don ’ t just require gullible people ; they also require powerful cultural institutions like academia , Hollywood , and the media to help sustain them . Progressive Democrats dominate these institutions , which is why they have been able to get away with a big lie like this one . They have not merely covered their tracks ; they have virtually foisted the fascist label on the political right . The real fascists , however , knew that they were on the political left . Mussolini—the original fascist leader , who came to power a decade before Hitler—was a Marxist who saw fascism as the most effective way to implement socialism . Hitler was so committed to socialism that he changed the name of the German Workers Party to the National Socialist German Workers Party . As historian Anthony James Gregor points out , all the original founders of fascism—in Italy , in Germany , in England and in France—were socialists and leftists . So what did Hitler learn from the Democratic Party and from his fellow leftists in America ? First , he credited his plan of lebensraum or “ living space ” —specifically , his plan to forcibly seize the land in Russia , Poland and Eastern Europe , and enslave the native inhabitants—to the Jacksonian Democrats . In a 1928 speech , Hitler noted that Americans in the Jacksonian Era had “ gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand , and now keep the modest remnant under observation in a cage . ” Far from objecting to this precedent , Hitler intended to emulate it . As historian Norman Rich put it , “ The United States policy of westward expansion in the course of which the white men ruthlessly thrust aside the ‘ inferior ’ indigenous populations served as the model for Hitler ’ s entire conception of lebensraum . ” Historian Timothy Snyder makes the same point in Bloodlands , “ As Hitler imagined the future , Germany would deal with the Slavs much as the North Americans had dealt with the Indians. ” Using a formula developed by the Democrats , Hitler sought to drive the Poles , Russians and Slavs from their land ; dispatch Germans to take it over ; and enslave the conquered peoples that refused to leave . Notice that Rich and Snyder , who are both progressives , never mentioned the term “ Democrat. ” They are content to say that Hitler got his ideas from the white man , or from the North Americans . Yet it was the Democratic Party under its founder , Andrew Jackson , and then under Jackson ’ s Democratic successors , that massacred the Indians and drove them west and presided over the ignominious Trail of Tears . This is the actual precedent that Hitler appealed to in formulating his plans of conquest , dispossession and enslavement . The second lesson Hitler learned from the Democrats was how to create a racist state . The Nazis believed they were creating the world ’ s first racist regime , but they soon discovered that the Democrats of the American South had—at least on the regional level—beaten them to it . Consequently , Hitler and the Nazis derived valuable lessons about how to implement discriminatory laws . “ It was with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 , ” historian George Fredrickson writes , “ that Germany became a full-fledged racist regime . American laws were the main precedents for such legislation . ” While Fredrickson—another progressive scholar—blames “ American ” laws for inspiring the Nuremberg legislation , what he means specifically is the Democratic Party ’ s Jim Crow laws . Let ’ s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature , signed by a Democratic governor , and enforced by Democratic officials . The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews . Hitler specifically invoked the anti-miscegenation laws mostly passed by Democratic states as an example for Nazi Germany . “ The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent , ” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf , “ who has remained racially pure and unmixed rose to be master of the continent . He will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to the defilement of the blood . ” At Nuremberg , the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks . Yet the Nazis balked at defining Jews as anyone possessing “ one drop ” of Jewish blood in line with the Democratic “ one drop rule. ” Incredibly the Nazis rejected the one-drop precedent of their American counterparts as too harsh . They defined a Jew as one who has predominant Jewish ancestry—usually characterized by three Jewish grandparents . Hitler also appealed to the racially exclusionary provisions of U.S. immigration laws , specifically the 1924 Immigration Act that had been pushed by American progressives as a model of enlightened eugenic legislation . “ There is today one state , ” Hitler noted , “ in which at least weak beginning toward a better conception are noticeable . Of course it is not our German Republic but the American union . By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health , by simply excluding certain races from naturalization , it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the Volkish state concept . ” Third , Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger , the founder of Planned Parenthood . “ I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock . ” Hitler ’ s views—which closely parallel Sanger ’ s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “ imbeciles ” and the mentally retarded , and later expanded to cover Jews , gypsies , and other social undesirables . While American progressives emphasized forced sterilization—Sanger ’ s preferred remedy—Hitler also implemented euthanasia carried out by carbon monoxide in gas chambers . These gas chambers were first devised to eliminate the “ unfit ” and later became part of Hitler ’ s “ final solution ” for the Jews . Leading American eugenicists were familiar with Hitler ’ s sterilization and euthanasia programs , and applauded them . Progressive eugenicist Paul Popenoe , himself an advocate of euthanasia by poison gas , praised Hitler for being on the front lines of modern eugenics . Harry Laughlin and Charles Davenport ’ s Eugenic News termed the Nazi sterilization program “ a milestone which marks the control by the most advanced nations of the world of a major aspect of controlling human reproduction . ” A further example of progressive enthusiasm for Hitler involves Charles Goethe , founder of the Eugenics Society of Northern California , who upon returning from a 1934 fact-finding trip to Germany to examine Nazi sterilization programs , wrote a congratulatory letter to his fellow progressive Eugene Gosney , head of the San Diego-based Human Betterment Foundation . “ You will be interested to know , ” Goethe ’ s letter said , “ that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program . Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought , and particularly by the work of the Human Betterment Foundation . I want you , my dear friend , to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life . ” I am not suggesting that Hitler derived his racism , his appetite for conquest , or his willingness to sterilize and euthanize his fellow citizens from American Democrats . He did , however , learn how to frame his policies of racial discrimination and Nordic supremacy , his lebensraum strategy of mass displacement and subjugation , and his genocidal mechanisms for exterminating the “ unfit , ” from his fellow leftists and progressives in the United States . This is the disgraceful legacy of the Democratic left . Scholars and media pundits who know this history are deeply frightened by it . They realize that if young people discover it , if it comes to become widely known , then the whole progressive Democratic project will be discredited . No longer will progressives be able to pose as the part of the good , the true and the beautiful ; on the contrary , they will be exposed as a partly complicit in racism , mass murder and genocide . Dinesh D ’ Souza ’ s new book The Big Lie : Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left is published by Regnery .

The notion that Hitler learned anything—anything at all—from the Democratic Party here in the U.S. seems, on the face of it, surprising if not incredible. In reality, Hitler learned a great deal from the Democrats and from American progressives. He got some of his core policy strategies from them. Moreover, progressives of the time recognized their influence on Hitler and were proud of that fact. Why, then, haven’t we previously heard a word about this? Why isn’t it mentioned in any of the history textbooks? How come no one in the media ever talks about this? Movies and documentaries about Hitler are notably silent on the topic. The reason, of course, is that we are victims of the big lie. The big lie, as Hitler himself once noted, is a lie so big that it is difficult to get one’s head around it. People are accustomed to small lies, which is why they can detect them. This, however, is a lie so big that it doesn’t merely conceal the close connection between Hitler and the left; it also pretends that Hitler was a “right winger” and that his true American descendants are Trump and the Republican Party. Big lies don’t just require gullible people; they also require powerful cultural institutions like academia, Hollywood, and the media to help sustain them. Progressive Democrats dominate these institutions, which is why they have been able to get away with a big lie like this one. They have not merely covered their tracks; they have virtually foisted the fascist label on the political right. The real fascists, however, knew that they were on the political left. Mussolini—the original fascist leader, who came to power a decade before Hitler—was a Marxist who saw fascism as the most effective way to implement socialism. Hitler was so committed to socialism that he changed the name of the German Workers Party to the National Socialist German Workers Party. As historian Anthony James Gregor points out, all the original founders of fascism—in Italy, in Germany, in England and in France—were socialists and leftists. So what did Hitler learn from the Democratic Party and from his fellow leftists in America? First, he credited his plan of lebensraum or “living space”—specifically, his plan to forcibly seize the land in Russia, Poland and Eastern Europe, and enslave the native inhabitants—to the Jacksonian Democrats. In a 1928 speech, Hitler noted that Americans in the Jacksonian Era had “gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand, and now keep the modest remnant under observation in a cage.” Far from objecting to this precedent, Hitler intended to emulate it. As historian Norman Rich put it, “The United States policy of westward expansion in the course of which the white men ruthlessly thrust aside the ‘inferior’ indigenous populations served as the model for Hitler’s entire conception of lebensraum.” Historian Timothy Snyder makes the same point in Bloodlands, “As Hitler imagined the future, Germany would deal with the Slavs much as the North Americans had dealt with the Indians.” Using a formula developed by the Democrats, Hitler sought to drive the Poles, Russians and Slavs from their land; dispatch Germans to take it over; and enslave the conquered peoples that refused to leave. Notice that Rich and Snyder, who are both progressives, never mentioned the term “Democrat.” They are content to say that Hitler got his ideas from the white man, or from the North Americans. Yet it was the Democratic Party under its founder, Andrew Jackson, and then under Jackson’s Democratic successors, that massacred the Indians and drove them west and presided over the ignominious Trail of Tears. This is the actual precedent that Hitler appealed to in formulating his plans of conquest, dispossession and enslavement. The second lesson Hitler learned from the Democrats was how to create a racist state. The Nazis believed they were creating the world’s first racist regime, but they soon discovered that the Democrats of the American South had—at least on the regional level—beaten them to it. Consequently, Hitler and the Nazis derived valuable lessons about how to implement discriminatory laws. “It was with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935,” historian George Fredrickson writes, “that Germany became a full-fledged racist regime. American laws were the main precedents for such legislation.” While Fredrickson—another progressive scholar—blames “American” laws for inspiring the Nuremberg legislation, what he means specifically is the Democratic Party’s Jim Crow laws. Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews. Hitler specifically invoked the anti-miscegenation laws mostly passed by Democratic states as an example for Nazi Germany. “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “who has remained racially pure and unmixed rose to be master of the continent. He will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to the defilement of the blood.” At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks. Yet the Nazis balked at defining Jews as anyone possessing “one drop” of Jewish blood in line with the Democratic “one drop rule.” Incredibly the Nazis rejected the one-drop precedent of their American counterparts as too harsh. They defined a Jew as one who has predominant Jewish ancestry—usually characterized by three Jewish grandparents. Hitler also appealed to the racially exclusionary provisions of U.S. immigration laws, specifically the 1924 Immigration Act that had been pushed by American progressives as a model of enlightened eugenic legislation. “There is today one state,” Hitler noted, “in which at least weak beginning toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course it is not our German Republic but the American union. By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the Volkish state concept.” Third, Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.” Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables. While American progressives emphasized forced sterilization—Sanger’s preferred remedy—Hitler also implemented euthanasia carried out by carbon monoxide in gas chambers. These gas chambers were first devised to eliminate the “unfit” and later became part of Hitler’s “final solution” for the Jews. Leading American eugenicists were familiar with Hitler’s sterilization and euthanasia programs, and applauded them. Progressive eugenicist Paul Popenoe, himself an advocate of euthanasia by poison gas, praised Hitler for being on the front lines of modern eugenics. Harry Laughlin and Charles Davenport’s Eugenic News termed the Nazi sterilization program “a milestone which marks the control by the most advanced nations of the world of a major aspect of controlling human reproduction.” A further example of progressive enthusiasm for Hitler involves Charles Goethe, founder of the Eugenics Society of Northern California, who upon returning from a 1934 fact-finding trip to Germany to examine Nazi sterilization programs, wrote a congratulatory letter to his fellow progressive Eugene Gosney, head of the San Diego-based Human Betterment Foundation. “You will be interested to know,” Goethe’s letter said, “that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought, and particularly by the work of the Human Betterment Foundation. I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life.” I am not suggesting that Hitler derived his racism, his appetite for conquest, or his willingness to sterilize and euthanize his fellow citizens from American Democrats. He did, however, learn how to frame his policies of racial discrimination and Nordic supremacy, his lebensraum strategy of mass displacement and subjugation, and his genocidal mechanisms for exterminating the “unfit,” from his fellow leftists and progressives in the United States. This is the disgraceful legacy of the Democratic left. Scholars and media pundits who know this history are deeply frightened by it. They realize that if young people discover it, if it comes to become widely known, then the whole progressive Democratic project will be discredited. No longer will progressives be able to pose as the part of the good, the true and the beautiful; on the contrary, they will be exposed as a partly complicit in racism, mass murder and genocide. Dinesh D’Souza’s new book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left is published by Regnery.

www.breitbart.com

right

tJUfYHz1mdHytN4c

test

gOcxgdNgR7UYgOhk

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/how-we-got-here/

OPINION: How We Got Here

Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison, E. Donald Elliott

Did you see this Wall Street Journal front-page headline on Monday ? It read , “ Profits Soar as Economy Advances. ” That headline will probably be the most important headline of the week . It certainly is of colossal importance . Our economy is robust . The rest of the world is not doing so well , for instance , China . Yet our economy is unusually healthy . If we have to engage in a trade war , it is an auspicious time for us to do so . President Donald Trump has deployed an array of policies and appointments that are serving the country very well . Apparently the prophet Obama was in error when he said employers have “ learned to do more with less . And so they don ’ t hire . And as a consequence , we keep on seeing growth that is just too slow to bring back the eight million jobs that were lost . ” You , however , were probably distracted by such headlines as this : from the Washington Post ’ s front page , “ Trump Defends Son ’ s ’ 16 Meeting ” or this from the New York Times ’ front page , “ Trump Admits Meeting ’ s Aim : Tarnish Clinton. ” Then there were stories about the shopping mania of Paul Manafort , about his sidekick who is a sidekick no more , and , throughout the newspapers , stories about Donald and his family , none of them favorable but none of them as damning as the newspapers ’ editors would have you think . Of course , Donald Trump , Jr. and his associates sat down with a Russian source to hear what the source had to say about Hillary ’ s recent misdeeds . What candidate would not ? No woman in public life has ever accumulated so many scandals and instances of wrongdoing as Hillary . For that matter not many men have accumulated a record comparable to Hillary ’ s without going to jail . There is her relationship with the Clinton Foundation , her fundraising operation , and assorted problems such as Benghazi . In the months ahead , there would be her association with old friends and choice funders such as Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey . When one sits down to talk about Hillary , one is not anticipating a conversation about acts of faith , hope , and charity . Of course , there could also be revelations about Bill . He now seems to have gone underground . There is no talk of his getting out on the campaign trail for the Democrats . My agents tell me he is under the bed in Chappaqua hoping no new rape-victims or would-be Kathleen Willeys materialize . He is especially concerned about girls he met in Arkansas in the eighties who developed drug dependency problems before heading off to Florida to embark on lives of prostitution . How about if one of those girls develops a # MeToo itch ? There have been three Constitutional crises in my lifetime and two of them revolved around the Clintons . The third revolved around Richard Nixon , and he was man enough to resign his office rather than put the country through an impeachment trial . Just as he was man enough to leave the outcome of the 1960 election uncontested after the votes from Texas and Illinois looked shady ( and still remain dubious to some historians ) . The Clintons pursued the crisis of Bill ’ s impeachment gamely , even though Bill had obviously lied under oath and obstructed justice . After all it was , as his supporters said , “ only sex ” … with a young woman half his age . Let him trot out that alibi today . The second Constitutional crisis that the Clintons have manufactured for us is the crisis of the Russians ’ “ phantom ” collusion with the President . It involves prosecutors pursuing leads that go nowhere , but have taken almost two years to run down before our own Inspector Clouseau takes up another lead . At present Inspector Mueller is pursuing Donald Trump ’ s Tweets as though the Tweets were not uttered in a very public forum but rather were whispered in secret . The Russians wanted , we are told , to meddle in our elections . So now Inspector Mueller , the Democrats ’ mouthpiece Fusion GPS , an ex-British intelligence sleuth , and the Clintons are assisting them in just that , meddling in an American presidential election . How did we arrive at this chaotic place ? I thought the source of criminality was Hillary and her server , not Donald and his son . Well , if you would like to know how we got here , lay your hands on Shattered : Inside Hillary ’ s Doomed Campaign . There on page 395 you will find a hung-over Hillary angry as hell the morning after her unexpected defeat . She directed her aides Robby Mook and John Podesta to assemble “ her communications team… to engineer the case that the election wasn ’ t entirely on the up and up… . Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument. ” This has been the Clintons ’ successful game plan ever since , though some of us have blown the whistle on it . The origin of our present Constitutional crisis is a bit more complicated than this passage from Shattered makes out , but here is a good starting point to discover how the mob , the prosecutors , the media , and the Democratic Party are intent on stealing the last election and saving the Clintons ’ hides .

Washington Did you see this Wall Street Journal front-page headline on Monday? It read, “Profits Soar as Economy Advances.” That headline will probably be the most important headline of the week. It certainly is of colossal importance. Our economy is robust. The rest of the world is not doing so well, for instance, China. Yet our economy is unusually healthy. If we have to engage in a trade war, it is an auspicious time for us to do so. President Donald Trump has deployed an array of policies and appointments that are serving the country very well. Apparently the prophet Obama was in error when he said employers have “learned to do more with less. And so they don’t hire. And as a consequence, we keep on seeing growth that is just too slow to bring back the eight million jobs that were lost.” You, however, were probably distracted by such headlines as this: from the Washington Post’s front page, “Trump Defends Son’s ’16 Meeting” or this from the New York Times’ front page, “Trump Admits Meeting’s Aim: Tarnish Clinton.” Then there were stories about the shopping mania of Paul Manafort, about his sidekick who is a sidekick no more, and, throughout the newspapers, stories about Donald and his family, none of them favorable but none of them as damning as the newspapers’ editors would have you think. Of course, Donald Trump, Jr. and his associates sat down with a Russian source to hear what the source had to say about Hillary’s recent misdeeds. What candidate would not? No woman in public life has ever accumulated so many scandals and instances of wrongdoing as Hillary. For that matter not many men have accumulated a record comparable to Hillary’s without going to jail. There is her relationship with the Clinton Foundation, her fundraising operation, and assorted problems such as Benghazi. In the months ahead, there would be her association with old friends and choice funders such as Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. When one sits down to talk about Hillary, one is not anticipating a conversation about acts of faith, hope, and charity. Of course, there could also be revelations about Bill. He now seems to have gone underground. There is no talk of his getting out on the campaign trail for the Democrats. My agents tell me he is under the bed in Chappaqua hoping no new rape-victims or would-be Kathleen Willeys materialize. He is especially concerned about girls he met in Arkansas in the eighties who developed drug dependency problems before heading off to Florida to embark on lives of prostitution. How about if one of those girls develops a #MeToo itch? There have been three Constitutional crises in my lifetime and two of them revolved around the Clintons. The third revolved around Richard Nixon, and he was man enough to resign his office rather than put the country through an impeachment trial. Just as he was man enough to leave the outcome of the 1960 election uncontested after the votes from Texas and Illinois looked shady (and still remain dubious to some historians). The Clintons pursued the crisis of Bill’s impeachment gamely, even though Bill had obviously lied under oath and obstructed justice. After all it was, as his supporters said, “only sex”… with a young woman half his age. Let him trot out that alibi today. The second Constitutional crisis that the Clintons have manufactured for us is the crisis of the Russians’ “phantom” collusion with the President. It involves prosecutors pursuing leads that go nowhere, but have taken almost two years to run down before our own Inspector Clouseau takes up another lead. At present Inspector Mueller is pursuing Donald Trump’s Tweets as though the Tweets were not uttered in a very public forum but rather were whispered in secret. The Russians wanted, we are told, to meddle in our elections. So now Inspector Mueller, the Democrats’ mouthpiece Fusion GPS, an ex-British intelligence sleuth, and the Clintons are assisting them in just that, meddling in an American presidential election. How did we arrive at this chaotic place? I thought the source of criminality was Hillary and her server, not Donald and his son. Well, if you would like to know how we got here, lay your hands on Shattered: Inside Hillary’s Doomed Campaign. There on page 395 you will find a hung-over Hillary angry as hell the morning after her unexpected defeat. She directed her aides Robby Mook and John Podesta to assemble “her communications team… to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up and up…. Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.” This has been the Clintons’ successful game plan ever since, though some of us have blown the whistle on it. The origin of our present Constitutional crisis is a bit more complicated than this passage from Shattered makes out, but here is a good starting point to discover how the mob, the prosecutors, the media, and the Democratic Party are intent on stealing the last election and saving the Clintons’ hides.

www.spectator.org

right

gOcxgdNgR7UYgOhk

test

vaBslnOpK2tOgaCV

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/28/donald-trump-congress-speech-first-presidential-address

Trump hails 'new chapter in American greatness' in Congress speech

2017-02-28

David Smith, Richard Wolffe

The president offered upbeat themes in an address that sought to calm his opponents but was swiftly condemned for inaccuracies Donald Trump promised a “ new chapter of American greatness ” in a speech to Congress that sought to reset relations with his opponents – but was swiftly condemned for inaccurate claims and a lack of detail . In a scene that was unthinkable a year ago , when the businessman was a political novice facing much hostility in his own party , Trump gave his first address to senators and members of congress and received cheers as he attacked Barack Obama ’ s legacy . Fact-checking Donald Trump 's first presidential address to Congress Read more The tone was arguably Trump ’ s most presidential yet , with the dark vision of “ American carnage ” in his inaugural address giving way to an attempt at an optimistic theme of “ American greatness ” as the country nears its 250th birthday in 2026 . The raw economic nationalism of his chief political strategist , Steve Bannon , was notably sweetened for politicians ’ palates on both sides of the aisle . “ This was Steve Bannon on steroids , with a smile , ” Tom Perez , the new Democratic party chair , told the MSNBC channel later . But there was audible dissent from Democrats when Trump derided Obama ’ s healthcare policy , claimed he was “ draining the swamp ” in Washington , called for an end to “ trivial fights ” – despite his regular Twitter spats – and said he was setting up a group to represent victims of crimes committed by immigrants . Trump , wearing a blue and white striped tie instead of his trademark red , entered the House chamber to cheers from Republican members , a smile from the House speaker , Paul Ryan , and grin from Vice-President Mike Pence . Many Democratic women wore white , a nod to the suffrage movement and the ongoing struggle for equality . It was a scene utterly transformed from Obama ’ s final state of the union address last year . “ I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength , and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart , ” Trump said , sticking fairly closely to a prepared text . “ A new chapter of American greatness is now beginning . A new national pride is sweeping across our nation . And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp . What we are witnessing today is the renewal of the American spirit , ” he claimed . Trump mourned what he called the mistakes of recent decades : a shrinking middle class , inner city decline , open borders , spending trillions overseas . But , he said , the earth shifted beneath our feet in 2016 – there was a “ rebellion ” with a crucial demand , “ that America must put its own citizens first ... because only then can we truly make America great again ” . Trump pointed with his finger , Republicans rose to applaud and Democrats sat unmoved as the president painted a rosy future . “ Dying industries will come roaring back to life . Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need . Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve . “ Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads , bridges , tunnels , airports and railways gleaming across our very , very beautiful land . Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop . And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope , safety , and opportunity . Above all else , we will keep our promises to the American people . ” Trump claimed that since his inauguration , numerous companies had announced that they would invest “ billions and billions of dollars ” in the US and create tens of thousands of new jobs . But a Bloomberg analysis has found most of these cases predate Trump , do not actually create jobs , or have nothing to do with him . When the president claimed he had already begun to “ drain the swamp ” of government corruption , there was some sarcastic laughter from Democrats , who could see in attendance his cabinet , with its strong Wall Street and boardroom connections . Trump repeated his promise to soon begin the construction of “ a great , great wall ” on the Mexican border and said gang members , drug dealers and criminals were currently being deported . “ Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight , ” he said . In a marked shift from Obama , he used the phrase “ radical Islamic terrorism ” with relish , pausing after each word for dramatic effect , when promising to protect the American people . Trump 's Congress speech was a heroic effort in contradiction and cliche Read more He did not seek to defend his travel ban in detail – a new version is expected on Wednesday – but he defended the principle : “ It is not compassionate , but reckless , to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting can not occur ... We can not allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America – we can not allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists . ” Trump then shifted to claim he had inherited a mess : from 94 million Americans out of the labour force ( this appears to include retired people and students ) , to high national debt , to a trade deficit of nearly $ 800bn to “ tragic foreign policy disasters ” . He attempted to strike a conciliatory , bipartisan note , gesturing towards Democrats as he said : “ Solving these , and so many other pressing problems , will require us to work past the differences of party . ” But soon enough there was a dubious claim . “ Right now , American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world. ” In fact , the US is not even in the 30 highest-taxed nations in the world , according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development . “ My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone . It will be a big , big cut . At the same time , we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class . ” A conservative thinktank , the Tax Foundation , has found half of Trump ’ s tax cuts would go to the top 1 % of earners , while most families below the top 20 % of earners would have income gains of less than 1 % . Trump recalled the former president Dwight Eisenhower for initiating the last truly big national infrastructure programme – the building of the interstate highway system . “ The time has come for a new programme of national rebuilding , ” he said . “ I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $ 1tn investment in the infrastructure of the United States – financed through both public and private capital – creating millions of new jobs . ” However , Chuck Schumer , the Democratic minority leader in the Senate , said after the speech that he had submitted an infrastructure proposal to Trump and heard nothing back . “ The speech and the reality have never been more detached in a presidential speech , ” he told MSNBC . “ What the president says and what the president does are almost at opposite ends . ” Trump gave Democrats futher cause for grievance by hammering Obamacare , prompting Republicans to stand and cheer . “ I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster , ” he said , gesturing towards the disgruntled Democrats , two of whom gave a thumbs down sign . In an attempt to be upbeat , Trump said : “ Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed . Every problem can be solved . And every hurting family can find healing , and hope . “ Our citizens deserve this , and so much more – so why not join forces to finally get the job done and get it done right ? On this and so many other things , Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country , and for the good of the American people . ” It was a plea that echoed Obama ’ s own dismay at the ugly and rancourous divisions in Washington . Trump said he wanted to work with both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable , to help ensure new parents have paid family leave , to invest in women ’ s health and to promote clean air and clear water – yet hours earlier , Trump had signed an executive order to review the clean water rule , designed by Obama to protect streams , wetlands and sources of drinking water . Trump began by deploring attacks on Jewish cemeteries and an apparently racist murder in Kansas , describing the US as a country divided on policies but “ united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms ” . However , he made little reference to race except to call for both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth , including millions of African American and Latino children . “ Education is the civil rights issue of our time . ” He also made clear his law and order priorities , albeit in more measured tones than on the campaign trail . “ We must work with – not against , not against – the men and women of law enforcement , ” he said . “ We must build bridges of cooperation and trust – not drive the wedge of disunity and division . It ’ s pure unadulterated division . We have to unify . ” Tears of Carryn Owens , widowed by a mission that no one wanted Read more However , there were groans from Democrats when Trump said he had asked the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American victims , known as Voice – Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement . “ We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media , and silenced by special interests . ” Just as at last year ’ s Republican national convention , the families of victims were in the public gallery . But the biggest applause , and most poignant moment of the night , came when Trump singled out Carryn Owens , the widow of a US Navy Seal , Ryan Owens , killed in a controversial raid in Yemen . “ Ryan ’ s legacy is etched into eternity , ” Trump said . Carryn Owens sobbed and gazed heavenward , whispering “ love you ” as Trump ’ s daughter Ivanka sought to console her and Congress stood and applauded for long moments . Trump added : “ And Ryan is looking down right now , you know that , and he ’ s very happy because I think he just broke a record . ” The president reaffirmed America ’ s support for Nato despite having cast doubt on the organisation in the past . He said its partners must meet their financial obligations . “ And now , based on our very strong and frank discussions , they are beginning to do just that. ” He went off script to add : “ In fact , I can tell you the money is pouring in . ” Summing up , Trump returned to the theme of America ’ s approaching 250th anniversary . “ When we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom , we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American greatness began , ” he said . “ The time for small thinking is over . ” The president who has clashed with gold star families , Miss Universe and celebrities on Twitter , as well as waging war on the media over the size of his inauguration crowd , added : “ The time for trivial fights is behind us . ” • This article was amended on 2 March 2017 . An earlier version referred to the Clean Water Act where the clean water rule was meant .

The president offered upbeat themes in an address that sought to calm his opponents but was swiftly condemned for inaccuracies Donald Trump promised a “new chapter of American greatness” in a speech to Congress that sought to reset relations with his opponents – but was swiftly condemned for inaccurate claims and a lack of detail. In a scene that was unthinkable a year ago, when the businessman was a political novice facing much hostility in his own party, Trump gave his first address to senators and members of congress and received cheers as he attacked Barack Obama’s legacy. Fact-checking Donald Trump's first presidential address to Congress Read more The tone was arguably Trump’s most presidential yet, with the dark vision of “American carnage” in his inaugural address giving way to an attempt at an optimistic theme of “American greatness” as the country nears its 250th birthday in 2026. The raw economic nationalism of his chief political strategist, Steve Bannon, was notably sweetened for politicians’ palates on both sides of the aisle. “This was Steve Bannon on steroids, with a smile,” Tom Perez, the new Democratic party chair, told the MSNBC channel later. But there was audible dissent from Democrats when Trump derided Obama’s healthcare policy, claimed he was “draining the swamp” in Washington, called for an end to “trivial fights” – despite his regular Twitter spats – and said he was setting up a group to represent victims of crimes committed by immigrants. Trump, wearing a blue and white striped tie instead of his trademark red, entered the House chamber to cheers from Republican members, a smile from the House speaker, Paul Ryan, and grin from Vice-President Mike Pence. Many Democratic women wore white, a nod to the suffrage movement and the ongoing struggle for equality. It was a scene utterly transformed from Obama’s final state of the union address last year. “I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart,” Trump said, sticking fairly closely to a prepared text. “A new chapter of American greatness is now beginning. A new national pride is sweeping across our nation. And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp. What we are witnessing today is the renewal of the American spirit,” he claimed. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump delivers his address to Congress. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images Trump mourned what he called the mistakes of recent decades: a shrinking middle class, inner city decline, open borders, spending trillions overseas. But, he said, the earth shifted beneath our feet in 2016 – there was a “rebellion” with a crucial demand, “that America must put its own citizens first ... because only then can we truly make America great again”. Trump pointed with his finger, Republicans rose to applaud and Democrats sat unmoved as the president painted a rosy future. “Dying industries will come roaring back to life. Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need. Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve. “Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop. And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety, and opportunity. Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.” Trump claimed that since his inauguration, numerous companies had announced that they would invest “billions and billions of dollars” in the US and create tens of thousands of new jobs. But a Bloomberg analysis has found most of these cases predate Trump, do not actually create jobs, or have nothing to do with him. When the president claimed he had already begun to “drain the swamp” of government corruption, there was some sarcastic laughter from Democrats, who could see in attendance his cabinet, with its strong Wall Street and boardroom connections. Trump repeated his promise to soon begin the construction of “a great, great wall” on the Mexican border and said gang members, drug dealers and criminals were currently being deported. “Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight,” he said. In a marked shift from Obama, he used the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” with relish, pausing after each word for dramatic effect, when promising to protect the American people. Trump's Congress speech was a heroic effort in contradiction and cliche Read more He did not seek to defend his travel ban in detail – a new version is expected on Wednesday – but he defended the principle: “It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur ... We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America – we cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.” Trump then shifted to claim he had inherited a mess: from 94 million Americans out of the labour force (this appears to include retired people and students), to high national debt, to a trade deficit of nearly $800bn to “tragic foreign policy disasters”. He attempted to strike a conciliatory, bipartisan note, gesturing towards Democrats as he said: “Solving these, and so many other pressing problems, will require us to work past the differences of party.” But soon enough there was a dubious claim. “Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world.” In fact, the US is not even in the 30 highest-taxed nations in the world, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone. It will be a big, big cut. At the same time, we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.” A conservative thinktank, the Tax Foundation, has found half of Trump’s tax cuts would go to the top 1% of earners, while most families below the top 20% of earners would have income gains of less than 1%. Trump recalled the former president Dwight Eisenhower for initiating the last truly big national infrastructure programme – the building of the interstate highway system. “The time has come for a new programme of national rebuilding,” he said. “I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1tn investment in the infrastructure of the United States – financed through both public and private capital – creating millions of new jobs.” However, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, said after the speech that he had submitted an infrastructure proposal to Trump and heard nothing back. “The speech and the reality have never been more detached in a presidential speech,” he told MSNBC. “What the president says and what the president does are almost at opposite ends.” Trump gave Democrats futher cause for grievance by hammering Obamacare, prompting Republicans to stand and cheer. “I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster,” he said, gesturing towards the disgruntled Democrats, two of whom gave a thumbs down sign. In an attempt to be upbeat, Trump said: “Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved. And every hurting family can find healing, and hope. “Our citizens deserve this, and so much more – so why not join forces to finally get the job done and get it done right? On this and so many other things, Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country, and for the good of the American people.” It was a plea that echoed Obama’s own dismay at the ugly and rancourous divisions in Washington. Trump said he wanted to work with both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women’s health and to promote clean air and clear water – yet hours earlier, Trump had signed an executive order to review the clean water rule, designed by Obama to protect streams, wetlands and sources of drinking water. Trump began by deploring attacks on Jewish cemeteries and an apparently racist murder in Kansas, describing the US as a country divided on policies but “united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms”. However, he made little reference to race except to call for both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of African American and Latino children. “Education is the civil rights issue of our time.” He also made clear his law and order priorities, albeit in more measured tones than on the campaign trail. “We must work with – not against, not against – the men and women of law enforcement,” he said. “We must build bridges of cooperation and trust – not drive the wedge of disunity and division. It’s pure unadulterated division. We have to unify.” Tears of Carryn Owens, widowed by a mission that no one wanted Read more However, there were groans from Democrats when Trump said he had asked the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American victims, known as Voice – Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. “We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests.” Just as at last year’s Republican national convention, the families of victims were in the public gallery. But the biggest applause, and most poignant moment of the night, came when Trump singled out Carryn Owens, the widow of a US Navy Seal, Ryan Owens, killed in a controversial raid in Yemen. “Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity,” Trump said. Carryn Owens sobbed and gazed heavenward, whispering “love you” as Trump’s daughter Ivanka sought to console her and Congress stood and applauded for long moments. Trump added: “And Ryan is looking down right now, you know that, and he’s very happy because I think he just broke a record.” The president reaffirmed America’s support for Nato despite having cast doubt on the organisation in the past. He said its partners must meet their financial obligations. “And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.” He went off script to add: “In fact, I can tell you the money is pouring in.” Summing up, Trump returned to the theme of America’s approaching 250th anniversary. “When we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom, we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American greatness began,” he said. “The time for small thinking is over.” The president who has clashed with gold star families, Miss Universe and celebrities on Twitter, as well as waging war on the media over the size of his inauguration crowd, added: “The time for trivial fights is behind us.” • This article was amended on 2 March 2017. An earlier version referred to the Clean Water Act where the clean water rule was meant.

www.theguardian.com

left

vaBslnOpK2tOgaCV

test

PMVghx1I7YXuJyPi

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/09/the-media-perpetuated-a-clinton-lie-for-9-months-what-it-means-for-the-russia-narrative/

The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months. What It Means For The Russia Narrative

2017-07-09

When Hillary Clinton claimed “ 17 intelligence agencies ” agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate , a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true . Nine months later , those same outlets say the stat is obviously false , and there ’ s been a “ simple ” explanation as to why all along . A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative . The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter . “ The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies , not all 17 , were included in the assessment is simple : They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign , ” The New York Times now reports . “ The rest were doing other work . ” Strange admission for the paper , since its star political reporter recently reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish . “ The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump ’ s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees : Russia orchestrated the attacks , and did it to help him get elected , ” Maggie Haberman wrote . Her story was later corrected to reflect the — basic fact — that only three agencies working under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community ’ s conclusion . A few days later , the Associated Press echoed that correction in a “ clarification ” bulletin acknowledging there ’ s no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world . The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle , especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections at a high-profile press conference in Poland . “ They had to apologize , and they had to correct , ” he noted . The New York Times , CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim , and back to the more comfortable “ isn ’ t Trump an idiot ? ” narrative . “ 17 intel agencies or four ? Either way , Russia conclusion still valid , ” Politifact wrote in a Thursday headline . “ Trump still doesn ’ t seem to believe his intelligence agencies , ” CNN blared . The New York Times took it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a “ technicality ” and then accusing Trump of spreading a “ misleading ” narrative by correcting the record . Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim : “ Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling : Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don ’ t Need to Agree . ” But that uncomfortable truth remains . The “ 17 intelligence agencies ” embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch . A cursory glance of the DNI website would show the truth . More importantly , the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative , which are often sourced to political operatives and anonymous “ officials . ” Let ’ s look at how this happened , and what it says about the media ’ s overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative , from the top . The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate , remarking on Russian meddling a few weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation . The press didn ’ t demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement , until Clinton unleashed the “ 17 ” number in the debate ( other than a CNN report incorrectly claiming there are 19 intelligence agencies ) . She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump ’ s skepticism about Russia ’ s attempt to influence the election . She even repeated the number twice , firmly planting it in the record . “ I think that this is such an unprecedented situation , ” Clinton said . “ We ’ ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election . We have 17 , 17 intelligence agencies , civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks , these cyber attacks , come from the highest levels of the Kremlin . And they are designed to influence our election . I find that deeply disturbing . ” “ She has no idea whether it is Russia , China or anybody else , ” he replied , setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated over and over in the press as evidence he was in denial about Russian meddling . “ I am quoting 17 , 17 — do you doubt ? ” Clinton said , and Trump responded definitively : “ Our country has no idea . … Yeah , I doubt it . I doubt it . ” Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate . And the fact checks came rolling in . The New York Times , Politico , ABC News , Politifact and PBS all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate . Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton ’ s number with authority in its reporting , saying in a debate wrap up that Trump had “ refused ” to acknowledge “ the unanimous conclusion of America ’ s 17 intelligence agencies . ” The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One , quickly divorced from its context as a debate talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories . “ The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection , ” a line in the Defense One report on “ Trump ’ s Denial ” stated . Politico hadn ’ t previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling , but now framed it as common knowledge that Clinton had to “ explain ” to Trump : “ As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military and civilian intelligence agencies , Trump cut her off : ‘ I doubt it . ' ” The fact checks continued to roll in . USA Today wrote a particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined “ Yes , 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking. ” The article confidently asserted , “ Clinton is correct . ” All of these “ fact checks ” and reports were wrong , of course , as has since been made ultra clear . As The New York Times now concedes , the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start . Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list of the intelligence agencies in question , and ruled out almost half in just minutes . The Department of Energy , Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand . The military service intelligence organizations can ’ t legally operate on U.S. soil . Add the Coast Guard and we ’ re tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under DNI . The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely . Geospatial intelligence ? Definitely not . National recon office ? Not unless a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster . That leaves us with State Department intelligence , Department of Homeland Security , FBI , CIA and NSA . Five tops , narrowed down at the speed of common sense and Google . Sure , the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community , which does consist of 16 separate agencies headed up by the DNI . At first glance , her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of the intelligence community . But it ’ s journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately reviewed and judged the campaign , without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren ’ t involved . “ All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak , ” ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump in an October interview . “ Why don ’ t you believe it ? ” “ [ Trump ] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin , despite 17 intelligence agencies ’ claims to the contrary , ” the Daily Beast reported that same day . NBC News dropped Hillary ’ s number nugget in a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment . The resulting report would be shared with the public , White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time . “ Monaco used careful language , calling it a ‘ full review of what happened during the 2016 election process , ' ” NBC reported . “ But since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks , Monaco ’ s meaning was clear . ” Reuters , too , touted the number in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a “ 17-agency strong ” operation . The declassified DNI report that followed in January provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the “ 17 intelligence agencies agree ” claim . The conclusion was drawn only from the NSA , CIA and FBI , the report said . ( The New York Times conceded this in a break down of the report , although the claim would later make its way back into the paper ’ s pages . ) A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing about Russian interference , opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting . “ As you know , the I.C . was a coordinated product from three agencies ; CIA , NSA , and the FBI — not all 17 components of the intelligence community , ” he said in his opening remarks . “ Those three under the aegis of my former office . ” And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing , Clapper once again made a point of correcting the record . “ The intelligence communities have concluded — all 17 of them — that Russia interfered with this election , ” Franken said . “ And we all know how that ’ s right . ” Clapper interjected : “ Senator , as I pointed out in my statement , Senator Franken , it was , there were only three agencies directly involved in this assessment , plus my office . ” “ Well , we didn ’ t go through that , that process , ” Clapper replied , again shooting down the claim as utterly false . “ This was a special situation because of the time limits … we decided … to restrict it to those three . ” So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI , but also Clapper indicated here that none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released . Yes , none of them dissented . But why would they , since they didn ’ t have independent evidence to suggest otherwise ? At this point in the life of Hillary ’ s debate talking point , there ’ s just no credible way to rate the claim as true . The DNI report made the truth explicit , and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting . Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the “ 17 agencies agree ” claim in an interview with the tech outlet recode , and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around . “ Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January , ” Clinton said . “ 17 agencies , all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with ‘ high confidence ’ that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election . ” A little while later the bogus claim showed up in an AP report , after ███ News Foundation fact checked Clinton ’ s claim in the interview and found it false . And then twice more in June before the “ clarification ” memo was published . Stephanopolous was back at it as well in a June 11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee . And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim , which was rather strangely corrected four days later . After all this , CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing “ fake news ” by saying the conclusion only came from “ three or four ” agencies . “ Where does that number come from ? ” Acosta asked . And all the time , the tweets from journos eager to harp on the Trump-Russia narrative kept coming . The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery , but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying Trump is correct in his push back on the “ 17 agencies ” claim . And that ’ s got the narrative a bit tangled . After initially doubling down on the “ true ” rating of Clinton ’ s debate claim , Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim mostly false in a separate fact check . So we ’ re left with that uncomfortable truth . The establishment press uncritically “ vetted ” and embraced a Clinton campaign talking point designed to make Trump look foolish , divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than six months — all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false — and then suddenly reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked . We live in a world where r/the_donald — a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters — proved more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia investigation . The truth about this “ 17 intel agencies ” claim matters , not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community ’ s conclusion on Russian meddling , but because of what it says about the establishment media ’ s conclusion on Russian meddling . Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown , maniacally watching the news at all hours , hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon . And there ’ s the almost daily implication that Trump personally coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia , an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation . The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the “ 17 intelligence agencies ” mess . Sources often appear to be politically motivated , like Clinton . They show up in bizarre numbers , like “ dozens ” or “ more than 30. ” Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value . An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced “ scoops ” turn out to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record . In a report casting the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse , Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe . The White House refuted the anecdote in no uncertain terms the following day . Based on the word of one anonymous source , The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid . That was quickly proven false when the electric company , which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing , said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the “ Russian hacker ” may have been no hacker at all , but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer . CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey would refute Trump ’ s claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation . Comey did no such thing . In fact he corroborated Trump ’ s account . Just weeks after retracting a story on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia , CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their first meeting . Of course , the report depended on an anonymous source . Of course , it was wrong . One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was “ press ” him on the subject multiple times , according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , who was in the room . We could go on , but the point remains . The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling , no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim ( or ignore ) to do so . Sure , it ’ s a “ basic fact ” Russia meddled in the election . But for the media , it ’ s also just a “ basic fact ” that Trump likely colluded with Russia , and that he should be impeached , and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole . The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant .

When Hillary Clinton claimed “17 intelligence agencies” agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously false, and there’s been a “simple” explanation as to why all along. A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter. “The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign,” The New York Times now reports. “The rest were doing other work.” Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish. “The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him get elected,” Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the — basic fact — that only three agencies working under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community’s conclusion. A few days later, the Associated Press echoed that correction in a “clarification” bulletin acknowledging there’s no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world. The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections at a high-profile press conference in Poland. “They had to apologize, and they had to correct,” he noted. The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable “isn’t Trump an idiot?” narrative. “17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid,” Politifact wrote in a Thursday headline. “Trump still doesn’t seem to believe his intelligence agencies,” CNN blared. The New York Times took it a step further, dismissing the truth of the claim as a “technicality” and then accusing Trump of spreading a “misleading” narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: “Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree.” Journalists eagerly tweeted out these headlines. But that uncomfortable truth remains. The “17 intelligence agencies” embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political operatives and anonymous “officials.” Let’s look at how this happened, and what it says about the media’s overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from the top. The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn’t demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the “17” number in the debate (other than a CNN report incorrectly claiming there are 19 intelligence agencies). She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump’s skepticism about Russia’s attempt to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record. “I think that this is such an unprecedented situation,” Clinton said. “We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.” Trump took the bait. “She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else,” he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated over and over in the press as evidence he was in denial about Russian meddling. “I am quoting 17, 17 — do you doubt?” Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: “Our country has no idea. … Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.” With that, Hillary’s claim was up and off. Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And the fact checks came rolling in. The New York Times, Politico, ABC News, Politifact and PBS all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton’s number with authority in its reporting, saying in a debate wrap up that Trump had “refused” to acknowledge “the unanimous conclusion of America’s 17 intelligence agencies.” The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories. “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection,” a line in the Defense One report on “Trump’s Denial” stated. Politico hadn’t previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now framed it as common knowledge that Clinton had to “explain” to Trump: “As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: ‘I doubt it.'” The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined “Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking.” The article confidently asserted, “Clinton is correct.” All of these “fact checks” and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes, the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes. The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence organizations can’t legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we’re tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster. That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down at the speed of common sense and Google. Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of the intelligence community. But it’s journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren’t involved. Nevertheless, the claim persisted. “All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak,” ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump in an October interview. “Why don’t you believe it?” “[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies’ claims to the contrary,” the Daily Beast reported that same day. NBC News dropped Hillary’s number nugget in a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time. “Monaco used careful language, calling it a ‘full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'” NBC reported. “But since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco’s meaning was clear.” Reuters, too, touted the number in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a “17-agency strong” operation. The declassified DNI report that followed in January provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the “17 intelligence agencies agree” claim. The conclusion was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper’s pages.) A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting. “As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI — not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” he said in his opening remarks. “Those three under the aegis of my former office.” And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting the record. “The intelligence communities have concluded — all 17 of them — that Russia interfered with this election,” Franken said. “And we all know how that’s right.” Clapper interjected: “Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly involved in this assessment, plus my office.” “But all 17 signed on to that?” Franken pressed. “Well, we didn’t go through that, that process,” Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. “This was a special situation because of the time limits … we decided … to restrict it to those three.” So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they, since they didn’t have independent evidence to suggest otherwise? At this point in the life of Hillary’s debate talking point, there’s just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting. Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the “17 agencies agree” claim in an interview with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around. “Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January,” Clinton said. “17 agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with ‘high confidence’ that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.” A little while later the bogus claim showed up in an AP report, after The Daily Caller News Foundation fact checked Clinton’s claim in the interview and found it false. And then twice more in June before the “clarification” memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well in a June 11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim, which was rather strangely corrected four days later. After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing “fake news” by saying the conclusion only came from “three or four” agencies. “Where does that number come from?” Acosta asked. And all the time, the tweets from journos eager to harp on the Trump-Russia narrative kept coming. The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying Trump is correct in his push back on the “17 agencies” claim. And that’s got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially doubling down on the “true” rating of Clinton’s debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim mostly false in a separate fact check. So we’re left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically “vetted” and embraced a Clinton campaign talking point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than six months — all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false — and then suddenly reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked. We live in a world where r/the_donald — a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters — proved more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia investigation. The truth about this “17 intel agencies” claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community’s conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media’s conclusion on Russian meddling. Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there’s the almost daily implication that Trump personally coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation. The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the “17 intelligence agencies” mess. Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like “dozens” or “more than 30.” Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced “scoops” turn out to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record. In a report casting the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe. The White House refuted the anecdote in no uncertain terms the following day. Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked, and the “Russian hacker” may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer. CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey would refute Trump’s claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such thing. In fact he corroborated Trump’s account. Just weeks after retracting a story on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course, it was wrong. One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was “press” him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room. We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it’s a “basic fact” Russia meddled in the election. But for the media, it’s also just a “basic fact” that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant. Follow Rachel on Twitter Send tips to rachel@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org. 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

PMVghx1I7YXuJyPi

test

P4aEgznK86DFKAJD

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43779359

Former FBI director James Comey has said Donald Trump is "morally unfit to be president" and treats women like "pieces of meat".

Former FBI director James Comey has said Donald Trump is `` morally unfit to be president '' and treats women like `` pieces of meat '' . Mr Comey was giving his first major television interview since he was fired by President Trump last year . He told ABC News that Mr Trump lies constantly and may have obstructed justice . Hours before the interview aired , the president went on the offensive , accusing Mr Comey of `` many lies '' . Mr Comey told ABC 's 20/20 programme on Sunday night : `` I do n't buy this stuff about him being mentally incompetent or early stages of dementia . '' `` I do n't think he 's medically unfit to be president . I think he 's morally unfit to be president . `` Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country . The most important being truth . This president is not able to do that , '' Mr Comey said . After the interview aired , Mr Trump 's party - via the Republican National Committee - released a statement saying Mr Comey 's publicity tour for his new book showed `` his true higher loyalty is to himself '' . `` The only thing worse than Comey 's history of misconduct is his willingness to say anything to sell books , '' it said . It is the latest development in a long-standing feud between the two men , further fuelled by the upcoming publication of Mr Comey 's memoir A Higher Loyalty : Truth , Lies and Leadership . The ex-FBI chief is on a publicity blitz for the book . President Trump has said the `` badly reviewed book '' raises `` big questions '' . He also suggested Mr Comey should be imprisoned , and in recent days began referring to him as a `` slime ball '' . The story dates back to the 2016 presidential election , when Mr Comey was FBI director , and the investigation into Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton 's handling of classified emails on a private server while Secretary of State . In July 2016 , he said that she had been `` extremely careless '' in her handling of the emails , but the FBI would not press charges . However , in October , days before the vote , he sent a letter to Congress telling them the FBI was reopening an investigation after finding more emails . The letter went public - and Mrs Clinton says it handed Donald Trump the election . On 6 November , the FBI said it had completed its review into the new trove of emails and there would , again , be no charges . Once Mr Trump became president , Mr Comey says he tried to extract a pledge of personal loyalty from him - something the president fiercely denies . In March 2017 , when alleged links between Mr Trump 's campaign and Russia were being investigated by the FBI , Mr Trump allegedly pressured Mr Comey to publicly declare that the president was not personally being investigated - something the then director says he declined to do . Some Democrats blamed Mr Comey for costing Mrs Clinton the election , while Trump supporters felt he was targeting the president with the Russia investigation . Before revealing the new Clinton investigation , one staff member asked Mr Comey : `` Should you consider that what you 're about do to may help elect Donald Trump president ? '' Mr Comey said he responded : `` Down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent force . '' On the Clinton probe more generally , he said : `` The FBI drove this investigation and we did it in a competent and independent way . I would bet my life on that . '' He was fired by President Trump in May and found out about his dismissal by watching TV news . ABC News has released a full 42,000-word transcript of the interview between Mr Comey and chief anchor George Stephanopoulos . A chunk of the interview deals with the sacking of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on 13 February 2017 for lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador . A day later , Mr Comey is sitting in the Oval Office with Mr Trump alone - the vice-president and the attorney-general have been asked to leave . The former FBI head asserts in the interview that Mr Trump tried to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn . `` I took it as a direction , '' he told Mr Stephanopoulos . `` He 's - his words were , though , ' I hope you can let it go ' . '' Mr Comey says he let the comment pass , but concedes he should perhaps have suggested to the president that it would amount to obstruction of justice . `` It 's certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice . It would depend - and I 'm just a witness in this case , not the investigator or prosecutor , it would depend upon other things that reflected on his intent . '' James Comey thinks Donald Trump is a serial liar who degrades women and is `` morally unfit '' to be president . He says it 's `` possible '' but `` unlikely '' that Russia has compromised the president , and that he may have obstructed the collusion investigation . He also believes the American people ca n't do anything about it until the November 2020 presidential election . That 's just one of the contradictions that emerged in Mr Comey 's interview . He said he strove to make non-political decisions about the highly political 2016 investigations into Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign . He spoke of integrity and honour , but confessed that he may not have had the `` guts '' to confront the president . The former director gave a complex interview reflecting a man challenged to draw meaning from his place at the centre of the biggest political stories of a lifetime . It made for gripping television . Now Trump loyalists will pick apart his remarks and return fire . `` Nobody gets out alive , '' Mr Comey quipped in the early days of the Clinton investigation . It was n't really a joke then . And it certainly is n't now . In the primetime TV interview , Mr Comey suggested that the president had surrounded himself with people loyal to him - he compared Mr Trump to mob bosses he had investigated as a prosecutor . `` The loyalty oaths , the boss as the dominant centre of everything , it 's all about how do you serve the boss , what 's in the boss ' interests , '' he said . Asked if those around the president were `` enabling bad behaviour '' , Mr Comey said : `` The challenge of this president is that he will stain everyone around him . '' Mr Comey , however , said he did not believe President Trump should be impeached . `` I hope not because I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook , '' he said . Instead , he said , it was something the American people were `` duty-bound to do directly '' at the voting booth .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Comey assesses Trump in new memoir Former FBI director James Comey has said Donald Trump is "morally unfit to be president" and treats women like "pieces of meat". Mr Comey was giving his first major television interview since he was fired by President Trump last year. He told ABC News that Mr Trump lies constantly and may have obstructed justice. Hours before the interview aired, the president went on the offensive, accusing Mr Comey of "many lies". Mr Comey told ABC's 20/20 programme on Sunday night: "I don't buy this stuff about him being mentally incompetent or early stages of dementia." "I don't think he's medically unfit to be president. I think he's morally unfit to be president. "Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country. The most important being truth. This president is not able to do that," Mr Comey said. After the interview aired, Mr Trump's party - via the Republican National Committee - released a statement saying Mr Comey's publicity tour for his new book showed "his true higher loyalty is to himself". "The only thing worse than Comey's history of misconduct is his willingness to say anything to sell books," it said. How did we get here? It is the latest development in a long-standing feud between the two men, further fuelled by the upcoming publication of Mr Comey's memoir A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership. The ex-FBI chief is on a publicity blitz for the book. President Trump has said the "badly reviewed book" raises "big questions". He also suggested Mr Comey should be imprisoned, and in recent days began referring to him as a "slime ball". The story dates back to the 2016 presidential election, when Mr Comey was FBI director, and the investigation into Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton's handling of classified emails on a private server while Secretary of State. In July 2016, he said that she had been "extremely careless" in her handling of the emails, but the FBI would not press charges. However, in October, days before the vote, he sent a letter to Congress telling them the FBI was reopening an investigation after finding more emails. The letter went public - and Mrs Clinton says it handed Donald Trump the election. On 6 November, the FBI said it had completed its review into the new trove of emails and there would, again, be no charges. Once Mr Trump became president, Mr Comey says he tried to extract a pledge of personal loyalty from him - something the president fiercely denies. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump's love-hate relationship with Comey over a tumultuous year In March 2017, when alleged links between Mr Trump's campaign and Russia were being investigated by the FBI, Mr Trump allegedly pressured Mr Comey to publicly declare that the president was not personally being investigated - something the then director says he declined to do. Some Democrats blamed Mr Comey for costing Mrs Clinton the election, while Trump supporters felt he was targeting the president with the Russia investigation. Before revealing the new Clinton investigation, one staff member asked Mr Comey: "Should you consider that what you're about do to may help elect Donald Trump president?" Mr Comey said he responded: "Down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent force." On the Clinton probe more generally, he said: "The FBI drove this investigation and we did it in a competent and independent way. I would bet my life on that." He was fired by President Trump in May and found out about his dismissal by watching TV news. Is there evidence of obstruction of justice? ABC News has released a full 42,000-word transcript of the interview between Mr Comey and chief anchor George Stephanopoulos. A chunk of the interview deals with the sacking of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on 13 February 2017 for lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador. A day later, Mr Comey is sitting in the Oval Office with Mr Trump alone - the vice-president and the attorney-general have been asked to leave. The former FBI head asserts in the interview that Mr Trump tried to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn. "I took it as a direction," he told Mr Stephanopoulos. "He's - his words were, though, 'I hope you can let it go'." Mr Comey says he let the comment pass, but concedes he should perhaps have suggested to the president that it would amount to obstruction of justice. "It's certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice. It would depend - and I'm just a witness in this case, not the investigator or prosecutor, it would depend upon other things that reflected on his intent." Mr Trump strongly denies Mr Comey's account. Getting out alive? Analysis by the BBC's Anthony Zurcher James Comey thinks Donald Trump is a serial liar who degrades women and is "morally unfit" to be president. He says it's "possible" but "unlikely" that Russia has compromised the president, and that he may have obstructed the collusion investigation. He also believes the American people can't do anything about it until the November 2020 presidential election. That's just one of the contradictions that emerged in Mr Comey's interview. He said he strove to make non-political decisions about the highly political 2016 investigations into Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign. He spoke of integrity and honour, but confessed that he may not have had the "guts" to confront the president. The former director gave a complex interview reflecting a man challenged to draw meaning from his place at the centre of the biggest political stories of a lifetime. It made for gripping television. Now Trump loyalists will pick apart his remarks and return fire. "Nobody gets out alive," Mr Comey quipped in the early days of the Clinton investigation. It wasn't really a joke then. And it certainly isn't now. What else did Mr Comey say? In the primetime TV interview, Mr Comey suggested that the president had surrounded himself with people loyal to him - he compared Mr Trump to mob bosses he had investigated as a prosecutor. "The loyalty oaths, the boss as the dominant centre of everything, it's all about how do you serve the boss, what's in the boss' interests," he said. Asked if those around the president were "enabling bad behaviour", Mr Comey said: "The challenge of this president is that he will stain everyone around him." Image copyright Reuters Image caption Mr Obama during Mr Comey's swearing in ceremony at the FBI in 2013 Mr Comey, however, said he did not believe President Trump should be impeached. "I hope not because I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook," he said. Instead, he said, it was something the American people were "duty-bound to do directly" at the voting booth. During the extensive interview, Mr Comey also said:

www.bbc.com

center

P4aEgznK86DFKAJD

test

J4phhcfhZhVSPdNL

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/may/the-love-hate-relationship-between-trump-and-the-mainstream-media

The Love-Hate Relationship between Trump and the Mainstream Media

2017-05-09

WASHINGTON -- There is plenty of political bad blood flowing through our nation 's capital , but one relationship that could be described as the love-hate variety is between President Donald Trump and the mainstream media . And here 's some `` real news '' : President Trump likes going after the mainstream media , even calling them the `` enemy of the American people . '' Meanwhile , the opponent -- in this case the mainstream press -- does n't mind punching back . `` We are not fake news , '' said White House Correspondents ' Association President Jeff Mason . `` We are not failing news organizations and we are not the enemy of the American people . '' The gloves came off at the president 's very first press conference , a testy affair where Trump sparred with a few of them , exclaiming , `` The public does n't believe you people anymore ! '' A Media Research Center study shows that 89 percent of the Trump coverage by the major media networks is negative . Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told ███ News he believes this treatment is intentional . `` They want to highlight what they perceive to be failures , '' Lewandowski said . `` This is exactly what they did during the campaign . They said the president would never run , that he would never be successful , the campaign was in shambles , '' he said . `` But it was n't , '' he continued . `` It was n't sophisticated enough . But the American people stepped up and said , 'we want Donald Trump and voted for him . ' '' Lewandowski says all the president wants is a fair shake and the whole story to be told . `` When he does a long interview with a major publication like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal all he asks for is do n't edit it . Just print it verbatim and if you do that he believes that to be a fair interview , '' he told ███ News . `` I agree with him . It 's when they cut it up , chop it up and they do n't run the full context of what he 's saying is usually where the media perpetuates a narrative that is n't true for the president , '' he said . There has been plenty pushback from the mainstream media team . `` He loves the media in many ways as much as he hates it , '' Paul Farhi , the media reporter for The Washington Post , told ███ News . `` I think Trump makes a very big show of disliking us , disrespecting us and disparaging us , but I think in fact secretly , or maybe not so secretly , really likes us , '' Farhi said , `` loves the attention , has used that attention for his own advancement and has really courted the media in a lot of ways . '' Trump courts the media , using handwritten notes to either praise or blast them . But whatever the case , Farhi says he definitely works the room . `` Trump is a very sophisticated media animal , '' Farhi told ███ News . `` He has worked with the New York media , which is the most intense for decades . He knows his way around and he knows how to utilize the media to get his message out . '' The question now is will we continue to see this daily soap opera drama play out the next four years ? Jake Sherman with Politico told ███ News there 's no reason to believe anything will be different . `` Donald Trump is 70 years old , '' he noted . `` He 's not going to change , so if we 're looking for some sort of major course correction or a major shift in dynamic , we 're not going to get that . He is who he is and you 're not going to change that at this point in the game . '' The one thing Trump may look to change is the country 's libel and slander laws to make it easier to sue reporters and media outlets over their stories . That could be the next level in an escalating fight with no end in sight .

WASHINGTON -- There is plenty of political bad blood flowing through our nation's capital, but one relationship that could be described as the love-hate variety is between President Donald Trump and the mainstream media. It has been a never-ending roller coaster ride. And here's some "real news": President Trump likes going after the mainstream media, even calling them the "enemy of the American people." 'We Are Not Fake News' Meanwhile, the opponent -- in this case the mainstream press -- doesn't mind punching back. "We are not fake news," said White House Correspondents' Association President Jeff Mason. "We are not failing news organizations and we are not the enemy of the American people." The gloves came off at the president's very first press conference, a testy affair where Trump sparred with a few of them, exclaiming, "The public doesn't believe you people anymore!" A Media Research Center study shows that 89 percent of the Trump coverage by the major media networks is negative. Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told CBN News he believes this treatment is intentional. "They want to highlight what they perceive to be failures," Lewandowski said. "This is exactly what they did during the campaign. They said the president would never run, that he would never be successful, the campaign was in shambles," he said. "But it wasn't," he continued. "It wasn't sophisticated enough. But the American people stepped up and said, 'we want Donald Trump and voted for him.'" Lewandowski says all the president wants is a fair shake and the whole story to be told. "When he does a long interview with a major publication like The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal all he asks for is don't edit it. Just print it verbatim and if you do that he believes that to be a fair interview," he told CBN News. "I agree with him. It's when they cut it up, chop it up and they don't run the full context of what he's saying is usually where the media perpetuates a narrative that isn't true for the president," he said. 'He Loves the Media' There has been plenty pushback from the mainstream media team. "He loves the media in many ways as much as he hates it," Paul Farhi, the media reporter for The Washington Post, told CBN News. "I think Trump makes a very big show of disliking us, disrespecting us and disparaging us, but I think in fact secretly, or maybe not so secretly, really likes us," Farhi said, "loves the attention, has used that attention for his own advancement and has really courted the media in a lot of ways." Trump courts the media, using handwritten notes to either praise or blast them. But whatever the case, Farhi says he definitely works the room. "Trump is a very sophisticated media animal," Farhi told CBN News. "He has worked with the New York media, which is the most intense for decades. He knows his way around and he knows how to utilize the media to get his message out." The question now is will we continue to see this daily soap opera drama play out the next four years? Jake Sherman with Politico told CBN News there's no reason to believe anything will be different. "Donald Trump is 70 years old," he noted. "He's not going to change, so if we're looking for some sort of major course correction or a major shift in dynamic, we're not going to get that. He is who he is and you're not going to change that at this point in the game." The one thing Trump may look to change is the country's libel and slander laws to make it easier to sue reporters and media outlets over their stories. That could be the next level in an escalating fight with no end in sight.

www1.cbn.com

right

J4phhcfhZhVSPdNL

test

bF5RbpLydwGvnkeE

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/30/donald-trump-russia-obama-sanctions

Trump praises Putin over US sanctions – a move that puts him at odds with GOP

2016-12-30

Lauren Gambino, Ben Jacobs

What will applauding the Russian president ’ s response to Barack Obama ’ s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats mean when Trump takes office ? Trump praises Putin over US sanctions – a move that puts him at odds with GOP Trump praises Putin over US sanctions – a move that puts him at odds with GOP After the Obama administration ’ s tough new sanctions against Russia put the president-elect in a vulnerable political position at home , in his own party and abroad , Donald Trump chose to respond in familiar fashion – with praise for Vladimir Putin . Putin says Russia will not expel US diplomats in tit-for-tat measure Read more The president-elect has repeatedly spoken approvingly of Putin and called for closer relations with Russia . On Friday , he used Twitter to applaud Putin ’ s restrained response to the expulsion by the US of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds . Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) Great move on delay ( by V. Putin ) - I always knew he was very smart ! The tweet , like many from Trump that seem calculated to shock and offend , caused a predictable media furore . However , it probably will have done nothing to alleviate the difficult political position in which Trump now finds himself . The president-elect has been consistently skeptical about the US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor – the reason for Obama ’ s new sanctions . At one point , he suggested the culprit might have been China , another state or even a 400lb man in his bedroom . On taking office in January , Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions . And as president , he could do so ; presidential orders can simply be repealed by the executive branch . But the situation is not that simple . If Trump did choose to remove the sanctions , he would find himself at odds with his own party . Senior Republicans in Congress responded to the Obama sanctions by identifying Russia as a major geopolitical foe and criticizing the new measures only as a case of too little too late . Some promised a push for further measures in Congress . Trump may therefore choose not to reverse the new sanctions . If so , he will find himself at odds with the man he so constantly praises . On Friday , the Kremlin responded to the moves , including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US , with a shrug . Putin , it seems , is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office . Trump ’ s tweet suggested he is too . But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage . “ The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [ to ] box in – the next administration ’ s relationship with Russia , ” said Boris Zilberman , a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies . “ Putin , in part , saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [ Russian foreign minister Sergey ] Lavrov and the [ state ] Duma , who were calling for a reciprocal response . ” Trump will also face pressure from intelligence agencies , which have concluded that Moscow ordered the election cyber-attacks . Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party ? | David Klion Read more “ There is now a public record of what Russia did and why they did it , ” said Zachary Goldman , executive director of New York University Law School ’ s Center on Law and Security , referring to a joint Department of Homeland Security and FBI report issued on Thursday . “ Even if the sanctions can be unwound , you can ’ t make that public statement go away . ” Goldman also noted an international element to the situation facing Trump . It is important to note , he said , that the new executive order enables Obama and his successors to take retaliatory action against efforts to influence elections held by “ allies and partners ” . Germany and France will hold elections in 2017 . On a call with reporters on Thursday , a senior White House official said the US had “ every indication ” that Russia would continue to pursue such cyber-attacks . On the same call , officials expressed confidence that the political risk of appearing to cave in to Moscow would prevent any future administration from unwinding the sanctions . “ If a future president decided that he wanted to allow in a large tranche of Russian intelligence agents , presumably a future president could invite that action , ” a senior official said . “ We think it would be inadvisable . As my colleague just said , these diplomatic compounds were being used for intelligence purposes . That is a direct challenge to US national security , and I don ’ t think it would make much sense to reopen Russian intelligence compounds . ” In his own statement , President Obama said : “ All Americans should be alarmed by Russia ’ s actions . ” In response , Trump repeated his contention that the issue should be left behind , that Americans should be able to “ get on with our lives ” . But he did agree to meet intelligence officials next week , to be “ updated on the facts ” . In a transition team call on Friday , the incoming White House press secretary , Sean Spicer , did not give details of when that meeting would take place or who would attend . No talks were planned with Moscow , he said . Underlining the challenges awaiting Trump in his own party , most senior Republicans criticized the Obama administration only for acting too slowly . On Thursday , the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement : “ The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue . “ But ultimately , they are a small price for Russia to pay for its brazen attack on American democracy . We intend to lead the effort in the new Congress to impose stronger sanctions on Russia . ” US expulsions put spotlight on Russia 's GRU intelligence agency Read more The Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell , agreed , saying : “ The Russians are not our friends . And clearly the Obama administration has not yet dissuaded them from attempting to breach our cybersecurity systems , or harass our diplomats in Moscow . ” On Friday , it was reported that McCain , a member of the Senate armed services committee , had scheduled a hearing on foreign cyber threats for 5 January , and called senior intelligence officials to testify . Analysts were also concerned not with whether the sanctions should have been imposed at all , but rather whether the White House had acted quickly enough , and whether its eventual response was strong enough . “ The sanctions are targeted , not sectoral , and will have a very limited impact , ” said Thomas Wright , a fellow and director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institute . “ This will not deter Putin from interfering in French or German elections in 2017 . ” Though the strength , timing and effect of the new sanctions are contested , Trump faces a bipartisan consensus . Domestically , any attempt to remove Obama ’ s sanctions against Russia will be a political non-starter .

What will applauding the Russian president’s response to Barack Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats mean when Trump takes office? Trump praises Putin over US sanctions – a move that puts him at odds with GOP Trump praises Putin over US sanctions – a move that puts him at odds with GOP After the Obama administration’s tough new sanctions against Russia put the president-elect in a vulnerable political position at home, in his own party and abroad, Donald Trump chose to respond in familiar fashion – with praise for Vladimir Putin. Putin says Russia will not expel US diplomats in tit-for-tat measure Read more The president-elect has repeatedly spoken approvingly of Putin and called for closer relations with Russia. On Friday, he used Twitter to applaud Putin’s restrained response to the expulsion by the US of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart! The tweet, like many from Trump that seem calculated to shock and offend, caused a predictable media furore. However, it probably will have done nothing to alleviate the difficult political position in which Trump now finds himself. The president-elect has been consistently skeptical about the US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor – the reason for Obama’s new sanctions. At one point, he suggested the culprit might have been China, another state or even a 400lb man in his bedroom. On taking office in January, Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. And as president, he could do so; presidential orders can simply be repealed by the executive branch. But the situation is not that simple. If Trump did choose to remove the sanctions, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Senior Republicans in Congress responded to the Obama sanctions by identifying Russia as a major geopolitical foe and criticizing the new measures only as a case of too little too late. Some promised a push for further measures in Congress. Trump may therefore choose not to reverse the new sanctions. If so, he will find himself at odds with the man he so constantly praises. On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump’s tweet suggested he is too. But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to his disadvantage. “The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration’s relationship with Russia,” said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response.” Trump will also face pressure from intelligence agencies, which have concluded that Moscow ordered the election cyber-attacks. Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party? | David Klion Read more “There is now a public record of what Russia did and why they did it,” said Zachary Goldman, executive director of New York University Law School’s Center on Law and Security, referring to a joint Department of Homeland Security and FBI report issued on Thursday. “Even if the sanctions can be unwound, you can’t make that public statement go away.” Goldman also noted an international element to the situation facing Trump. It is important to note, he said, that the new executive order enables Obama and his successors to take retaliatory action against efforts to influence elections held by “allies and partners”. Germany and France will hold elections in 2017. On a call with reporters on Thursday, a senior White House official said the US had “every indication” that Russia would continue to pursue such cyber-attacks. ‘All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions’ On the same call, officials expressed confidence that the political risk of appearing to cave in to Moscow would prevent any future administration from unwinding the sanctions. “If a future president decided that he wanted to allow in a large tranche of Russian intelligence agents, presumably a future president could invite that action,” a senior official said. “We think it would be inadvisable. As my colleague just said, these diplomatic compounds were being used for intelligence purposes. That is a direct challenge to US national security, and I don’t think it would make much sense to reopen Russian intelligence compounds.” In his own statement, President Obama said: “All Americans should be alarmed by Russia’s actions.” In response, Trump repeated his contention that the issue should be left behind, that Americans should be able to “get on with our lives”. But he did agree to meet intelligence officials next week, to be “updated on the facts”. In a transition team call on Friday, the incoming White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, did not give details of when that meeting would take place or who would attend. No talks were planned with Moscow, he said. Underlining the challenges awaiting Trump in his own party, most senior Republicans criticized the Obama administration only for acting too slowly. On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement: “The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue. “But ultimately, they are a small price for Russia to pay for its brazen attack on American democracy. We intend to lead the effort in the new Congress to impose stronger sanctions on Russia.” US expulsions put spotlight on Russia's GRU intelligence agency Read more The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, agreed, saying: “The Russians are not our friends. And clearly the Obama administration has not yet dissuaded them from attempting to breach our cybersecurity systems, or harass our diplomats in Moscow.” On Friday, it was reported that McCain, a member of the Senate armed services committee, had scheduled a hearing on foreign cyber threats for 5 January, and called senior intelligence officials to testify. Analysts were also concerned not with whether the sanctions should have been imposed at all, but rather whether the White House had acted quickly enough, and whether its eventual response was strong enough. “The sanctions are targeted, not sectoral, and will have a very limited impact,” said Thomas Wright, a fellow and director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institute. “This will not deter Putin from interfering in French or German elections in 2017.” Though the strength, timing and effect of the new sanctions are contested, Trump faces a bipartisan consensus. Domestically, any attempt to remove Obama’s sanctions against Russia will be a political non-starter.

www.theguardian.com

left

bF5RbpLydwGvnkeE

test

J6gitO14UNya4XJ1

education

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/01/public-school-teachers-behind-violent-antifa-group/

'Brainwash And Manipulate': Public School Teachers Behind Violent Antifa Group

2017-09-01

Public school teachers are behind a leading far-left militant group that is part of the Antifa network that federal officials say is committing “ domestic terrorist violence . ” By Any Means Necessary , which has played a key role in riots in Berkeley , Sacramento and elsewhere , has dozens of public school teachers among its members , including among its most prominent leaders . The FBI and Department of Homeland Security began paying closer attention to Antifa groups in general after BAMN and other extremists started a riot and attacked marchers at a white nationalist rally in Sacramento last July , Politico reported on Friday . The Sacramento violence left at least 10 people hospitalized , several of whom had knife wounds . One of BAMN ’ s most prominent organizers is Yvette Felarca , a Berkeley middle school teacher and pro-violence militant . Felarca currently faces charges of inciting a riot for her role in the Sacramento violence . After BAMN and other antifa groups staged violent protests in Berkeley to keep right-wing author Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking , Felarca defended her group ’ s acts of violence . BAMN was able to cancel another event , this time an April speech by pro-Trump author Ann Coulter , by promising a repeat performance of the Milo riots . ( RELATED : ‘ INFERNO ’ — Milo Speech Cancelled After Rioters Set Campus Ablaze [ VIDEO ] ) The FBI and DHS say Antifa groups like BAMN are engaging in “ domestic terrorist violence , ” according to the Politico report . Just last weekend , Felarca helped organize BAMN ’ s mass demonstrations that “ shut down ” an anti-Marxism rally in Berkeley . As with BAMN ’ s other organized actions , left-wing actors at Saturday ’ s demonstrations violently attacked peaceful protesters . House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the Antifa violence in Berkeley , while Felarca called BAMN ’ s actions a “ resounding success . ” BAMN ’ s members appear to be mixing their far-left activism with their roles as teachers . ( RELATED : Documents Tie Berkeley Riot Organizers To Pro-Pedophilia Group ) BAMN organizer and high school teacher Nicole Conaway organized a “ sickout ” at her school in 2015 , leading other teachers in calling in sick to protest the policies of Republican Gov . Rick Snyder . The sickout forced six Detroit-area schools to cancel classes , affecting nearly 4,000 students . One month later , Conaway led students in a school walkout protesting poor building conditions . She was one of three BAMN organizers arrested in connection with the protest . Other BAMN members have led similar protests at the schools where they teach . In Berkeley , Felarca and other BAMN members repeatedly abused their positions of influence over students in service of their own radical goals , Berkeley ’ s public school district charged in court filings obtained by local news organization Berkeleyside . Despite repeated warnings , the district said Felarca continued to try to recruit students into her radical organization , including during work hours . The leftist teacher frequently tried to bring students on school-sponsored trips to BAMN-related activities , the district said , describing the trips as attempts to “ indoctrinate ” the students . The school district accused Felarca and other BAMN members of weaponizing students to derail disciplinary hearings for Felarca , after student protesters repeatedly swarmed into the disciplinary hearings . The school district claimed that Felarca and other BAMN members “ were actively trying to brainwash and manipulate ” students to serve her “ own selfish interests , ” calling her conduct “ particularly reprehensible. ” Felarca continues teaching today . Oakland Technical High School teacher and BAMN member Tania Kappner worked with Felarca this past January to organize students and teachers in a walkout in protesting Trump . Kappner was identified in the media as a BAMN member as early as 2011 . BAMN is active within both the National Education Association — the nation ’ s largest teacher ’ s union — as well as with local and regional teacher ’ s unions in Michigan and California . Last year , 17 different BAMN members ran for elected positions on the Detroit Federation of Teachers , according to a newsletter sent out by the DFT . BAMN also ran five candidates for different national leadership positions with the NEA in 2017 . When the Berkeley school district suspended Felarca for her violent activism in 2016 ( for which she was charged with inciting a riot ) , the local teacher ’ s union sued the school on Felarca ’ s behalf . In January 2015 , BAMN organizer Steve Conn was elected president of the Detroit Federation of Teachers . The DFT ’ s executive board charged Conn with misconduct later that year and removed him from office . Conn and his wife , former teacher Heather Miller , were fired back in 2007 after leading a student protest that resulted in students being pepper sprayed . The couple sued and got their jobs back , in addition to a $ 300,000 settlement . Conn continues teaching today at Western High School . BAMN was founded by the Revolutionary Workers League , an openly Marxist organization , in 1995 . As TheDC first reported in April , internal documents from the North American Man/Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA ) tie BAMN to NAMBLA. , reveal the RWL — BAMN ’ s parent organization — worked with NAMBLA in the years just before the communist group founded BAMN . One of BAMN ’ s founding members is on record identifying as a NAMBLA member , calling the pro-pedophilia group the victim of a “ witch-hunt. ” ( Read TheDC ’ s full story on the ties between NAMBLA and BAMN here . )

Public school teachers are behind a leading far-left militant group that is part of the Antifa network that federal officials say is committing “domestic terrorist violence.” By Any Means Necessary, which has played a key role in riots in Berkeley, Sacramento and elsewhere, has dozens of public school teachers among its members, including among its most prominent leaders. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security began paying closer attention to Antifa groups in general after BAMN and other extremists started a riot and attacked marchers at a white nationalist rally in Sacramento last July, Politico reported on Friday. The Sacramento violence left at least 10 people hospitalized, several of whom had knife wounds. One of BAMN’s most prominent organizers is Yvette Felarca, a Berkeley middle school teacher and pro-violence militant. Felarca currently faces charges of inciting a riot for her role in the Sacramento violence. After BAMN and other antifa groups staged violent protests in Berkeley to keep right-wing author Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, Felarca defended her group’s acts of violence. BAMN was able to cancel another event, this time an April speech by pro-Trump author Ann Coulter, by promising a repeat performance of the Milo riots. (RELATED: ‘INFERNO’ — Milo Speech Cancelled After Rioters Set Campus Ablaze [VIDEO]) The FBI and DHS say Antifa groups like BAMN are engaging in “domestic terrorist violence,” according to the Politico report. Just last weekend, Felarca helped organize BAMN’s mass demonstrations that “shut down” an anti-Marxism rally in Berkeley. As with BAMN’s other organized actions, left-wing actors at Saturday’s demonstrations violently attacked peaceful protesters. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the Antifa violence in Berkeley, while Felarca called BAMN’s actions a “resounding success.” BAMN’s members appear to be mixing their far-left activism with their roles as teachers. (RELATED: Documents Tie Berkeley Riot Organizers To Pro-Pedophilia Group) BAMN organizer and high school teacher Nicole Conaway organized a “sickout” at her school in 2015, leading other teachers in calling in sick to protest the policies of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. The sickout forced six Detroit-area schools to cancel classes, affecting nearly 4,000 students. One month later, Conaway led students in a school walkout protesting poor building conditions. She was one of three BAMN organizers arrested in connection with the protest. Other BAMN members have led similar protests at the schools where they teach. In Berkeley, Felarca and other BAMN members repeatedly abused their positions of influence over students in service of their own radical goals, Berkeley’s public school district charged in court filings obtained by local news organization Berkeleyside. Despite repeated warnings, the district said Felarca continued to try to recruit students into her radical organization, including during work hours. The leftist teacher frequently tried to bring students on school-sponsored trips to BAMN-related activities, the district said, describing the trips as attempts to “indoctrinate” the students. The school district accused Felarca and other BAMN members of weaponizing students to derail disciplinary hearings for Felarca, after student protesters repeatedly swarmed into the disciplinary hearings. The school district claimed that Felarca and other BAMN members “were actively trying to brainwash and manipulate” students to serve her “own selfish interests,” calling her conduct “particularly reprehensible.” Felarca continues teaching today. Oakland Technical High School teacher and BAMN member Tania Kappner worked with Felarca this past January to organize students and teachers in a walkout in protesting Trump. Kappner was identified in the media as a BAMN member as early as 2011. BAMN is active within both the National Education Association — the nation’s largest teacher’s union — as well as with local and regional teacher’s unions in Michigan and California. Last year, 17 different BAMN members ran for elected positions on the Detroit Federation of Teachers, according to a newsletter sent out by the DFT. BAMN also ran five candidates for different national leadership positions with the NEA in 2017. When the Berkeley school district suspended Felarca for her violent activism in 2016 (for which she was charged with inciting a riot), the local teacher’s union sued the school on Felarca’s behalf. In January 2015, BAMN organizer Steve Conn was elected president of the Detroit Federation of Teachers. The DFT’s executive board charged Conn with misconduct later that year and removed him from office. Conn and his wife, former teacher Heather Miller, were fired back in 2007 after leading a student protest that resulted in students being pepper sprayed. The couple sued and got their jobs back, in addition to a $300,000 settlement. Conn continues teaching today at Western High School. BAMN was founded by the Revolutionary Workers League, an openly Marxist organization, in 1995. As TheDC first reported in April, internal documents from the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) tie BAMN to NAMBLA., reveal the RWL — BAMN’s parent organization — worked with NAMBLA in the years just before the communist group founded BAMN. One of BAMN’s founding members is on record identifying as a NAMBLA member, calling the pro-pedophilia group the victim of a “witch-hunt.” (Read TheDC’s full story on the ties between NAMBLA and BAMN here.)

www.dailycaller.com

right

J6gitO14UNya4XJ1

test

5Ou8p4zLCjFYqA0o

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/23/trump-blasts-media-at-arizona-campaign-style-rally-continues-to-condemn-racism/

Trump Blasts Media At Arizona Campaign Style Rally, Continues To Condemn Racism

2017-08-23

President Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Phoenix , Ariz. , in a campaign style rally Tuesday night , where he continued to condemn any form of racism and violence and criticized the media for their coverage of his statements on the subject . During his first trip to Arizona as president , Trump ripped the media for their recent coverage of his statements concerning the violence that occurred during white nationalist protests in Charlottesville , Va . “ What happened in Charlottesville strikes at the core of America . And tonight , this entire arena stands united against the thugs who perpetrate hatred and violence , ” Trump told the crowd at the Phoenix Convention Center . “ I strongly condemn neo-Nazis , white Supremacists and the KKK , ” he added . ( RELATED : Trump Attacks Press For Not Being Pleased With Charlottesville Response ) Trump pulled out a list from his suit pocket with all of the statements he has made since the events in Charlottesville . “ Here ’ s what I said , ” Trump opened . “ ‘ We ’ re closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville , Virginia . This is me speaking . ‘ We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred , bigotry , and violence. ’ That ’ s me speaking on Saturday right after the events . So I ’ m condemning the strongest possible terms … egregious display of hatred , bigotry , violence . ' ” Many in the media and in politics have continued to scrutinize Trump for his original statement on the Charlottesville protests and believe he should have called out white supremacist groups specifically . The next day Trump added clarity to his original statement saying he was strongly against the white supremacists , Neo-nazis , and the Klu Klux Klan . Trump has held several rallies while in office , with his most recent in Youngstown , Ohio on July 25 . He has also held rallies as president in Cedar Rapids , Iowa , Melbourne , Fla. , Harrisburg , Pa. , Louisville , Ky. , and Nashville , Tenn .

President Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Phoenix, Ariz., in a campaign style rally Tuesday night, where he continued to condemn any form of racism and violence and criticized the media for their coverage of his statements on the subject. During his first trip to Arizona as president, Trump ripped the media for their recent coverage of his statements concerning the violence that occurred during white nationalist protests in Charlottesville, Va. “What happened in Charlottesville strikes at the core of America. And tonight, this entire arena stands united against the thugs who perpetrate hatred and violence,” Trump told the crowd at the Phoenix Convention Center. “I strongly condemn neo-Nazis, white Supremacists and the KKK,” he added. (RELATED: Trump Attacks Press For Not Being Pleased With Charlottesville Response) Trump pulled out a list from his suit pocket with all of the statements he has made since the events in Charlottesville. “Here’s what I said,” Trump opened. “‘We’re closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. This is me speaking. ‘We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.’ That’s me speaking on Saturday right after the events. So I’m condemning the strongest possible terms … egregious display of hatred, bigotry, violence.'” Many in the media and in politics have continued to scrutinize Trump for his original statement on the Charlottesville protests and believe he should have called out white supremacist groups specifically. The next day Trump added clarity to his original statement saying he was strongly against the white supremacists, Neo-nazis, and the Klu Klux Klan. Trump has held several rallies while in office, with his most recent in Youngstown, Ohio on July 25. He has also held rallies as president in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Melbourne, Fla., Harrisburg, Pa., Louisville, Ky., and Nashville, Tenn. Follow Henry Rodgers 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

5Ou8p4zLCjFYqA0o

test

MCCs7DxY9sE9cM43

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/06/gop-address/?hpt=po_c2

Republicans demand action on student loan interest rates

2013-07-06

( CNN ) - Rep. Lynn Jenkins , R-Kansas , faulted Senate Democrats on Saturday for this week 's hike in student loan interest rates and urged the upper chamber to pass legislation that resolves the issue as soon as the holiday recess ends . `` For too long , politicians have been in charge of setting these rates , and we keep coming back to cliffs and deadlines like this one , '' Jenkins said in the GOP weekly address . `` Paying for college is difficult enough without all this uncertainty . I have two kids in college , I know how hard it can be . '' The interest rates on some student loans officially doubled Monday - to 6.8 % from 3.4 % - after the Senate failed to reach a compromise by the July 1 deadline . The hike hits about seven million new subsidized Stafford loans this year for middle- and low-income students , but does not apply to existing loans . Negotiators are stuck largely on the question of whether to require an overall cap above which interest rates on new loans could not rise . Top Senate Democrats want a cap in place to protect students if interest rates spike . That is at odds with the slightly different proposals from President Barack Obama and various congressional Republicans , which are tied to 10-year Treasury bond rates and would include charges for administrative costs but would not include caps . Republicans , who prefer a more market-based approach , often point out that the White House 's proposal falls more in line with their own . `` When President Obama proposed letting the markets set interest rates instead , the Republican-led House passed a bill reflecting his plan , '' Jenkins said . `` Republicans in the Senate came to the table with similar ideas . Unfortunately , Senate Democrats attacked the president 's plan , refused to work with us , and allowed this rate hike to take effect , leaving for the July 4th holiday without passing a solution . '' Senators worked through last week to try to reach a deal , but lawmakers from both parties ultimately predicted an agreement would not be made in time . Nevertheless , many of those same senators said they hope to finalize an agreement shortly after the break and have it apply retroactively so students are not hurt by the temporary hike . Another disagreement centers on whether the legislation is revenue-neutral . Senate Democrats say the government should not earn any money or pay down the deficit from the loans they provide , something that would happen under the other proposals . `` Republicans continue to insist that we reduce the deficit on the backs of students and middle-class families , '' Adam Jentleson , a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , said a week before the deadline .

6 years ago (CNN) - Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kansas, faulted Senate Democrats on Saturday for this week's hike in student loan interest rates and urged the upper chamber to pass legislation that resolves the issue as soon as the holiday recess ends. "For too long, politicians have been in charge of setting these rates, and we keep coming back to cliffs and deadlines like this one," Jenkins said in the GOP weekly address. "Paying for college is difficult enough without all this uncertainty. I have two kids in college, I know how hard it can be." The interest rates on some student loans officially doubled Monday - to 6.8% from 3.4% - after the Senate failed to reach a compromise by the July 1 deadline. The hike hits about seven million new subsidized Stafford loans this year for middle- and low-income students, but does not apply to existing loans. Negotiators are stuck largely on the question of whether to require an overall cap above which interest rates on new loans could not rise. Top Senate Democrats want a cap in place to protect students if interest rates spike. That is at odds with the slightly different proposals from President Barack Obama and various congressional Republicans, which are tied to 10-year Treasury bond rates and would include charges for administrative costs but would not include caps. Republicans, who prefer a more market-based approach, often point out that the White House's proposal falls more in line with their own. "When President Obama proposed letting the markets set interest rates instead, the Republican-led House passed a bill reflecting his plan," Jenkins said. "Republicans in the Senate came to the table with similar ideas. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats attacked the president's plan, refused to work with us, and allowed this rate hike to take effect, leaving for the July 4th holiday without passing a solution." Senators worked through last week to try to reach a deal, but lawmakers from both parties ultimately predicted an agreement would not be made in time. Nevertheless, many of those same senators said they hope to finalize an agreement shortly after the break and have it apply retroactively so students are not hurt by the temporary hike. Another disagreement centers on whether the legislation is revenue-neutral. Senate Democrats say the government should not earn any money or pay down the deficit from the loans they provide, something that would happen under the other proposals. "Republicans continue to insist that we reduce the deficit on the backs of students and middle-class families," Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said a week before the deadline. - CNN's Ted Barrett and Ashley Killough contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

MCCs7DxY9sE9cM43

test

ycPNsdTVUl5R8KIG

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gay-marriage-Kentucky-Alabama-Texas/2015/09/04/id/673690/

Gay Marriage Fight in Kentucky Likely Not the Last Battleground

2015-09-04

The fight over same-sex marriage licenses may not end in Kentucky . In Texas , Alabama and elsewhere a number of clerks and judges who stated their opposition to gay marriage have thrown up roadblocks to the unions , extending the fight over same-sex weddings two months after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage . Galvanizing opponents of gay marriage , Kim Davis , a county clerk in rural Kentucky , this week was jailed for her refusal to issue marriage licenses on the basis that same-sex unions conflict with her Christian beliefs . Others with the power to issue marriage licenses say they would be willing to follow suit , including Alabama Probate Judge Nick Williams . `` Absolutely , I feel the same way . This is a cause worth standing up for , '' said Williams , who ordered his deputies in Washington County not to issue any licenses at all since the court 's June decision . The fight has made Davis a martyr-like figure for religious conservatives who argue she is being jailed for her religious beliefs , a view espoused by several Republican presidential candidates . But for legal experts and gay marriage advocates , the issue is clear . Gay marriage is the law of the land and public servants are bound to uphold the decision of the justices . `` In this big country , it 's not surprising that there have been a handful of isolated instances of acting out and foot-dragging , '' said Evan Wolfson , founder and president of Freedom to Marry , a same-sex marriage advocate . In rural Irion County , Texas , the issuing of licenses to same-sex couples remains ambiguous . The American Civil Liberties Union , which filed suit against Davis , said it knows of only two counties in Texas that have not confirmed whether they will issue same-sex marriage licenses . `` We are not going to discuss marriage policy over the phone . If a couple comes in to apply , we will discuss it at that time , '' said Molly Criner , a clerk in Irion County , which has about 1,600 people located 200 miles ( 320 km ) northwest of Austin . Criner is one of several public officials with the power to issue marriage licenses who stands against gay marriage for religious grounds , and has yet to face a challenge . In Irion County , no same-sex couples have applied and no same-sex licenses have been issued . `` To keep my oath to uphold the Constitution , I must reject this ruling that I believe is lawless , '' she was quoted as saying by Liberty Counsel , a Florida-based Christian religious advocacy organization that said it would back her legally . The group , which also supports Davis , said it represents other county clerks who have yet to face challenges . It is not naming them . `` We have been contacted by other clerks in Kentucky . We 've been contacted by other clerks in other parts of the country , '' said Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver , the attorney for Kim Davis . The fight has not been isolated to socially conservative southern states , all of which had bans on same-sex marriage . In left-leaning Oregon , Marion County Circuit Court Judge Vance Day is facing an ethics review over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages . On Thursday , the Oregon Government Ethics Commission approved Day 's request to set up a Legal Expense Trust Fund to raise money for his defense . Unlike Kentucky , Alabama 's law says judges `` may '' issue licenses , with some interpreting the wording as `` may not . '' `` I 'm the elected probate judge and that 's my decision . Thank you , '' said Alabama 's Geneva County Probate Judge Fred Hamic , before hanging up his phone . That interpretation in Alabama largely took hold after U.S. District Judge Callie Granade , of the southern district of Alabama , overturned the state 's ban on same-sex marriage in January . The Association of County Commissions of Alabama in Montgomery said that up to 12 counties are not issuing any marriage licenses . That includes Washington County , where Williams , the probate judge , said he spoke with Davis for 10 minutes the day before she was ordered into custody . `` I asked her if she was prepared for whichever the way the judge ruled and she said yes . She was very much at peace , '' said Williams . The fight could also return to Kentucky . Casey Davis , who is no relation to Kim Davis , serves as the clerk for Casey County , which is not issuing any marriage licenses . Attempts to reach Casey Davis were unsuccessful . Whitley County , Kentucky Clerk Kay Schwartz did not respond to repeated calls and on Friday was on vacation . Her office previously said they were issuing traditional marriage licenses for men and women , but no one had asked for a same-sex license . In the end , all counties will be issuing the licenses because it is the law of the land , said Wolfson of Freedom to Marry .

The fight over same-sex marriage licenses may not end in Kentucky. In Texas, Alabama and elsewhere a number of clerks and judges who stated their opposition to gay marriage have thrown up roadblocks to the unions, extending the fight over same-sex weddings two months after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Galvanizing opponents of gay marriage, Kim Davis, a county clerk in rural Kentucky, this week was jailed for her refusal to issue marriage licenses on the basis that same-sex unions conflict with her Christian beliefs. Others with the power to issue marriage licenses say they would be willing to follow suit, including Alabama Probate Judge Nick Williams. "Absolutely, I feel the same way. This is a cause worth standing up for," said Williams, who ordered his deputies in Washington County not to issue any licenses at all since the court's June decision. The fight has made Davis a martyr-like figure for religious conservatives who argue she is being jailed for her religious beliefs, a view espoused by several Republican presidential candidates. But for legal experts and gay marriage advocates, the issue is clear. Gay marriage is the law of the land and public servants are bound to uphold the decision of the justices. "In this big country, it's not surprising that there have been a handful of isolated instances of acting out and foot-dragging," said Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, a same-sex marriage advocate. In rural Irion County, Texas, the issuing of licenses to same-sex couples remains ambiguous. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed suit against Davis, said it knows of only two counties in Texas that have not confirmed whether they will issue same-sex marriage licenses. "We are not going to discuss marriage policy over the phone. If a couple comes in to apply, we will discuss it at that time," said Molly Criner, a clerk in Irion County, which has about 1,600 people located 200 miles (320 km) northwest of Austin. Criner is one of several public officials with the power to issue marriage licenses who stands against gay marriage for religious grounds, and has yet to face a challenge. In Irion County, no same-sex couples have applied and no same-sex licenses have been issued. "To keep my oath to uphold the Constitution, I must reject this ruling that I believe is lawless," she was quoted as saying by Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian religious advocacy organization that said it would back her legally. The group, which also supports Davis, said it represents other county clerks who have yet to face challenges. It is not naming them. "We have been contacted by other clerks in Kentucky. We've been contacted by other clerks in other parts of the country," said Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver, the attorney for Kim Davis. The fight has not been isolated to socially conservative southern states, all of which had bans on same-sex marriage. In left-leaning Oregon, Marion County Circuit Court Judge Vance Day is facing an ethics review over his refusal to perform same-sex marriages. On Thursday, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission approved Day's request to set up a Legal Expense Trust Fund to raise money for his defense. Unlike Kentucky, Alabama's law says judges "may" issue licenses, with some interpreting the wording as "may not." "I'm the elected probate judge and that's my decision. Thank you," said Alabama's Geneva County Probate Judge Fred Hamic, before hanging up his phone. That interpretation in Alabama largely took hold after U.S. District Judge Callie Granade, of the southern district of Alabama, overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in January. The Association of County Commissions of Alabama in Montgomery said that up to 12 counties are not issuing any marriage licenses. That includes Washington County, where Williams, the probate judge, said he spoke with Davis for 10 minutes the day before she was ordered into custody. "I asked her if she was prepared for whichever the way the judge ruled and she said yes. She was very much at peace," said Williams. The fight could also return to Kentucky. Casey Davis, who is no relation to Kim Davis, serves as the clerk for Casey County, which is not issuing any marriage licenses. Attempts to reach Casey Davis were unsuccessful. Whitley County, Kentucky Clerk Kay Schwartz did not respond to repeated calls and on Friday was on vacation. Her office previously said they were issuing traditional marriage licenses for men and women, but no one had asked for a same-sex license. In the end, all counties will be issuing the licenses because it is the law of the land, said Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. "And this sideshow will soon be over," he said.

www.newsmax.com

right

ycPNsdTVUl5R8KIG

test

Dcm90XEHBArVG1Er

environment

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senators-block-progressive-green-deal-proposal/story?id=61951547

Senators block progressive Green New Deal proposal

The Senate on Tuesday voted down a procedural measure to advance the Green New Deal , a wide-reaching proposal that would address climate change . Interested in Climate Change ? Add Climate Change as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Climate Change news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest Forty-three Democrats voted `` present '' in protest of the measure , even though many of them have said that they support the framework of the resolution . Democratic Sens . Joe Manchin of West Virginia , Angus King of Maine , Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama voted no with the Republicans . Ahead of the vote , Senate Democrats blasted the vote as a “ sham. ” Democratic Party leaders said they believe Republicans used the vote as a political ploy to divide Democrats on a high-profile progressive idea . Instead , Democrats want members of the Republican leadership to schedule hearings rather than bringing the legislation straight to the floor for a vote . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied earlier on Tuesday that the vote was a sham and , when asked by a reporter if he believed climate change to be real and caused by humans , he replied , “ I do . ” He further challenged Democrats , “ If you believe the Green New Deal is the prescription for America , why would you not want to vote on it ? ” On the floor , just before the vote , he added , “ I have to say , it ’ s remarkable enough to see a major political party coalesce around a proposal to forcibly remake the entire country according to what ’ s fashionable in Brooklyn and San Francisco , ” McConnell said . “ But it is even more stunning to see my colleagues so angry and upset at the opportunity to back up their new philosophy with their votes . ” McConnell ’ s decision to hold a vote on the deal suffered a blistering rebuke from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , a co-sponsor of the legislation . “ The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government , ” Ocasio-Cortez said on Tuesday . “ What McConnell ’ s doing is that he ’ s trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing , without any markups , without working through committee -- because he doesn ’ t want to save our planet . Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned . ” McConnell has called the proposal a “ far-left wish list ” originating with the “ most radical , farthest-left members of the new House Democratic majority . ” In a series of speeches , Republicans blasted the Green New Deal as “ wildly unrealistic ” and a “ radical environmental policy . ” The wide-reaching proposal calls not just for a massive overhaul of the nation 's energy sector over the next 10 years , but also investments in the country 's education , infrastructure and health care systems and a redesign of the entire U.S. economy . Progressive Democrats and climate activists say the Green New Deal is the only plan proposed , so far , that is ambitious enough to have an impact to prevent the worst case scenario of global warming . Supporters frequently cite a recent United Nations climate report that warned some effects on the environment could become irreversible in the next two decades . Ultimately , the Green New Deal focuses on the alarming findings of recent climate change reports -- increasing numbers of natural disasters like wildfires , droughts and floods which are reportedly the result of rising levels of greenhouse gases ; mass migration expected from affected regions ; more than $ 500 billion in lost output by 2100 -- and suggests drastic solutions , such as bringing greenhouse gas emissions down to net-zero . The resolution also calls for 100 percent of U.S. energy demand to be `` clean , renewable and zero-emission '' and for a redesign of transportation systems nationwide in order to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector . “ It ’ s time to move past ‘ gotcha ’ politics and on to a real debate on the bold action that is necessary to save our communities . Unfortunately , we can ’ t have a good-faith policy debate while one party remains a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry , ” Sen. Jeff Merkley , D-Oregon , who also co-sponsored the resolution , said in a statement Tuesday . “ We need bipartisan acknowledgment that this crisis is real ; that it presents an existential threat to our nation ; and that the only serious solution is to make the bold pivot from polluting fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy in the next dozen years . ”

The Senate on Tuesday voted down a procedural measure to advance the Green New Deal, a wide-reaching proposal that would address climate change. Interested in Climate Change? Add Climate Change as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Climate Change news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest The final tally was 0-57. Forty-three Democrats voted "present" in protest of the measure, even though many of them have said that they support the framework of the resolution. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Angus King of Maine, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama voted no with the Republicans. Ahead of the vote, Senate Democrats blasted the vote as a “sham.” Democratic Party leaders said they believe Republicans used the vote as a political ploy to divide Democrats on a high-profile progressive idea. Instead, Democrats want members of the Republican leadership to schedule hearings rather than bringing the legislation straight to the floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied earlier on Tuesday that the vote was a sham and, when asked by a reporter if he believed climate change to be real and caused by humans, he replied, “I do.” He further challenged Democrats, “If you believe the Green New Deal is the prescription for America, why would you not want to vote on it?” On the floor, just before the vote, he added, “I have to say, it’s remarkable enough to see a major political party coalesce around a proposal to forcibly remake the entire country according to what’s fashionable in Brooklyn and San Francisco,” McConnell said. “But it is even more stunning to see my colleagues so angry and upset at the opportunity to back up their new philosophy with their votes.” Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images, FILE McConnell’s decision to hold a vote on the deal suffered a blistering rebuke from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the legislation. “The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government,” Ocasio-Cortez said on Tuesday. “What McConnell’s doing is that he’s trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee -- because he doesn’t want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned.” McConnell has called the proposal a “far-left wish list” originating with the “most radical, farthest-left members of the new House Democratic majority.” In a series of speeches, Republicans blasted the Green New Deal as “wildly unrealistic” and a “radical environmental policy.” Noah Berger/AP, FILE The wide-reaching proposal calls not just for a massive overhaul of the nation's energy sector over the next 10 years, but also investments in the country's education, infrastructure and health care systems and a redesign of the entire U.S. economy. Progressive Democrats and climate activists say the Green New Deal is the only plan proposed, so far, that is ambitious enough to have an impact to prevent the worst case scenario of global warming. Supporters frequently cite a recent United Nations climate report that warned some effects on the environment could become irreversible in the next two decades. Ultimately, the Green New Deal focuses on the alarming findings of recent climate change reports -- increasing numbers of natural disasters like wildfires, droughts and floods which are reportedly the result of rising levels of greenhouse gases; mass migration expected from affected regions; more than $500 billion in lost output by 2100 -- and suggests drastic solutions, such as bringing greenhouse gas emissions down to net-zero. The resolution also calls for 100 percent of U.S. energy demand to be "clean, renewable and zero-emission" and for a redesign of transportation systems nationwide in order to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. “It’s time to move past ‘gotcha’ politics and on to a real debate on the bold action that is necessary to save our communities. Unfortunately, we can’t have a good-faith policy debate while one party remains a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, who also co-sponsored the resolution, said in a statement Tuesday. “We need bipartisan acknowledgment that this crisis is real; that it presents an existential threat to our nation; and that the only serious solution is to make the bold pivot from polluting fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy in the next dozen years.” ABC News' Stephanie Ebbs contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

Dcm90XEHBArVG1Er

test

Ea7KU0B0KuFWsO7j

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/27/media-coverage-in-2017-marked-by-bombshells-that-werent/

Media Coverage Marked By Bombshells That Weren’t

2017-12-27

Establishment journalists claim that the Trump era has produced a “ golden age ” of journalism , but media coverage in 2017 was plagued with errors and “ bombshells ” that turned out to be anything but . CNN botched a major story in December when they alleged that Donald Trump Jr. was colluding with Wikileaks over stolen documents . CNN reported that a man named Mike Erickson emailed Trump Jr. on Sept. 4 , 2016 with a link to Wikileaks documents and the decryption key needed to access them . The network hyped the story as a major development in the Russia investigation . However , a copy of the email given to ███ showed that it was actually sent on Sept. 14 , 2016 , after the stolen documents had already been leaked to the general public . Furthermore , Erickson has no apparent ties to Wikileaks or Russia . The Washington Post identified him as the president of an aviation management company . To this day , CNN has yet to explain how two different anonymous sources fed the network the wrong date . The New York Times had to “ look into ” its own fake news when former FBI director James Comey questioned its reporting . The NYT claimed that U.S. intelligence officials intercepted communications between the Trump campaign and senior Russian intelligence officials in the year leading up to the election . Comey called the reporting “ almost entirely wrong ” and warned media outlets about relying on sources who don ’ t have a full understanding of “ what ’ s going on . ” In the week leading up to the G20 summit in Hamburg , Germany in July , CNN anchors reported that President Trump would not be confronting Russian President Vladimir Putin about his country ’ s meddling in American elections . The CNN report — which relied on a single , anonymous source — turned out to be dead wrong . An ABC News reporting error resulted in a stock market panic and the suspension of reporter Brian Ross earlier this month . Ross reported that former national security adviser Mike Flynn was prepared to testify that candidate Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians . Hours later , ABC clarified that Flynn wasn ’ t asked to contact Russia until after the election , during the Trump team ’ s transition period . The story quickly fizzled from Trump-Russia collusion to standard preparation for an incoming presidential administration . Three CNN employees resigned over a poorly-sourced story on the Trump transition team in June . Relying on a single , unnamed congressional source , CNN claimed that Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation over a meeting with a Russian banker that took place shortly before Trump ’ s inauguration . CNN retracted the story and apologized to Scaramucci after multiple parts of the report were proven to be inaccurate . ( RELATED : 7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017 ) Bloomberg News was forced to correct a bombshell report in December that claimed Special Counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records related to President Trump and his family . The story claimed that Mueller had “ zeroed in ” on Trump . Bloomberg later corrected the report , noting that the bank records “ pertain to people affiliated ” with Trump , not the president himself . CNN broke another flawed bombshell in May . Attorney General Jeff Sessions , while applying for his security clearance , had failed to disclose two meetings with then-Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak . CNN described the story as “ the latest example of Sessions failing to disclose contacts he had with Russian officials . ” CNN quietly walked back the scoop seven months later , noting that the FBI specifically told Sessions he wasn ’ t required to disclose the meetings . In other words : CNN ’ s report excoriated Sessions for simply following protocol . Journalists at multiple outlets , specifically CNN , consistently pushed the false claim that Republican donors had originally funded the infamous Trump-Russia dossier . Republican donor Paul Singer funded the firm behind the dossier , Fusion GPS , to conduct opposition research on candidates including Trump during the GOP primary . However , Singer had no involvement in the dossier , which has played a central role in the Trump-Russia narrative . As former FBI Director James Comey geared up for a congressional testimony in June , CNN found the perfect opportunity to make some bold — but incorrect — predictions . CNN reported that Comey would testify that he did not tell Trump he was the subject of an investigation , as it would be improper for him to do so . CNN was proven drastically wrong when Comey released his prepared testimony , complete with the confirmation that he assured the president that he was not under FBI investigation . A number of media outlets , including The New York Times , CNN , ABC News , and the Associated Press spent the year perpetuating a false claim Hillary Clinton made during the 2016 presidential debates . Each outlet incorrectly reported that “ all 17 intelligence agencies ” agreed that Russia meddled in the election . The truth is only four intelligence agencies evaluated and made judgments about Russian interference because the rest , like the Department of Energy and the Drug Enforcement Agency , have little authority on the matter . NBC News published what the network hyped as a “ potential bombshell ” in September . Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort ’ s notes from the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer contained the word “ donations ” near a reference to the Republican National Committee , the network reported . NBC began walking back the anonymously sourced story almost immediately , before a report in Politico debunked the “ bombshell ” altogether . Despite what NBC ’ s sources told the network , the word “ donations ” did not appear in Manafort ’ s notes , which weren ’ t considered to be damaging to the Trump team at all . In August , The New York Times “ obtained ” and published a draft of the National Climate Assessment ( NCA ) , quoting anonymous scientists who feared “ the Trump administration could change or suppress the report. ” There ’ s just one problem : despite the paper ’ s fear mongering , the draft report had already been publicly available for months . Reports about “ fake news ” on Twitter turned out to be fake news themselves . CNN reported that “ fake news ” was higher in swing states , citing a study from the Oxford Internet Institute . However , the researchers in the study never talked about “ fake news , ” but rather “ junk news ” that apparently comes from mainstream conservative outlets like the Washington Examiner .

Establishment journalists claim that the Trump era has produced a “golden age” of journalism, but media coverage in 2017 was plagued with errors and “bombshells” that turned out to be anything but. CNN Twists Innocent Don Jr. Email Into A Scandal CNN botched a major story in December when they alleged that Donald Trump Jr. was colluding with Wikileaks over stolen documents. CNN reported that a man named Mike Erickson emailed Trump Jr. on Sept. 4, 2016 with a link to Wikileaks documents and the decryption key needed to access them. The network hyped the story as a major development in the Russia investigation. However, a copy of the email given to The Daily Caller showed that it was actually sent on Sept. 14, 2016, after the stolen documents had already been leaked to the general public. Furthermore, Erickson has no apparent ties to Wikileaks or Russia. The Washington Post identified him as the president of an aviation management company. To this day, CNN has yet to explain how two different anonymous sources fed the network the wrong date. WATCH: New York Times’ ‘Almost Entirely Wrong’ Russia Report The New York Times had to “look into” its own fake news when former FBI director James Comey questioned its reporting. The NYT claimed that U.S. intelligence officials intercepted communications between the Trump campaign and senior Russian intelligence officials in the year leading up to the election. Comey called the reporting “almost entirely wrong” and warned media outlets about relying on sources who don’t have a full understanding of “what’s going on.” WATCH: CNN’s Pathetic Putin Prediction In the week leading up to the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany in July, CNN anchors reported that President Trump would not be confronting Russian President Vladimir Putin about his country’s meddling in American elections. The CNN report — which relied on a single, anonymous source — turned out to be dead wrong. WATCH: ABC’s Flynn Misreporting Causes Drop In Stock Market An ABC News reporting error resulted in a stock market panic and the suspension of reporter Brian Ross earlier this month. Ross reported that former national security adviser Mike Flynn was prepared to testify that candidate Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians. Hours later, ABC clarified that Flynn wasn’t asked to contact Russia until after the election, during the Trump team’s transition period. The story quickly fizzled from Trump-Russia collusion to standard preparation for an incoming presidential administration. WATCH: The Mooch Gets An Apology From CNN Three CNN employees resigned over a poorly-sourced story on the Trump transition team in June. Relying on a single, unnamed congressional source, CNN claimed that Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation over a meeting with a Russian banker that took place shortly before Trump’s inauguration. CNN retracted the story and apologized to Scaramucci after multiple parts of the report were proven to be inaccurate. (RELATED: 7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017) Bloomberg Botches Its Deutsche Bank Scoop Bloomberg News was forced to correct a bombshell report in December that claimed Special Counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records related to President Trump and his family. The story claimed that Mueller had “zeroed in” on Trump. Bloomberg later corrected the report, noting that the bank records “pertain to people affiliated” with Trump, not the president himself. CNN Quietly Walks Back Sessions ‘Scandal’ CNN broke another flawed bombshell in May. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, while applying for his security clearance, had failed to disclose two meetings with then-Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak. CNN described the story as “the latest example of Sessions failing to disclose contacts he had with Russian officials.” CNN quietly walked back the scoop seven months later, noting that the FBI specifically told Sessions he wasn’t required to disclose the meetings. In other words: CNN’s report excoriated Sessions for simply following protocol. WATCH: Republicans Did (NOT) Fund The Dossier Journalists at multiple outlets, specifically CNN, consistently pushed the false claim that Republican donors had originally funded the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. Republican donor Paul Singer funded the firm behind the dossier, Fusion GPS, to conduct opposition research on candidates including Trump during the GOP primary. However, Singer had no involvement in the dossier, which has played a central role in the Trump-Russia narrative. WATCH: Comey Testimony Undermines CNN Reporting As former FBI Director James Comey geared up for a congressional testimony in June, CNN found the perfect opportunity to make some bold — but incorrect — predictions. CNN reported that Comey would testify that he did not tell Trump he was the subject of an investigation, as it would be improper for him to do so. CNN was proven drastically wrong when Comey released his prepared testimony, complete with the confirmation that he assured the president that he was not under FBI investigation. Media Outlets Push ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie A number of media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, and the Associated Press spent the year perpetuating a false claim Hillary Clinton made during the 2016 presidential debates. Each outlet incorrectly reported that “all 17 intelligence agencies” agreed that Russia meddled in the election. The truth is only four intelligence agencies evaluated and made judgments about Russian interference because the rest, like the Department of Energy and the Drug Enforcement Agency, have little authority on the matter. WATCH: NBC’s Nothingburger About Manafort’s Notes NBC News published what the network hyped as a “potential bombshell” in September. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s notes from the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer contained the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee, the network reported. NBC began walking back the anonymously sourced story almost immediately, before a report in Politico debunked the “bombshell” altogether. Despite what NBC’s sources told the network, the word “donations” did not appear in Manafort’s notes, which weren’t considered to be damaging to the Trump team at all. NYT Fear Mongers Over Publicly Available Climate Report In August, The New York Times “obtained” and published a draft of the National Climate Assessment (NCA), quoting anonymous scientists who feared “the Trump administration could change or suppress the report.” There’s just one problem: despite the paper’s fear mongering, the draft report had already been publicly available for months. Reports on ‘Fake News’ Are Actually Fake News Reports about “fake news” on Twitter turned out to be fake news themselves. CNN reported that “fake news” was higher in swing states, citing a study from the Oxford Internet Institute. However, the researchers in the study never talked about “fake news,” but rather “junk news” that apparently comes from mainstream conservative outlets like the Washington Examiner. Follow Amber Athey and Peter Hasson on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

Ea7KU0B0KuFWsO7j

test

JRXydWex3sznr6ll

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/

Hillary In Leaked Email: Saudi Arabia And Qatar Are Funding ISIS Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/#ixzz4Mmzkkldw

2016-10-10

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014 , who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama , that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups , according to a recent Wikileaks release . Clinton sent the email on August 17 , 2014 to Podesta . It was an eight-point plan to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria . Clinton ’ s email said that the United States should support Kurdish forces on the ground with U.S. military advisers and avoid the use of a conventional ground operation . “ While this military/para-military operation is moving forward , we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region , ” Clinton wrote . The former secretary of state added : “ This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [ Kurdish Regional Government ] . The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure . ” The email from Clinton to Podesta contains a similar format of previous intelligence reports Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal would send to the former secretary of state . ███ has previously reported how Clinton had asked aides to remove markings showing Blumenthal wrote the reports before sending them to White House officials . The August 2014 email that pointed the finger at Saudi Arabia and Qatar does not contain any information linking it to Blumenthal in particular and is sent from one of Clinton ’ s personal emails . The batch of Wikileaks emails has not been independently verified by TheDC . However , Clinton and her spokesman Brian Fallon did not dispute the legitimacy of leaked speech transcripts released by Wikileaks at Sunday ’ s debate . TheDC reached out to the Clinton campaign and asked if they dispute the legitimacy of the email , but they have not responded . ███ also emailed Blumenthal asking if he authored the memo , and he also did not respond . Qatar has given between $ 1 million and $ 5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $ 25 million dollars to the Foundation . The Clinton campaign has not replied to a Daily Caller inquiry about whether the Clinton Foundation will return donations from these two nations that , according to Hillary Clinton , fund ISIS . In 2010 , Clinton ’ s top aide said that the up to $ 60 billion weapons transfer of fighter jets and helicopters to Saudi Arabia was a “ top priority. ” The Clinton campaign did not give comment when ███ asked if Hillary was elected would she cede military support to Saudi Arabia and Qatar .

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release. Clinton sent the email on August 17, 2014 to Podesta. It was an eight-point plan to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Clinton’s email said that the United States should support Kurdish forces on the ground with U.S. military advisers and avoid the use of a conventional ground operation. “While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Clinton wrote. The former secretary of state added: “This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [Kurdish Regional Government]. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure.” The email from Clinton to Podesta contains a similar format of previous intelligence reports Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal would send to the former secretary of state. The Daily Caller has previously reported how Clinton had asked aides to remove markings showing Blumenthal wrote the reports before sending them to White House officials. The August 2014 email that pointed the finger at Saudi Arabia and Qatar does not contain any information linking it to Blumenthal in particular and is sent from one of Clinton’s personal emails. The batch of Wikileaks emails has not been independently verified by TheDC. However, Clinton and her spokesman Brian Fallon did not dispute the legitimacy of leaked speech transcripts released by Wikileaks at Sunday’s debate. TheDC reached out to the Clinton campaign and asked if they dispute the legitimacy of the email, but they have not responded. The Daily Caller also emailed Blumenthal asking if he authored the memo, and he also did not respond. Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $25 million dollars to the Foundation. The Clinton campaign has not replied to a Daily Caller inquiry about whether the Clinton Foundation will return donations from these two nations that, according to Hillary Clinton, fund ISIS. In 2010, Clinton’s top aide said that the up to $60 billion weapons transfer of fighter jets and helicopters to Saudi Arabia was a “top priority.” The Clinton campaign did not give comment when The Daily Caller asked if Hillary was elected would she cede military support to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

www.dailycaller.com

right

JRXydWex3sznr6ll

test

Tz0AbvHBKgu76sVR

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cnn/u-s-judge-temporarily-restores-white-house-press-pass-to-cnns-acosta-idUSKCN1NL1XW

US judge temporarily restores White House press pass to CNN's Acosta

2018-11-17

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the White House to temporarily restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta ’ s press pass , which was revoked after a contentious news conference last week with President Donald Trump . The White House withdrew Acosta ’ s credentials on Nov. 7 in an escalation of the Republican president ’ s attacks on news organizations , who he has called enemies of the people . U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly , who is hearing CNN ’ s lawsuit challenging the revocation , said Acosta ’ s credentials must be restored while the network ’ s case is pending . White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that Acosta ’ s credentials would be temporarily restored . “ Let ’ s go back to work , ” Acosta said to reporters after the hearing . But Trump said that “ people have to behave ” and warned of future court action against reporters who do not . “ If they don ’ t listen to the rules and regulations , we ’ ll end up back in court and we ’ ll win , ” Trump said on Friday . “ But more importantly , we ’ ll just leave . And then you won ’ t be very happy , because we do get good ratings . ” CNN said in a statement on Friday that it “ looked forward to a full resolution in the coming days . ” The Justice Department was “ disappointed ” with the court decision , spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement . “ The president has broad authority to regulate access to the White House ... We look forward to continuing to defend the White House ’ s lawful actions , ” Laco said . CNN correspondent Jim Acosta enters the White House grounds though the Northwest Gate as he returns to work covering the White House with CNN Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist ( R ) after a federal court ruling in CNN 's favor led to the return of Acosta 's White House press hard pass in Washington , U.S. November 16 , 2018 . ███/Jonathan Ernst In its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington , CNN said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech , as well as the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through judicial process . The network asked for a temporary restraining order . Judge Kelly , a Trump appointee , did not address the First Amendment ’ s protections for freedom of speech and the press , focusing instead on the due process provision . “ Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government at oral argument could not tell me who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta ’ s press pass , ” Kelly said in his verbal ruling . In court , U.S. government lawyers said there was no First Amendment right of access to the White House and that Acosta was penalized for acting rudely at the conference and not for his criticisms of the president . The judge said Sanders ’ initial statement that Acosta was penalized for touching a White House staffer attempting to remove his microphone was “ likely untrue and at least partly based on evidence that was of questionable accuracy . ” The day after the Nov. 6 congressional elections , Trump erupted into anger during the news conference when Acosta questioned him about the Russia probe and a migrant caravan traveling through Mexico . “ That ’ s enough , that ’ s enough , ” Trump told Acosta , as a White House staffer attempted to take the microphone away from the correspondent . “ You are a rude , terrible person . ” Sanders had accused Acosta of “ placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern ” and of preventing other reporters from asking questions . She called his behavior “ absolutely unacceptable . ” Videos of the encounter show Acosta pulling back as the staffer moved to take the microphone . On Friday , Sanders said the White House “ will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future . There must be decorum at the White House . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday ordered the White House to temporarily restore CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass, which was revoked after a contentious news conference last week with President Donald Trump. The White House withdrew Acosta’s credentials on Nov. 7 in an escalation of the Republican president’s attacks on news organizations, who he has called enemies of the people. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who is hearing CNN’s lawsuit challenging the revocation, said Acosta’s credentials must be restored while the network’s case is pending. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that Acosta’s credentials would be temporarily restored. “Let’s go back to work,” Acosta said to reporters after the hearing. But Trump said that “people have to behave” and warned of future court action against reporters who do not. “If they don’t listen to the rules and regulations, we’ll end up back in court and we’ll win,” Trump said on Friday. “But more importantly, we’ll just leave. And then you won’t be very happy, because we do get good ratings.” CNN said in a statement on Friday that it “looked forward to a full resolution in the coming days.” The Justice Department was “disappointed” with the court decision, spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement. “The president has broad authority to regulate access to the White House ... We look forward to continuing to defend the White House’s lawful actions,” Laco said. CNN correspondent Jim Acosta enters the White House grounds though the Northwest Gate as he returns to work covering the White House with CNN Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist (R) after a federal court ruling in CNN's favor led to the return of Acosta's White House press hard pass in Washington, U.S. November 16, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst In its lawsuit filed on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, CNN said the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through judicial process. The network asked for a temporary restraining order. Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, did not address the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and the press, focusing instead on the due process provision. “Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government at oral argument could not tell me who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta’s press pass,” Kelly said in his verbal ruling. In court, U.S. government lawyers said there was no First Amendment right of access to the White House and that Acosta was penalized for acting rudely at the conference and not for his criticisms of the president. The judge said Sanders’ initial statement that Acosta was penalized for touching a White House staffer attempting to remove his microphone was “likely untrue and at least partly based on evidence that was of questionable accuracy.” The day after the Nov. 6 congressional elections, Trump erupted into anger during the news conference when Acosta questioned him about the Russia probe and a migrant caravan traveling through Mexico. Slideshow (7 Images) “That’s enough, that’s enough,” Trump told Acosta, as a White House staffer attempted to take the microphone away from the correspondent. “You are a rude, terrible person.” Sanders had accused Acosta of “placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern” and of preventing other reporters from asking questions. She called his behavior “absolutely unacceptable.” Videos of the encounter show Acosta pulling back as the staffer moved to take the microphone. On Friday, Sanders said the White House “will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future. There must be decorum at the White House.”

www.reuters.com

center

Tz0AbvHBKgu76sVR

test

hBaAd6RUF8fkER1r

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/women-march-protest-Trump/2017/01/21/id/769734/

Crowds Swamp Washington for Anti-Trump Women's March

2017-01-21

Wearing pink , pointy-eared hats , hundreds of thousands of women took to the streets in the nation 's capital and cities around the world Saturday to send Donald Trump an emphatic message that they wo n't let his agenda go unchallenged over the next four years . `` We march today for the moral core of this nation , against which our new president is waging a war , '' actress America Ferrera told the Washington crowd . `` Our dignity , our character , our rights have all been under attack , and a platform of hate and division assumed power yesterday . But the president is not America . ... We are America , and we are here to stay . '' The turnout in the capital was so big that crowds packed the entire march route , preventing organizers from leading a formal trek toward the White House . Likewise , in Chicago , organizers canceled the march portion of their event for safety reasons after the overflow crowd reached an estimated 150,000 . The women brandished signs with slogans such as `` Women wo n't back down '' and `` Less fear more love '' and decried Trump 's stand on such issues as abortion , health care , gay rights , diversity and climate change . Their message reverberated at demonstrations around the globe , from New York , Philadelphia , Chicago and Los Angeles to Paris , Berlin , London , Prague , Sydney and beyond . Boston professor Garland Waller , 66 , part of the Washington mobilization , said she was `` devastated '' after the election and had to take action . `` I do n't know what to do to make a difference anymore , and this feels like a first step , '' she said . Saskia Coenen Snyder , a teacher at the University of South Carolina who came to a rally in Columbia , said : `` I 'm not sure we could have picked a more irresponsible , misogynistic and dangerous man to be president . '' Officials said the crowd in Washington could be more than half a million people , more than double expectations . The event appeared to have attracted more people than Trump 's inauguration on Friday , based on figures from transportation officials . More than 600 `` sister marches '' were planned around the world , and plenty of men were part of the tableau , too . Organizers estimated 3 million people would march worldwide . Seventy-one-year-old Allan Parachini , who traveled from Hawaii to the Washington march , called it `` the most impressive crowd I 've seen since Woodstock . '' Retired teacher Linda Lastella , 69 , who came to Washington from Metuchen , New Jersey , said she had never marched before but felt the need to speak out when `` many nations are experiencing this same kind of pullback and hateful , hateful attitudes . '' `` It just seemed like we needed to make a very firm stand of where we were , '' she said . As the demonstrators rallied alongside the National Mall , Trump opened his first full day as president by attending a prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral , a tradition for the day after inauguration , and later visited the CIA . As he traveled around town , his motorcade passed large groups of protesters that would have been hard to miss . Marlita Gogan , who came to Washington from Houston for the inauguration , said police advised her family not to wear their `` Make America Great Again Hats '' as they walked through crowds of protesters while playing tourist on Saturday . `` I think it 's very oppressive , '' she said of the march atmosphere . `` They can have their day , but I do n't get it . '' On the streets , feminist leader Gloria Steinem described the worldwide mobilization as `` the upside of the downside : This is an outpouring of energy and democracy like I have never seen in my very long life . '' `` Sometimes we must put our bodies where our beliefs are , '' she told the crowd , labeling Trump an `` impossible president . '' Hillary Clinton , who lost to Trump , took to Twitter to thank the participants for `` standing , speaking and marching for our values . '' The marches displayed a level of enthusiasm that Clinton herself was largely unable to generate during her campaign against Trump , when she won the popular vote but he outdistanced her in the electoral vote . At rallies around the world , many participants wore hand-knit `` pussyhats '' — a message of female empowerment aimed squarely at Trump 's crude boast about grabbing women 's genitals . They `` ai n't for grabbing , '' actress Ashley Judd told the Washington crowd . The marches were a magnet for A-list celebrities , unlike Trump 's inauguration , which had a deficit of top performers . Cher , in the nation 's capital , said Trump 's ascendance has people `` more frightened maybe than they 're ever been . '' In Park City , Utah , it was Charlize Theron leading demonstrators in a chant of `` Love , not hate , makes America great . '' In New York , actresses Helen Mirren and Cynthia Nixon and Whoopi Goldberg joined a crowd of protesters marching to Trump 's local home . Tens of thousands of protesters squeezed into London 's Trafalgar Square . In Paris , thousands rallied in the Eiffel Tower neighborhood in a joyful atmosphere , singing and carrying posters reading `` We have our eyes on you Mr. Trump '' and `` With our sisters in Washington . '' Hundreds gathered in Prague 's Wenceslas Square in freezing weather , mockingly waving portraits of Trump and Russia 's Vladimir Putin . `` We are worried about the way some politicians talk , especially during the American elections , '' said organizer Johanna Nejedlova . In Sydney , thousands of Australians gathered in solidarity in Hyde Park . One organizer said hatred , bigotry and racism are not only America 's problems . The rallies were a peaceful counterpoint to the window-smashing unrest that unfolded on Friday when self-described anarchists tried to disrupt the inauguration . Police used pepper spray and stun grenades against demonstrators . More than 200 people were arrested .

Wearing pink, pointy-eared hats, hundreds of thousands of women took to the streets in the nation's capital and cities around the world Saturday to send Donald Trump an emphatic message that they won't let his agenda go unchallenged over the next four years. "We march today for the moral core of this nation, against which our new president is waging a war," actress America Ferrera told the Washington crowd. "Our dignity, our character, our rights have all been under attack, and a platform of hate and division assumed power yesterday. But the president is not America. ... We are America, and we are here to stay." The turnout in the capital was so big that crowds packed the entire march route, preventing organizers from leading a formal trek toward the White House. Likewise, in Chicago, organizers canceled the march portion of their event for safety reasons after the overflow crowd reached an estimated 150,000. The women brandished signs with slogans such as "Women won't back down" and "Less fear more love" and decried Trump's stand on such issues as abortion, health care, gay rights, diversity and climate change. Their message reverberated at demonstrations around the globe, from New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles to Paris, Berlin, London, Prague, Sydney and beyond. Boston professor Garland Waller, 66, part of the Washington mobilization, said she was "devastated" after the election and had to take action. "I don't know what to do to make a difference anymore, and this feels like a first step," she said. Saskia Coenen Snyder, a teacher at the University of South Carolina who came to a rally in Columbia, said: "I'm not sure we could have picked a more irresponsible, misogynistic and dangerous man to be president." Officials said the crowd in Washington could be more than half a million people, more than double expectations. The event appeared to have attracted more people than Trump's inauguration on Friday, based on figures from transportation officials. More than 600 "sister marches" were planned around the world, and plenty of men were part of the tableau, too. Organizers estimated 3 million people would march worldwide. Seventy-one-year-old Allan Parachini, who traveled from Hawaii to the Washington march, called it "the most impressive crowd I've seen since Woodstock." Retired teacher Linda Lastella, 69, who came to Washington from Metuchen, New Jersey, said she had never marched before but felt the need to speak out when "many nations are experiencing this same kind of pullback and hateful, hateful attitudes." "It just seemed like we needed to make a very firm stand of where we were," she said. As the demonstrators rallied alongside the National Mall, Trump opened his first full day as president by attending a prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral, a tradition for the day after inauguration, and later visited the CIA. As he traveled around town, his motorcade passed large groups of protesters that would have been hard to miss. Marlita Gogan, who came to Washington from Houston for the inauguration, said police advised her family not to wear their "Make America Great Again Hats" as they walked through crowds of protesters while playing tourist on Saturday. "I think it's very oppressive," she said of the march atmosphere. "They can have their day, but I don't get it." On the streets, feminist leader Gloria Steinem described the worldwide mobilization as "the upside of the downside: This is an outpouring of energy and democracy like I have never seen in my very long life." "Sometimes we must put our bodies where our beliefs are," she told the crowd, labeling Trump an "impossible president." Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump, took to Twitter to thank the participants for "standing, speaking and marching for our values." The marches displayed a level of enthusiasm that Clinton herself was largely unable to generate during her campaign against Trump, when she won the popular vote but he outdistanced her in the electoral vote. At rallies around the world, many participants wore hand-knit "pussyhats" — a message of female empowerment aimed squarely at Trump's crude boast about grabbing women's genitals. They "ain't for grabbing," actress Ashley Judd told the Washington crowd. The marches were a magnet for A-list celebrities, unlike Trump's inauguration, which had a deficit of top performers. Cher, in the nation's capital, said Trump's ascendance has people "more frightened maybe than they're ever been." In Park City, Utah, it was Charlize Theron leading demonstrators in a chant of "Love, not hate, makes America great." In New York, actresses Helen Mirren and Cynthia Nixon and Whoopi Goldberg joined a crowd of protesters marching to Trump's local home. Tens of thousands of protesters squeezed into London's Trafalgar Square. In Paris, thousands rallied in the Eiffel Tower neighborhood in a joyful atmosphere, singing and carrying posters reading "We have our eyes on you Mr. Trump" and "With our sisters in Washington." Hundreds gathered in Prague's Wenceslas Square in freezing weather, mockingly waving portraits of Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin. "We are worried about the way some politicians talk, especially during the American elections," said organizer Johanna Nejedlova. In Sydney, thousands of Australians gathered in solidarity in Hyde Park. One organizer said hatred, bigotry and racism are not only America's problems. The rallies were a peaceful counterpoint to the window-smashing unrest that unfolded on Friday when self-described anarchists tried to disrupt the inauguration. Police used pepper spray and stun grenades against demonstrators. More than 200 people were arrested.

www.newsmax.com

right

hBaAd6RUF8fkER1r

test

vMraYNz4WlfOQG5R

national_defense

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-nuclear-deal-bashing-misinformation/story?id=68148374

Trump calls for new nuclear deal while bashing old one with misinformation

Conor Finnegan

Trump calls for new nuclear deal while bashing old one with misinformation It 's unlikely that Iran , or the other world powers , would agree to negotiations . Before President Donald Trump even said `` good morning '' in a televised address responding to Iran 's strikes on U.S. targets , he announced , `` As long as I am president of the United States , Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon . '' It 's an often-repeated line from him , but there was one change in U.S. policy Wednesday : Trump called for other world powers to abandon the nuclear accord , which is barely surviving after he withdrew the U.S. in 2018 and Iran has unraveled its cooperation since 2019 . Instead , Trump urged those countries that remain in the deal to pursue negotiations over a new Iran nuclear deal . But in doing so , he attacked the existing one with misinformation -- and analysts say any new negotiations are unlikely because of Trump 's maximalist approach to Tehran . `` Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism , '' the president said at the White House . `` The time has come for the United Kingdom , Germany , France , Russia and China to recognize this reality . They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal -- or JCPOA -- and we must all work together toward making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place . '' JCPOA stands for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , the nuclear deal 's formal name . Under its terms , the U.S. , other countries and the United Nations agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran accepting restrictions on its nuclear program , including caps on enriched uranium and centrifuges and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency , a nuclear watchdog . Since Trump reimposed sanctions and maximized their enforcement last spring , Iran has taken a series of steps to break those caps -- stockpiling more enriched uranium than the 300 kg limit , enriching uranium higher than than 3.75 % limit and installing more centrifuges than allowed and operating them in facilities not allowed . But America 's European allies in the deal -- the United Kingdom , France and Germany -- have maintained that it is essential because those IAEA inspections continue and Iran has agreed to never pursue a nuclear weapon , especially as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons , or NPT . The Trump administration , however , argues that Tehran can not be trusted to abide by those agreements , with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arguing recently that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium at all . It 's unclear if that is Trump 's position for any potential future negotiations , too . Instead of laying out a road map for talks , Trump took the time on Wednesday to bash the previous deal , saying , `` Iran 's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $ 150 billion , not to mention $ 1.8 billion in cash . '' Trump has made these claims before , but they 're no less false . As part of the deal , which was signed in 2015 , not 2013 , Iran was not given $ 150 billion , but had billions of its assets unfrozen . That figure could have been as high as $ 150 billion , but the U.S. Treasury put it closer to $ 56 billion , while the Central Bank of Iran said it ended up at around $ 35 billion after Iran paid off its debts . The Obama administration did agree to pay $ 1.7 billion to the Iranian government for military equipment that the U.S. government agreed to sell the pro-Western Iranian government in the 1970 's and then never delivered after the 1979 Islamic Revolution . It was part of a larger arbitration in international court that also saw Iran pay more than $ 2.5 billion to American citizens and businesses . As part of that payment , $ 400 million -- the original amount in question -- was paid in cash by the U.S. , with a negotiated interest payment of $ 1.3 billion paid later . Trump went further , however , saying those `` funds made available by the last administration '' were used to pay for `` the missiles fired last night at us and our allies . '' It 's a stinging criticism of his predecessor , essentially accusing President Barack Obama of funding an attack against Americans . Trump 's broader point is that those payments gave Iran more funds for its military and proxy forces like the Shiite militias in Iraq , but it 's also a claim that ca n't be proven . A senior State Department official told ███ on Wednesday that the missiles Iran deployed were `` retro '' and `` not new or unique , '' so perhaps they were made or purchased many years prior to the deal . Trump also claimed the `` very defective JCPOA expires shortly , '' but parts of the deal never expire , including the IAEA inspections , Iran 's signature on the NPT and a commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon . Certain caps on Iran 's enriched uranium stockpile or number of centrifuges do lift and European allies tried to negotiate with Iran and the Trump administration to extend them , but Trump abandoned those efforts and withdrew the U.S . Critics instead argue that Trump 's withdrawal and Iran 's response to break its commitments have sped up those expiration dates . While Iran would not have crossed that 300 kg limit on enriched uranium until 2030 , for example , it has already done that this past July . While Trump expressed optimism for a new negotiation with Iran and a new deal , the chances of that are also low . Iran 's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already said he will not negotiate with Trump , telling Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in June , `` I do n't consider him worthy of even exchanging messages with . ''

Trump calls for new nuclear deal while bashing old one with misinformation It's unlikely that Iran, or the other world powers, would agree to negotiations. Before President Donald Trump even said "good morning" in a televised address responding to Iran's strikes on U.S. targets, he announced, "As long as I am president of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." It's an often-repeated line from him, but there was one change in U.S. policy Wednesday: Trump called for other world powers to abandon the nuclear accord, which is barely surviving after he withdrew the U.S. in 2018 and Iran has unraveled its cooperation since 2019. Instead, Trump urged those countries that remain in the deal to pursue negotiations over a new Iran nuclear deal. But in doing so, he attacked the existing one with misinformation -- and analysts say any new negotiations are unlikely because of Trump's maximalist approach to Tehran. President Donald Trump leaves after speaking about the situation with Iran in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington, Jan. 8, 2020. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images "Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism," the president said at the White House. "The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China to recognize this reality. They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal -- or JCPOA -- and we must all work together toward making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place." JCPOA stands for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal's formal name. Under its terms, the U.S., other countries and the United Nations agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran accepting restrictions on its nuclear program, including caps on enriched uranium and centrifuges and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a nuclear watchdog. Since Trump reimposed sanctions and maximized their enforcement last spring, Iran has taken a series of steps to break those caps -- stockpiling more enriched uranium than the 300 kg limit, enriching uranium higher than than 3.75% limit and installing more centrifuges than allowed and operating them in facilities not allowed. But America's European allies in the deal -- the United Kingdom, France and Germany -- have maintained that it is essential because those IAEA inspections continue and Iran has agreed to never pursue a nuclear weapon, especially as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT. The Trump administration, however, argues that Tehran cannot be trusted to abide by those agreements, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arguing recently that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium at all. It's unclear if that is Trump's position for any potential future negotiations, too. An Iranian nuclear power plant stands March 30, 2005, south of Tehran, in Natanz, Iran. Getty Images, FILE Instead of laying out a road map for talks, Trump took the time on Wednesday to bash the previous deal, saying, "Iran's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash." Trump has made these claims before, but they're no less false. As part of the deal, which was signed in 2015, not 2013, Iran was not given $150 billion, but had billions of its assets unfrozen. That figure could have been as high as $150 billion, but the U.S. Treasury put it closer to $56 billion, while the Central Bank of Iran said it ended up at around $35 billion after Iran paid off its debts. The Obama administration did agree to pay $1.7 billion to the Iranian government for military equipment that the U.S. government agreed to sell the pro-Western Iranian government in the 1970's and then never delivered after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It was part of a larger arbitration in international court that also saw Iran pay more than $2.5 billion to American citizens and businesses. As part of that payment, $400 million -- the original amount in question -- was paid in cash by the U.S., with a negotiated interest payment of $1.3 billion paid later. Trump went further, however, saying those "funds made available by the last administration" were used to pay for "the missiles fired last night at us and our allies." Iranian President Hassan Rouhani sits after speaking at the 74th United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2019, in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images It's a stinging criticism of his predecessor, essentially accusing President Barack Obama of funding an attack against Americans. Trump's broader point is that those payments gave Iran more funds for its military and proxy forces like the Shiite militias in Iraq, but it's also a claim that can't be proven. A senior State Department official told ABC News on Wednesday that the missiles Iran deployed were "retro" and "not new or unique," so perhaps they were made or purchased many years prior to the deal. Trump also claimed the "very defective JCPOA expires shortly," but parts of the deal never expire, including the IAEA inspections, Iran's signature on the NPT and a commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon. Certain caps on Iran's enriched uranium stockpile or number of centrifuges do lift and European allies tried to negotiate with Iran and the Trump administration to extend them, but Trump abandoned those efforts and withdrew the U.S. Critics instead argue that Trump's withdrawal and Iran's response to break its commitments have sped up those expiration dates. While Iran would not have crossed that 300 kg limit on enriched uranium until 2030, for example, it has already done that this past July. While Trump expressed optimism for a new negotiation with Iran and a new deal, the chances of that are also low. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already said he will not negotiate with Trump, telling Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in June, "I don't consider him worthy of even exchanging messages with."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

vMraYNz4WlfOQG5R

test

FVZYiDXbO14YZkAI

fbi

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/july/not-over-yet-fbi-chief-braces-for-congressional-grilling-on-clinton-nbsp

Not Over Yet: FBI Chief Braces for Congressional Grilling on Clinton

2016-07-07

FBI Director James Comey faced heated questions from lawmakers Thursday over the bureau 's decision not file charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for using a personal email server to handle classified information . Comey 's remarks before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are his first public statements since he made that announcement Tuesday . He said there was no evidence that showed Clinton knew what she was doing was illegal or that she lied to federal investigators . At Thursday 's hearing , Comey also said his decision was not a coordinated effort with the White House or anyone else . But Rep. John Mica , R-Fla. , called the timing of the FBI director 's announcement on Tuesday suspicious . It came one week after Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton and a few days after Hillary Clinton testified before the FBI . A few hours after Comey 's announcement on Tuesday , President Barack Obama also joined Clinton on the campaign trail . `` Our folks did it in an apolitical and a professional way , '' Comey insisted of the FBI 's investigation . A number of Republicans implied there was a double standard for filing criminal charges against everyday people as opposed to people in high-level positions like Clinton . `` If your name is n't Clinton , or you 're not part of the powerful elite , then Lady Justice will act differently , '' Rep. Jason Chaffetz , R-Utah , said . He added that the FBI had set a `` dangerous precedent '' in letting her off the hook . Lawmakers wanted to know if Comey had been hearing that argument as well . `` I 've heard it a lot , '' he said . `` It 's not true , but I 've heard it a lot . '' `` I totally get people 's questions , '' he said , but the FBI was obliged to follow the law . `` We do n't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they should n't do , '' Comey said . `` That is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information . ''

FBI Director James Comey faced heated questions from lawmakers Thursday over the bureau's decision not file charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for using a personal email server to handle classified information. Watch CBN News Reporter Caitlin Burke's earlier report above. Comey's remarks before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are his first public statements since he made that announcement Tuesday. He said there was no evidence that showed Clinton knew what she was doing was illegal or that she lied to federal investigators. At Thursday's hearing, Comey also said his decision was not a coordinated effort with the White House or anyone else. But Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., called the timing of the FBI director's announcement on Tuesday suspicious. It came one week after Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton and a few days after Hillary Clinton testified before the FBI. A few hours after Comey's announcement on Tuesday, President Barack Obama also joined Clinton on the campaign trail. "Our folks did it in an apolitical and a professional way," Comey insisted of the FBI's investigation. A number of Republicans implied there was a double standard for filing criminal charges against everyday people as opposed to people in high-level positions like Clinton. "If your name isn't Clinton, or you're not part of the powerful elite, then Lady Justice will act differently," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said. He added that the FBI had set a "dangerous precedent" in letting her off the hook. Lawmakers wanted to know if Comey had been hearing that argument as well. "I've heard it a lot," he said. "It's not true, but I've heard it a lot." "I totally get people's questions," he said, but the FBI was obliged to follow the law. "We don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do," Comey said. "That is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information."

www1.cbn.com

right

FVZYiDXbO14YZkAI

test

wEHml4XpvtOlZwdM

lgbt_rights

Reason

http://reason.com/archives/2018/06/02/when-the-political-became-the

When the Political Became the Personal, Gay Rights Triumphed

2018-06-02

Tyler Koteskey, C.J. Ciaramella, Ira Stoll, Scott Shackford, David Post, Jacob Sullum, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eric Boehm, Ilya Somin, Mike Riggs

The Path to Gay Rights : How Activism and Coming Out Changed Public Opinion , by Jeremiah J. Garretson , NYU Press , 352 pages , $ 35 `` The single most important thing you can do politically for gay rights is to come out , '' declared Barney Frank , who in 1987 was the first member of Congress to exit the closet voluntarily . `` Not to write a letter to your congressman , but to come out . '' How did public support for the legality of same-sex relations double from the 1980s to today ? How did support for both gay marriage and gay adoption grow by more than 20 percent in just two decades ? Jeremiah Garretson tackles these questions in The Path to Gay Rights , a scholarly analysis of the LGBT movement 's success . The book 's narrative is hopeful—it 's a story of how countless personal interactions and individual changes of heart , not elite opinion or legal mandates , drove one of the most remarkable attitudinal shifts in modern history . Garretson traces the history of the gay liberation movement from the aftermath of World War II until the present . His book covers the struggles of the Mattachine Society , one of the first modern `` homophile '' organizations , in opposing the `` lavender scare '' of the early Cold War years—a moral panic that culminated in the government barring homosexuals from federal employment on the grounds that they posed a special security risk due to blackmail concerns . It shows how gay and lesbian enclaves stabilized in certain urban centers , such as San Francisco , Los Angeles , and New York , in the wake of the Stonewall riots . It looks at the social conservative backlash led by the singer Anita Bryant and other evangelical activists , and it documents how the LGBT community forged a sense of common identity in opposition to the persecution . ( In the 1970s , for instance , gay bars boycotted Florida oranges and took the orange juice–based screwdriver off their menus because Bryant was a brand ambassador for the state 's Citrus Commission . ) Building a community helped gays and lesbians win support from the politicians who represented their enclaves , albeit at a still mostly local level . An important early victory came in 1978 , with the defeat of Proposition 6 , the `` Briggs Initiative , '' which would have barred gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools . Meanwhile , nonpolitical gay- and lesbian-themed organizations—from swim clubs to dental referral services—helped integrate more people into the community . All this was the starting point for the LGBT movement . But Garretson argues that the tipping point was , paradoxically , the community 's darkest period : the AIDS crisis , which pushed people out of the closet and into activism in unprecedented numbers . Garretson arrives at this conclusion by way of a theory of `` affective liberalization . '' A person 's view of a social group , he argues , is influenced far more by his or her emotional reaction , or affect , than by facts and logic . As the AIDS crisis propelled more gays and lesbians to live openly , the proportion of Americans who were aware that they knew a member of that group ballooned . A personal connection with a homosexual colleague , friend , or family member—or even just seeing a recurring LGBT character on mainstream TV—helped build sympathy over time . One prevailing misconception among political scientists is that politicians voicing more tolerant views on LGBT issues drove changing attitudes among the general public . Garretson uses decades of survey data and dozens of regression analyses to show that , in fact , greater exposure to gays and lesbians led to more positive attitudes regardless of how much attention a person paid to so-called elite opinion makers . Garretson also makes a strong case that younger generations are more supportive of gay rights not because of their youth per se but because there were more `` out '' people around them during their formative years . While older Americans have grown increasingly sympathetic to this population as they 've come to know gays and lesbians , that new affect still clashes with pre-existing notions forged during the decades when most LGBT people stayed in the closet . Younger Americans are less likely to have such hangups . That does n't mean politics did n't matter . Garretson argues that activism was another important piece of the puzzle . Groups like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power ( ACT UP ) shifted the media narrative and put pressure on government , forcing a national debate around LGBT issues that would not have otherwise materialized . ACT UP and similar groups pressured The New York Times to print more information on the AIDS crisis and staged `` die-ins '' at the Food and Drug Administration to protest the over-regulation that lengthened approval times for anti-AIDS drugs . Groups such as Gay Men 's Health Crisis in New York coupled these external demands with efforts to spread information that would help prevent HIV transmission . For the first time , the general public saw the gay movement not just as victims of persecution but as a community of real people demanding their rights and working to take care of their friends and loved ones during difficult times . In 1992 , presidential candidate Bill Clinton addressed a crowd of LGBT supporters at a campaign rally in Hollywood and promised to support a variety of causes important to them . He dared to attend that event , and broke new ground in doing so , because gays and lesbians had built a group consciousness through their AIDS activism . They had organized enough to become a serious political bloc with something to offer a national coalition . Turning out in large numbers meant politicians had a ███ to compete for LGBT support in primaries . Debates over the military 's `` do n't ask , do n't tell '' policy and the Defense of Marriage Act continued the conversation , prompting more people to come out in a positive feedback loop of increasing public support . The Path to Gay Rights thus lends credence to bottom-up models of social change , showing that the spontaneous order of thousands of individual interactions created the conditions for elites to finally support gay rights , not the other way around . Consciously or not , the book also echoes public choice theory , which argues that political leaders do n't alter their stances simply because a large number of their constituents favor something . Lawmakers did n't automatically change their tune as baseline support for the gay and lesbian community rose in many parts of the country . It took incessant pressure by LGBT interest groups to pressure politicians to take the risk of supporting the protections they sought . For gays and lesbians , as for any other group , nothing moves in politics that is n't pushed . The Path to Gay Rights does n't limit its scope to the United States . Garretson finds that the gap in support for gay rights is far greater between liberal and illiberal countries ( broadly speaking ) than between the left and right in the West . And liberalization is linked to a country 's wealth . People who were born in 1920 have similarly negative views on homosexuality regardless of where they live—but citizens of countries with higher per capita GDPs express significantly more positive views the closer they were born to the present . Similar results appear in countries with greater numbers of influential political parties , and these effects are even stronger in countries with freer presses and more TVs per capita . Building person-to-person empathy was central to LGBT progress . Perhaps that 's how freedom will advance elsewhere as well .

The Path to Gay Rights: How Activism and Coming Out Changed Public Opinion, by Jeremiah J. Garretson, NYU Press, 352 pages, $35 "The single most important thing you can do politically for gay rights is to come out," declared Barney Frank, who in 1987 was the first member of Congress to exit the closet voluntarily. "Not to write a letter to your congressman, but to come out." How did public support for the legality of same-sex relations double from the 1980s to today? How did support for both gay marriage and gay adoption grow by more than 20 percent in just two decades? Jeremiah Garretson tackles these questions in The Path to Gay Rights, a scholarly analysis of the LGBT movement's success. The book's narrative is hopeful—it's a story of how countless personal interactions and individual changes of heart, not elite opinion or legal mandates, drove one of the most remarkable attitudinal shifts in modern history. Garretson traces the history of the gay liberation movement from the aftermath of World War II until the present. His book covers the struggles of the Mattachine Society, one of the first modern "homophile" organizations, in opposing the "lavender scare" of the early Cold War years—a moral panic that culminated in the government barring homosexuals from federal employment on the grounds that they posed a special security risk due to blackmail concerns. It shows how gay and lesbian enclaves stabilized in certain urban centers, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York, in the wake of the Stonewall riots. It looks at the social conservative backlash led by the singer Anita Bryant and other evangelical activists, and it documents how the LGBT community forged a sense of common identity in opposition to the persecution. (In the 1970s, for instance, gay bars boycotted Florida oranges and took the orange juice–based screwdriver off their menus because Bryant was a brand ambassador for the state's Citrus Commission.) Building a community helped gays and lesbians win support from the politicians who represented their enclaves, albeit at a still mostly local level. An important early victory came in 1978, with the defeat of Proposition 6, the "Briggs Initiative," which would have barred gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools. Meanwhile, nonpolitical gay- and lesbian-themed organizations—from swim clubs to dental referral services—helped integrate more people into the community. All this was the starting point for the LGBT movement. But Garretson argues that the tipping point was, paradoxically, the community's darkest period: the AIDS crisis, which pushed people out of the closet and into activism in unprecedented numbers. Garretson arrives at this conclusion by way of a theory of "affective liberalization." A person's view of a social group, he argues, is influenced far more by his or her emotional reaction, or affect, than by facts and logic. As the AIDS crisis propelled more gays and lesbians to live openly, the proportion of Americans who were aware that they knew a member of that group ballooned. A personal connection with a homosexual colleague, friend, or family member—or even just seeing a recurring LGBT character on mainstream TV—helped build sympathy over time. One prevailing misconception among political scientists is that politicians voicing more tolerant views on LGBT issues drove changing attitudes among the general public. Garretson uses decades of survey data and dozens of regression analyses to show that, in fact, greater exposure to gays and lesbians led to more positive attitudes regardless of how much attention a person paid to so-called elite opinion makers. Garretson also makes a strong case that younger generations are more supportive of gay rights not because of their youth per se but because there were more "out" people around them during their formative years. While older Americans have grown increasingly sympathetic to this population as they've come to know gays and lesbians, that new affect still clashes with pre-existing notions forged during the decades when most LGBT people stayed in the closet. Younger Americans are less likely to have such hangups. That doesn't mean politics didn't matter. Garretson argues that activism was another important piece of the puzzle. Groups like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) shifted the media narrative and put pressure on government, forcing a national debate around LGBT issues that would not have otherwise materialized. ACT UP and similar groups pressured The New York Times to print more information on the AIDS crisis and staged "die-ins" at the Food and Drug Administration to protest the over-regulation that lengthened approval times for anti-AIDS drugs. Groups such as Gay Men's Health Crisis in New York coupled these external demands with efforts to spread information that would help prevent HIV transmission. For the first time, the general public saw the gay movement not just as victims of persecution but as a community of real people demanding their rights and working to take care of their friends and loved ones during difficult times. In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton addressed a crowd of LGBT supporters at a campaign rally in Hollywood and promised to support a variety of causes important to them. He dared to attend that event, and broke new ground in doing so, because gays and lesbians had built a group consciousness through their AIDS activism. They had organized enough to become a serious political bloc with something to offer a national coalition. Turning out in large numbers meant politicians had a reason to compete for LGBT support in primaries. Debates over the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the Defense of Marriage Act continued the conversation, prompting more people to come out in a positive feedback loop of increasing public support. The Path to Gay Rights thus lends credence to bottom-up models of social change, showing that the spontaneous order of thousands of individual interactions created the conditions for elites to finally support gay rights, not the other way around. Consciously or not, the book also echoes public choice theory, which argues that political leaders don't alter their stances simply because a large number of their constituents favor something. Lawmakers didn't automatically change their tune as baseline support for the gay and lesbian community rose in many parts of the country. It took incessant pressure by LGBT interest groups to pressure politicians to take the risk of supporting the protections they sought. For gays and lesbians, as for any other group, nothing moves in politics that isn't pushed. The Path to Gay Rights doesn't limit its scope to the United States. Garretson finds that the gap in support for gay rights is far greater between liberal and illiberal countries (broadly speaking) than between the left and right in the West. And liberalization is linked to a country's wealth. People who were born in 1920 have similarly negative views on homosexuality regardless of where they live—but citizens of countries with higher per capita GDPs express significantly more positive views the closer they were born to the present. Similar results appear in countries with greater numbers of influential political parties, and these effects are even stronger in countries with freer presses and more TVs per capita. Building person-to-person empathy was central to LGBT progress. Perhaps that's how freedom will advance elsewhere as well.

www.reason.com

right

wEHml4XpvtOlZwdM

test

Q2lc5ASAuQAGYjsO

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-emoluments/u-s-judge-refuses-to-toss-suit-against-trump-on-foreign-payments-idUSKBN1H42VK

U.S. judge refuses to toss suit against Trump on foreign payments

2018-03-28

Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump ’ s legal troubles deepened on Wednesday as a federal judge refused to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by maintaining ownership of his business empire while in office . U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt , Maryland allowed the lawsuit filed by Maryland and District of Columbia to proceed , rejecting a Justice Department request that it be dismissed . The judge , however , narrowed the claims to include only those involving the Trump International Hotel in Washington and not Trump ’ s businesses outside of the U.S. capital . A U.S. judge in Manhattan in December threw out a similar lawsuit against Trump brought by another group of plaintiffs . Both lawsuits accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution ’ s “ emoluments ” provisions designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence . One bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other emoluments from foreign governments without congressional approval . The other forbids the president from receiving emoluments from individual states . If the lawsuit presided over by Messitte continues to move forward , the plaintiffs have indicated they would seek a number of documents related to the president , including his tax returns , which Trump has refused to release . The lawsuit , filed last June , said the Republican president has failed to disentangle himself from his hotels and other businesses , making him vulnerable to inducements by officials seeking to curry favor . Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh , a Democrat , said in an interview he was pleased with the judge ’ s action . “ It demonstrates that Donald Trump is not above the law , that he like every other federal employee is governed by the emoluments clause , the original anti-corruption law of the United States . And we intend to hold him accountable , ” Frosh said . Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said , “ As we argued , we believe this case should be dismissed , and we will continue to defend the president in court . ” As part of the suit , the District of Columbia and Maryland said their local residents who compete with Trump ’ s businesses like Trump International Hotel are harmed by decreased patronage , wages and tips . Trump ’ s attorneys said such claims were speculative and raised doubts that any harm to competition could be traced directly to Trump ’ s status as president . Messitte rejected that view , saying the plaintiffs ’ allegations were sufficient to allow the case to proceed . “ Their allegation is bolstered by explicit statements from certain foreign government officials indicating that they are clearly choosing to stay at the president ’ s hotel , because , as one representative of a foreign government has stated , they want him to know ‘ I love your new hotel , ’ ” the judge wrote . Messitte also noted that since the 2016 presidential election , “ foreign governments have indisputably transferred business from the Four Seasons and Ritz Carlton hotels in the District to the President ’ s Hotel . ” Trump ’ s legal woes are mounting . His lead lawyer in the intensifying special counsel investigation into Russia ’ s role in the 2016 presidential election resigned last week . A New York state judge last week allowed a defamation lawsuit by a woman who accused Trump of sexually harassing her after she appeared on his former reality TV show to proceed . He also is facing lawsuits from adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal arising from affairs they said they had with the president . Trump , a wealthy real estate developer who as president regularly visits his own hotels , resorts and golf clubs , has ceded day-to-day control of his businesses to his sons . Critics have said that is not a sufficient safeguard . This undermines democracy , the suit said , because Americans can not be sure if Trump is acting in their best interest , or “ international and domestic business dealings in which President Trump ’ s personal fortune is at stake . ” The suit said Trump had received millions of dollars in payments and benefits through leases of Trump properties held by foreign government entities , the purchase of condominiums in Trump properties , as well as hotel accommodations , restaurant purchases and the use of venues for events by foreign governments and diplomats . Messitte ’ s action contrasts with that of U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan , who threw out the similar case filed by a nonprofit watchdog group , a hotel owner , a hotel events booker and a restaurant trade group . Daniels said the claims were speculative and that the U.S. Congress was the proper place to hold the president to account .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s legal troubles deepened on Wednesday as a federal judge refused to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by maintaining ownership of his business empire while in office. U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland allowed the lawsuit filed by Maryland and District of Columbia to proceed, rejecting a Justice Department request that it be dismissed. The judge, however, narrowed the claims to include only those involving the Trump International Hotel in Washington and not Trump’s businesses outside of the U.S. capital. A U.S. judge in Manhattan in December threw out a similar lawsuit against Trump brought by another group of plaintiffs. Both lawsuits accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” provisions designed to prevent corruption and foreign influence. One bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other emoluments from foreign governments without congressional approval. The other forbids the president from receiving emoluments from individual states. If the lawsuit presided over by Messitte continues to move forward, the plaintiffs have indicated they would seek a number of documents related to the president, including his tax returns, which Trump has refused to release. The lawsuit, filed last June, said the Republican president has failed to disentangle himself from his hotels and other businesses, making him vulnerable to inducements by officials seeking to curry favor. Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, said in an interview he was pleased with the judge’s action. “It demonstrates that Donald Trump is not above the law, that he like every other federal employee is governed by the emoluments clause, the original anti-corruption law of the United States. And we intend to hold him accountable,” Frosh said. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said, “As we argued, we believe this case should be dismissed, and we will continue to defend the president in court.” As part of the suit, the District of Columbia and Maryland said their local residents who compete with Trump’s businesses like Trump International Hotel are harmed by decreased patronage, wages and tips. FILE PHOTO: Flags fly above the entrance to the new Trump International Hotel on its opening day in Washington, DC, U.S. on September 12, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo Trump’s attorneys said such claims were speculative and raised doubts that any harm to competition could be traced directly to Trump’s status as president. Messitte rejected that view, saying the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to allow the case to proceed. “Their allegation is bolstered by explicit statements from certain foreign government officials indicating that they are clearly choosing to stay at the president’s hotel, because, as one representative of a foreign government has stated, they want him to know ‘I love your new hotel,’” the judge wrote. Messitte also noted that since the 2016 presidential election, “foreign governments have indisputably transferred business from the Four Seasons and Ritz Carlton hotels in the District to the President’s Hotel.” LEGAL WOES Trump’s legal woes are mounting. His lead lawyer in the intensifying special counsel investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election resigned last week. A New York state judge last week allowed a defamation lawsuit by a woman who accused Trump of sexually harassing her after she appeared on his former reality TV show to proceed. He also is facing lawsuits from adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal arising from affairs they said they had with the president. Trump, a wealthy real estate developer who as president regularly visits his own hotels, resorts and golf clubs, has ceded day-to-day control of his businesses to his sons. Critics have said that is not a sufficient safeguard. This undermines democracy, the suit said, because Americans cannot be sure if Trump is acting in their best interest, or “international and domestic business dealings in which President Trump’s personal fortune is at stake.” FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump takes part in a forum called Generation Next at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, U.S., March 22, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo The suit said Trump had received millions of dollars in payments and benefits through leases of Trump properties held by foreign government entities, the purchase of condominiums in Trump properties, as well as hotel accommodations, restaurant purchases and the use of venues for events by foreign governments and diplomats. Messitte’s action contrasts with that of U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan, who threw out the similar case filed by a nonprofit watchdog group, a hotel owner, a hotel events booker and a restaurant trade group. Daniels said the claims were speculative and that the U.S. Congress was the proper place to hold the president to account.

www.reuters.com

center

Q2lc5ASAuQAGYjsO

test

DzjvynEoF9SAym32

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-hollywood/dig-up-trumps-hollywood-walk-of-fame-star-councilors-urge-idUSKBN1KS1KH

Dig up Trump's Hollywood Walk of Fame star, councilors urge

2018-08-07

( ███ ) - Two men with pickaxes have tried and failed to remove U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s star from the Hollywood Walk of Fame but now it is West Hollywood City Council ’ s turn . The councilors voted unanimously on Monday evening for getting rid of the brass and terrazzo star , embedded in the landmark stretch of a tourist-thronged Los Angeles sidewalk . The vote is largely symbolic : the council has no jurisdiction over the Walk of Fame in neighboring Hollywood , and voted only to urge the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce , which runs the attraction , to remove it . The star has become the setting for various anti-Trump protests since the maverick Republican announced his presidential run in 2015 , and has been pulverized twice by men with heavy tools , only to be swiftly repaired . In passing its resolution , which was announced by West Hollywood Mayor John Duran , the council said the man honored by the star does not reflect the values of West Hollywood , one of the country ’ s most liberal corners . The resolution cited allegations by several women who claim that Trump sexually harassed them , which he has denied . It also pointed out his policy , recently scrapped , of splitting up asylum-seeking migrant families at the U.S. border with Mexico . The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has never removed a star from the Walk of Fame , which honors celebrities from the entertainment industry , and has flatly rebuffed calls to strip the honor from any of the recent spate of powerful men accused of sexual misconduct . “ As of now , there are no plans to remove any stars from the Hollywood Walk of Fame , ” Leron Gubler , the chamber president , said in a statement , according to NBC News . The council ’ s request would be considered at the chamber ’ s next meeting , he said . A committee considers nominations once a year for celebrities to be added to the Walk of Fame , and currently charges the nominee ’ s sponsor $ 40,000 for the honor . Trump ’ s star was added in 2007 in recognition of his television work prior to his entry into politics , including his hosting of the NBC show “ The Apprentice ” and his producing of the Miss Universe beauty pageants .

(Reuters) - Two men with pickaxes have tried and failed to remove U.S. President Donald Trump’s star from the Hollywood Walk of Fame but now it is West Hollywood City Council’s turn. The councilors voted unanimously on Monday evening for getting rid of the brass and terrazzo star, embedded in the landmark stretch of a tourist-thronged Los Angeles sidewalk. The vote is largely symbolic: the council has no jurisdiction over the Walk of Fame in neighboring Hollywood, and voted only to urge the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which runs the attraction, to remove it. The star has become the setting for various anti-Trump protests since the maverick Republican announced his presidential run in 2015, and has been pulverized twice by men with heavy tools, only to be swiftly repaired. In passing its resolution, which was announced by West Hollywood Mayor John Duran, the council said the man honored by the star does not reflect the values of West Hollywood, one of the country’s most liberal corners. The resolution cited allegations by several women who claim that Trump sexually harassed them, which he has denied. It also pointed out his policy, recently scrapped, of splitting up asylum-seeking migrant families at the U.S. border with Mexico. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has never removed a star from the Walk of Fame, which honors celebrities from the entertainment industry, and has flatly rebuffed calls to strip the honor from any of the recent spate of powerful men accused of sexual misconduct. Slideshow (4 Images) “As of now, there are no plans to remove any stars from the Hollywood Walk of Fame,” Leron Gubler, the chamber president, said in a statement, according to NBC News. The council’s request would be considered at the chamber’s next meeting, he said. A committee considers nominations once a year for celebrities to be added to the Walk of Fame, and currently charges the nominee’s sponsor $40,000 for the honor. Trump’s star was added in 2007 in recognition of his television work prior to his entry into politics, including his hosting of the NBC show “The Apprentice” and his producing of the Miss Universe beauty pageants.

www.reuters.com

center

DzjvynEoF9SAym32

test

AU49C3ejI3DSRX3d

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ted-cruz-dc-abortion-gay-rights/2015/03/19/id/631095/

Ted Cruz Moves to Block DC Laws on Gay Rights, Abortion

2015-03-19

Elliot Jager

Republican Sens . Ted Cruz of Texas and James Lankford of Oklahoma have introduced a resolution to overturn two laws pertaining to abortion and gay rights passed by the Washington , D.C. , council and signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser , The Washington Post reported.The lawmakers said the local laws violate religious freedom.The Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 would apply gay nondiscrimination laws to religiously affiliated educational institutions , and the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 would prevent faith institutions from taking action against workers who have abortions.The city council has since amended the abortion law to explain that employers may refuse insurance coverage for abortions and contraception that they oppose because of religious principles , the Post reported.All D.C. laws are subject to a mandatory 30-day review period by Congress.Lankford said in a statement that `` what the D.C. Council has done is a major threat to the fundamental right to religious freedom for D.C. residents and organizations , and a brazen display of intolerance . `` The Supreme Court had affirmed that some employers are exempted from paying for birth control under Obamacare when doing so conflicts with their religious tenets , he said.Kimberly Perry , who leads the lobbying group D.C. Vote , said : `` Senators Cruz and Lankford 's move to disapprove a local District law is absurd and hypocritical . They are now guilty of the same federal overreach they often criticize in others , '' the Post reported.A number of religious groups , among them representatives of the Family Research Council and the Archdiocese of Washington have called on Congress to disapprove of the D.C. laws on the grounds that they infringe upon constitutional protections of religious freedom.Cruz is a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination . A Southern Baptist , he is popular among social conservatives . Lankford trained as a Baptist minister and was a two-term congressman before winning his Senate seat in November.Congress has until April 17 to overturn the D.C. laws . In the unlikely event that happens the bill would still — more improbably — have to be signed by President Barack Obama , according to Roll Call .

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and James Lankford of Oklahoma have introduced a resolution to overturn two laws pertaining to abortion and gay rights passed by the Washington, D.C., council and signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser, The Washington Post reported.The lawmakers said the local laws violate religious freedom.The Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014 would apply gay nondiscrimination laws to religiously affiliated educational institutions, and the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 would prevent faith institutions from taking action against workers who have abortions.The city council has since amended the abortion law to explain that employers may refuse insurance coverage for abortions and contraception that they oppose because of religious principles, the Post reported.All D.C. laws are subject to a mandatory 30-day review period by Congress.Lankford said in a statement that "what the D.C. Council has done is a major threat to the fundamental right to religious freedom for D.C. residents and organizations, and a brazen display of intolerance."The Supreme Court had affirmed that some employers are exempted from paying for birth control under Obamacare when doing so conflicts with their religious tenets, he said.Kimberly Perry, who leads the lobbying group D.C. Vote, said: "Senators Cruz and Lankford's move to disapprove a local District law is absurd and hypocritical. They are now guilty of the same federal overreach they often criticize in others," the Post reported.A number of religious groups, among them representatives of the Family Research Council and the Archdiocese of Washington have called on Congress to disapprove of the D.C. laws on the grounds that they infringe upon constitutional protections of religious freedom.Cruz is a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. A Southern Baptist, he is popular among social conservatives. Lankford trained as a Baptist minister and was a two-term congressman before winning his Senate seat in November.Congress has until April 17 to overturn the D.C. laws. In the unlikely event that happens the bill would still — more improbably — have to be signed by President Barack Obama, according to Roll Call.

www.newsmax.com

right

AU49C3ejI3DSRX3d

test

HSWMiuRX96BFdOtw

banking_and_finance

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/364dacbac77cbe30447c49dfb98ef285

GOP senators give Democrats’ $3T relief bill a cold shoulder

2020-05-13

Lisa Mascaro, Andrew Taylor

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. , speaks about the so-called Heroes Act , Tuesday , May 12 , 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington . Pelosi unveiled a more than $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package Tuesday , providing nearly $ 1 trillion for states and cities , “ hazard pay ” for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals . ( Saul Loeb/Pool via AP ) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. , speaks about the so-called Heroes Act , Tuesday , May 12 , 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington . Pelosi unveiled a more than $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package Tuesday , providing nearly $ 1 trillion for states and cities , “ hazard pay ” for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals . ( Saul Loeb/Pool via AP ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a more than $ 3 trillion coronavirus aid package , a sweeping effort with $ 1 trillion for states and cities , “ hazard pay ” for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals . The House is expected to vote on the package as soon as Friday . But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said there is no “ urgency. ” The Senate will wait until after Memorial Day to consider options . “ We must think big , for the people , now , ” Pelosi said Tuesday from the speaker ’ s office at the Capitol . Lines drawn , the latest pandemic response from Congress will test the House and Senate — and President Donald Trump — as Washington navigates the extraordinary crisis with the nation ’ s health and economic security at stake . The Democrats ’ Heroes Act is built around nearly $ 1 trillion for states , cities and tribal governments to avert layoffs , focused chiefly on $ 375 billion for smaller suburban and rural municipalities largely left out of earlier bills . The bill will offer a fresh round of $ 1,200 direct cash aid to individuals , increased to up to $ 6,000 per household , and launches a $ 175 billion housing assistance fund to help pay rents and mortgages . There is $ 75 billion more for virus testing . It would continue , through January , the $ 600-per-week boost to unemployment benefits . It adds a 15 % increase for food stamps , new subsidies for laid-off workers to pay health insurance premiums under a COBRA law and a special “ Obamacare ” sign-up period . For businesses , it provides an employee retention tax credit . There ’ s $ 200 billion in “ hazard pay ” for essential workers on the front lines of the crisis . Pelosi drew on U.S. history — and poetry — to suggest “ no man is an island ” as she called on Americans to respond to the crisis with a strategy of science , virus testing and empathy . “ There are those who said , ‘ Let ’ s just pause , ’ ” she said . “ Hunger doesn ’ t take a pause . Rent doesn ’ t take a pause . Bills don ’ t take a pause . ” But the 1,800-page package is heading straight into a Senate roadblock . Republicans are wary of another round of aid and McConnell declared the Democratic proposal a grab bag of “ pet priorities. ” He said Tuesday it is not something that “ deals with reality . ” House Republicans also took a pass . “ I can ’ t believe that that would be real , ” said Rep. Andy Biggs , R-Ariz. , leader of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus , said in an interview . This would be the fifth coronavirus package . It ’ s a starkly partisan offering with no real input from Republicans , who prefer to assess the impact of earlier expenditures before approving more . But the political peril of doing nothing during an election year could prove challenging for Congress and the White House . As states experience flareups of virus outbreaks , and more than 30 million Americans remain unemployed in the shutdown , the near-term health and economic outlook remains daunting . The Senate Democratic leader , Chuck Schumer of New York , warned that Trump and Republicans risk the same path as Herbert Hoover , the former president roundly criticized for failing to act to stem the Great Depression . “ What is it going to take for Mitch McConnell to wake up and see the American people need help , and they need it now ? ” Schumer said . The latest package extends some provisions from previous aid packages , and adds new ones . There is $ 25 billion for the U.S . Postal Service . There is help for the 2020 Census , including the bureau ’ s request to delay deadlines for turning over apportionment and redistricting data . For the November election , the bill provides $ 3.6 billion to help local officials prepare for the challenges of voting during the pandemic . The popular Payroll Protection Program , which has been boosted in past bills , would see another $ 10 billion to ensure under-served businesses and nonprofit organizations have access to grants through a disaster loan program . For hospitals and other health care providers , there ’ s another $ 100 billion infusion to help cover costs and additional help for hospitals serving low-income communities . There ’ s another $ 600 million in funding to tackle the issue of rapid spread of the virus in state and federal prisons , along with $ 600 million in help to local police departments for salaries and equipment McConnell said he is working with the White House on next steps . His priority is to ensure any new package includes liability protections for health care providers and businesses that are reopening . Trump is expected to meet Tuesday with a group of Senate Republicans . “ I don ’ t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately , ” McConnell told reporters earlier this week at the Capitol . As states weigh the health risks of re-opening , McConnell said Tuesday the nation needs to find a “ middle ground between total lockdown and total normalcy . ” Top GOP senators flatly rejected the House bill . “ What Nancy Pelosi is proposing will never pass the Senate , ” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming , the third-ranking Republican . The Senate recently reopened its side of the Capitol while the House remains largely shuttered due to the health concerns . Senators have been in session since last week , voting on Trump ’ s nominees for judicial and executive branch positions and other issues . The Senate majority , the 53-member Senate Republican conference , is meeting for its regular luncheons most days , spread out three to a table for social distance . Democrats are convening by phone . Many senators , but not all , are wearing masks . At least a dozen Capitol police officers and other staff have tested positive for the virus , and at least one senator , Lamar Alexander of Tennessee , is in isolation at home after exposure from a staff member who tested positive . Other lawmakers have cycled in and out of quarantine .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks about the so-called Heroes Act, Tuesday, May 12, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington. Pelosi unveiled a more than $3 trillion coronavirus aid package Tuesday, providing nearly $1 trillion for states and cities, “hazard pay” for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals. (Saul Loeb/Pool via AP) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks about the so-called Heroes Act, Tuesday, May 12, 2020 on Capitol Hill in Washington. Pelosi unveiled a more than $3 trillion coronavirus aid package Tuesday, providing nearly $1 trillion for states and cities, “hazard pay” for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals. (Saul Loeb/Pool via AP) WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a more than $3 trillion coronavirus aid package, a sweeping effort with $1 trillion for states and cities, “hazard pay” for essential workers and a new round of cash payments to individuals. The House is expected to vote on the package as soon as Friday. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said there is no “urgency.” The Senate will wait until after Memorial Day to consider options. “We must think big, for the people, now,” Pelosi said Tuesday from the speaker’s office at the Capitol. “Not acting is the most expensive course,” she said. Lines drawn, the latest pandemic response from Congress will test the House and Senate — and President Donald Trump — as Washington navigates the extraordinary crisis with the nation’s health and economic security at stake. The Democrats’ Heroes Act is built around nearly $1 trillion for states, cities and tribal governments to avert layoffs, focused chiefly on $375 billion for smaller suburban and rural municipalities largely left out of earlier bills. The bill will offer a fresh round of $1,200 direct cash aid to individuals, increased to up to $6,000 per household, and launches a $175 billion housing assistance fund to help pay rents and mortgages. There is $75 billion more for virus testing. It would continue, through January, the $600-per-week boost to unemployment benefits. It adds a 15% increase for food stamps, new subsidies for laid-off workers to pay health insurance premiums under a COBRA law and a special “Obamacare” sign-up period. For businesses, it provides an employee retention tax credit. There’s $200 billion in “hazard pay” for essential workers on the front lines of the crisis. Pelosi drew on U.S. history — and poetry — to suggest “no man is an island” as she called on Americans to respond to the crisis with a strategy of science, virus testing and empathy. “There are those who said, ‘Let’s just pause,’” she said. “Hunger doesn’t take a pause. Rent doesn’t take a pause. Bills don’t take a pause.” But the 1,800-page package is heading straight into a Senate roadblock. Republicans are wary of another round of aid and McConnell declared the Democratic proposal a grab bag of “pet priorities.” He said Tuesday it is not something that “deals with reality.” House Republicans also took a pass. “I can’t believe that that would be real,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., leader of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview. This would be the fifth coronavirus package. It’s a starkly partisan offering with no real input from Republicans, who prefer to assess the impact of earlier expenditures before approving more. But the political peril of doing nothing during an election year could prove challenging for Congress and the White House. As states experience flareups of virus outbreaks, and more than 30 million Americans remain unemployed in the shutdown, the near-term health and economic outlook remains daunting. The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, warned that Trump and Republicans risk the same path as Herbert Hoover, the former president roundly criticized for failing to act to stem the Great Depression. “What is it going to take for Mitch McConnell to wake up and see the American people need help, and they need it now?” Schumer said. The latest package extends some provisions from previous aid packages, and adds new ones. There is $25 billion for the U.S. Postal Service. There is help for the 2020 Census, including the bureau’s request to delay deadlines for turning over apportionment and redistricting data. For the November election, the bill provides $3.6 billion to help local officials prepare for the challenges of voting during the pandemic. The popular Payroll Protection Program, which has been boosted in past bills, would see another $10 billion to ensure under-served businesses and nonprofit organizations have access to grants through a disaster loan program. For hospitals and other health care providers, there’s another $100 billion infusion to help cover costs and additional help for hospitals serving low-income communities. There’s another $600 million in funding to tackle the issue of rapid spread of the virus in state and federal prisons, along with $600 million in help to local police departments for salaries and equipment McConnell said he is working with the White House on next steps. His priority is to ensure any new package includes liability protections for health care providers and businesses that are reopening. Trump is expected to meet Tuesday with a group of Senate Republicans. “I don’t think we have yet felt the urgency of acting immediately,” McConnell told reporters earlier this week at the Capitol. As states weigh the health risks of re-opening, McConnell said Tuesday the nation needs to find a “middle ground between total lockdown and total normalcy.” Top GOP senators flatly rejected the House bill. “What Nancy Pelosi is proposing will never pass the Senate,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the third-ranking Republican. The Senate recently reopened its side of the Capitol while the House remains largely shuttered due to the health concerns. Senators have been in session since last week, voting on Trump’s nominees for judicial and executive branch positions and other issues. The Senate majority, the 53-member Senate Republican conference, is meeting for its regular luncheons most days, spread out three to a table for social distance. Democrats are convening by phone. Many senators, but not all, are wearing masks. At least a dozen Capitol police officers and other staff have tested positive for the virus, and at least one senator, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, is in isolation at home after exposure from a staff member who tested positive. Other lawmakers have cycled in and out of quarantine. __ Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Matthew Daly and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington, Nick Riccardi in Denver, Colo., and Michael Schneider in Orlando, Fla., contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

HSWMiuRX96BFdOtw

test

jBzV9CIREyPczW6T

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/06/24/fncs-carlson-the-mob-is-an-arm-of-the-democratic-establishment/

FNC’s Carlson: ‘The Mob Is an Arm of the Democratic Establishment’

2020-06-24

Jeff Poor

Fox News Channel ’ s Tucker Carlson opened his Tuesday program by questioning why the “ mob ” that is behind vandalism and destruction of private and public property has a different standard applied to it than other crimes . Carlson pointed to how the Department of Justice and FBI investigated the alleged “ hate crime ” at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama compared to alleged crimes committed by the mob . Carlson argued the apparent conclusion was the “ mob ” was an arm of the Democratic Party ’ s establishment . These scenes with unity . Unfortunately , no one covering this story ever bothered to ask the obvious questions , where exactly was this noose ? The actual noose Bubba Wallace kept talking about . No picture of it ever surfaced . And by the way , haven ’ t we heard this story somewhere before ? Like repeatedly ? Between 2015 and 2018 , there were six high profile so-called hate crimes involving nooses . All of them are promoted heavily by the media . Every one of them turned out to be a hoax , every single one of them and that ’ s not even counting Jussie Smollett . The odds that this news hate crime was real , were always very small . It ’ s just not a very racist country actually , in the end . Most of us know that . But you ’ d never know it from listening to the authorities . The U.S. Attorney suggested Federal charges would be brought — brought against whom ? That was never clear . Meanwhile , the FBI swooped in by the vanload . The Bureau sent at least 15 agents to investigate this provocation against a millionaire racecar driver — 15 agents — at a time when mobs were roaming the country completely unchallenged by law enforcement , burning things , assaulting people . In the end , as you may have heard , it was needless to say , yet another news hoax . There was no hate crime in Bubba Wallace ’ s garage . We ’ ll have details on that story later in the show . But for now , what does it tell you that the FBI and Federal prosecutors fell for this hoax so completely ? Well , it tells you everything . At the very moment Bubba Wallace was doing his star turn as America ’ s latest victim of injustice , lecturing his fans about the racism , being backed up completely by the morons who run NASCAR , a mob of violent lunatics was ripping down a statue of American patriot , Francis Scott Key in San Francisco . On Key ’ s empty pedestal , they spray painted these words which effectively are their slogan , quote , “ Kill the colonizers . Kill whitey. ” In other words , murder Americans for the color of their skin . Now , you can argue about whether hate crimes ought to exist as a category in American law , and that ’ s an argument worth having . But as long as they do exist , that would seem to qualify as one and that the FBI did not swoop in with 15 agents to investigate . It ’ s not clear if anyone ever investigated because no one in power cared . And that ’ s the point . The mob does not operate independently from the Democratic establishment . The mob is an arm of the Democratic establishment . In the City of Philadelphia , both the Mayor and the District Attorney , Larry Krasner , we ’ ve told you about repeatedly — cheered as mobs set fire and destroyed public property there . But when a group of working-class Philadelphians tried to protect the statue of Christopher Columbus from being destroyed , Krasner threatened to prosecute them . You ’ d think the mob will ever show up at Larry Krasner ’ s house ? Not likely . In fact , No , never . And by the way , Nancy Pelosi is also safe at her estate in Napa . Democratic politicians don ’ t fear the mob . Notice that . Why ? Because they don ’ t need to . They control the mob . The mob operates with their permission . These are their foot soldiers . This is their militia .

Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson opened his Tuesday program by questioning why the “mob” that is behind vandalism and destruction of private and public property has a different standard applied to it than other crimes. Carlson pointed to how the Department of Justice and FBI investigated the alleged “hate crime” at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama compared to alleged crimes committed by the mob. Carlson argued the apparent conclusion was the “mob” was an arm of the Democratic Party’s establishment. Partial transcript as follows: These scenes with unity. Unfortunately, no one covering this story ever bothered to ask the obvious questions, where exactly was this noose? The actual noose Bubba Wallace kept talking about. No picture of it ever surfaced. And by the way, haven’t we heard this story somewhere before? Like repeatedly? Between 2015 and 2018, there were six high profile so-called hate crimes involving nooses. All of them are promoted heavily by the media. Every one of them turned out to be a hoax, every single one of them and that’s not even counting Jussie Smollett. The odds that this news hate crime was real, were always very small. It’s just not a very racist country actually, in the end. Most of us know that. But you’d never know it from listening to the authorities. The U.S. Attorney suggested Federal charges would be brought — brought against whom? That was never clear. Meanwhile, the FBI swooped in by the vanload. The Bureau sent at least 15 agents to investigate this provocation against a millionaire racecar driver — 15 agents — at a time when mobs were roaming the country completely unchallenged by law enforcement, burning things, assaulting people. In the end, as you may have heard, it was needless to say, yet another news hoax. There was no hate crime in Bubba Wallace’s garage. We’ll have details on that story later in the show. But for now, what does it tell you that the FBI and Federal prosecutors fell for this hoax so completely? Well, it tells you everything. At the very moment Bubba Wallace was doing his star turn as America’s latest victim of injustice, lecturing his fans about the racism, being backed up completely by the morons who run NASCAR, a mob of violent lunatics was ripping down a statue of American patriot, Francis Scott Key in San Francisco. On Key’s empty pedestal, they spray painted these words which effectively are their slogan, quote, “Kill the colonizers. Kill whitey.” In other words, murder Americans for the color of their skin. Now, you can argue about whether hate crimes ought to exist as a category in American law, and that’s an argument worth having. But as long as they do exist, that would seem to qualify as one and that the FBI did not swoop in with 15 agents to investigate. It’s not clear if anyone ever investigated because no one in power cared. If anything, they agreed. And that’s the point. The mob does not operate independently from the Democratic establishment. The mob is an arm of the Democratic establishment. In the City of Philadelphia, both the Mayor and the District Attorney, Larry Krasner, we’ve told you about repeatedly — cheered as mobs set fire and destroyed public property there. But when a group of working-class Philadelphians tried to protect the statue of Christopher Columbus from being destroyed, Krasner threatened to prosecute them. You’d think the mob will ever show up at Larry Krasner’s house? Not likely. In fact, No, never. And by the way, Nancy Pelosi is also safe at her estate in Napa. Democratic politicians don’t fear the mob. Notice that. Why? Because they don’t need to. They control the mob. The mob operates with their permission. These are their foot soldiers. This is their militia.

www.breitbart.com

right

jBzV9CIREyPczW6T

test

VE3OPWYVhKPm1ipG

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/liberalism-an-intrinsically-uncivil-ideology/

OPINION: Liberalism: An Intrinsically Uncivil Ideology

George Neumayr, E. Donald Elliott, Geoff Shepard, J.T. Young, Larry Alex Taunton, John C. Wohlstetter, Jeffrey Lord

When Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder occupied positions of power in the federal government , they would often lecture conservatives on the virtues of civility and dialogue . To counter Rush Limbaugh and the power of talk radio in the 1990s , rattled liberals once proposed “ civility ” boards , recruiting such models of civility as Paul Begala to serve on the “ Penn Commission , ” an undertaking so stupid it didn ’ t even last Bill Clinton ’ s presidency . In power , liberals peddle self-serving babble about “ civility ” ; out of power — witness Hillary ’ s recent pitiful interview and Eric Holder ’ s endorsement of kicking conservatives — they peddle self-serving babble about the need to suspend civility . Notice that the same media burbling over the Hillary-Holder call for a suspension of civility until liberals claw back to power tut-tutted Kanye West ’ s remarks on Thursday in the Oval Office . Journalists normally ooh and aah over vulgar rap and wax nostalgic about Muhammad Ali . But they suddenly turned delicate on Thursday , lamenting Kanye West ’ s “ foul ” language . It was all too much for them . MSNBC ’ s Stephanie Ruhle , whose maturity level is roughly that of an elementary school student , declared Kanye West ’ s presence in the Oval Office a degradation , though surely his high-spirited if rough remarks soiled that august office less than the pastimes of one of her favorite presidents , Bill Clinton . The media ’ s meltdown over Kanye ’ s trip to the Oval Office reflects nothing more than its horrified realization that Trump is eating the left ’ s lunch , poaching more and more voters from once-monopolized lib constituencies . Apparently Kanye West is supposed to check with the central office of the Left ’ s Ministry of Truth before opening his mouth . Anything less is “ surreal , ” according to the media . What a bunch of totalitarian creeps . It still doesn ’ t occur to liberals that the hysteria with which they greet any political dissent from minority communities explains why more and more members of those communities want to get the hell away from the suffocating political correctness of the Democrats . The prim self-righteousness of liberalism against a Trump or Kanye West always comes off as absurd , since liberalism , philosophically speaking , prides itself on its lack of restraining principles . Insofar as it recognizes no divine law prior to man ’ s will , liberalism sanctions all manner of incivility . Hence , an Eric Holder , once stripped of power , can ’ t think of any principled reason for going high if opponents go low . Indeed , given the relativism underpinning liberalism , the temptation to violence is irresistible for most lefties , especially in times of political exile . Many of the heroes of Hillary and Holder are figures of violence and monstrous incivility — from Fidel Castro and Che Guevara to Bill Ayers and the Black Panthers . Around the start of Trump ’ s presidency , the New York Times couldn ’ t even bring itself to condemn a play in Central Park in which a Trumpian figure is stabbed to death . Upper West Side liberals thought that theatrical Trumpicide great fun , and they have welcomed back into their salons the comedienne Kathy Griffin , who was temporarily and grudgingly banished for holding up a mock-severed head of Trump . Holder ’ s old boss launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist , Bill Ayers , who on 9/11 ( coincidentally ) took to the pages of the New York Times to gloat that he was “ guilty as hell and free as a bird. ” The mammoth biography on Obama by David Garrow — which arrived stillborn in bookstores owing to its semi-critical tone ( liberals don ’ t want to hear anything but praise about their hero ) — establishes that Obama ’ s attempts to distance himself from Ayers were utterly dishonest . The two were close neighborhood pals in Chicago — a friendship that did not contradict the liberalism of an Obama or a Holder but simply reflected its intrinsically uncivil character and gravitation to violent radicalism . All of the ideologies that shape modern liberalism reject a divinely mandated moral law , which in the end is the only real source of civility and sanction on violence . Once humanity ’ s will is the measure of morality , as liberalism has asserted for 400 years or so , everything in principle is permitted and politics becomes a power grab that culminates in totalitarianism . Under liberalism , the central question of politics invariably shifts from goodness to power , thus rendering civil discourse an impossibility . Out of such a raw , grabby culture come low demagogues like Holder and Hillary , for whom the ends justify any means . Long before Kanye West entered the Oval Office , civility vanished from it , often at the hands of preening liberals like Clinton and Obama who extolled it the most .

When Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder occupied positions of power in the federal government, they would often lecture conservatives on the virtues of civility and dialogue. To counter Rush Limbaugh and the power of talk radio in the 1990s, rattled liberals once proposed “civility” boards, recruiting such models of civility as Paul Begala to serve on the “Penn Commission,” an undertaking so stupid it didn’t even last Bill Clinton’s presidency. In power, liberals peddle self-serving babble about “civility”; out of power — witness Hillary’s recent pitiful interview and Eric Holder’s endorsement of kicking conservatives — they peddle self-serving babble about the need to suspend civility. Notice that the same media burbling over the Hillary-Holder call for a suspension of civility until liberals claw back to power tut-tutted Kanye West’s remarks on Thursday in the Oval Office. Journalists normally ooh and aah over vulgar rap and wax nostalgic about Muhammad Ali. But they suddenly turned delicate on Thursday, lamenting Kanye West’s “foul” language. It was all too much for them. MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, whose maturity level is roughly that of an elementary school student, declared Kanye West’s presence in the Oval Office a degradation, though surely his high-spirited if rough remarks soiled that august office less than the pastimes of one of her favorite presidents, Bill Clinton. The media’s meltdown over Kanye’s trip to the Oval Office reflects nothing more than its horrified realization that Trump is eating the left’s lunch, poaching more and more voters from once-monopolized lib constituencies. Apparently Kanye West is supposed to check with the central office of the Left’s Ministry of Truth before opening his mouth. Anything less is “surreal,” according to the media. What a bunch of totalitarian creeps. It still doesn’t occur to liberals that the hysteria with which they greet any political dissent from minority communities explains why more and more members of those communities want to get the hell away from the suffocating political correctness of the Democrats. The prim self-righteousness of liberalism against a Trump or Kanye West always comes off as absurd, since liberalism, philosophically speaking, prides itself on its lack of restraining principles. Insofar as it recognizes no divine law prior to man’s will, liberalism sanctions all manner of incivility. Hence, an Eric Holder, once stripped of power, can’t think of any principled reason for going high if opponents go low. Indeed, given the relativism underpinning liberalism, the temptation to violence is irresistible for most lefties, especially in times of political exile. Many of the heroes of Hillary and Holder are figures of violence and monstrous incivility — from Fidel Castro and Che Guevara to Bill Ayers and the Black Panthers. Around the start of Trump’s presidency, the New York Times couldn’t even bring itself to condemn a play in Central Park in which a Trumpian figure is stabbed to death. Upper West Side liberals thought that theatrical Trumpicide great fun, and they have welcomed back into their salons the comedienne Kathy Griffin, who was temporarily and grudgingly banished for holding up a mock-severed head of Trump. Holder’s old boss launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, who on 9/11 (coincidentally) took to the pages of the New York Times to gloat that he was “guilty as hell and free as a bird.” The mammoth biography on Obama by David Garrow — which arrived stillborn in bookstores owing to its semi-critical tone (liberals don’t want to hear anything but praise about their hero) — establishes that Obama’s attempts to distance himself from Ayers were utterly dishonest. The two were close neighborhood pals in Chicago — a friendship that did not contradict the liberalism of an Obama or a Holder but simply reflected its intrinsically uncivil character and gravitation to violent radicalism. All of the ideologies that shape modern liberalism reject a divinely mandated moral law, which in the end is the only real source of civility and sanction on violence. Once humanity’s will is the measure of morality, as liberalism has asserted for 400 years or so, everything in principle is permitted and politics becomes a power grab that culminates in totalitarianism. Under liberalism, the central question of politics invariably shifts from goodness to power, thus rendering civil discourse an impossibility. Out of such a raw, grabby culture come low demagogues like Holder and Hillary, for whom the ends justify any means. Long before Kanye West entered the Oval Office, civility vanished from it, often at the hands of preening liberals like Clinton and Obama who extolled it the most.

www.spectator.org

right

VE3OPWYVhKPm1ipG

test

OazZzgWLHx8hNXtb

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-shakes-Raul-Castro-hand/2015/04/10/id/637843/

Obama Greets Cuba's Castro at Summit as Talks Proceed on Ties

2015-04-10

Toluse Olorunnipa, Angela Greiling Keane

President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro met briefly in Panama , shaking hands and exchanging words in their first encounter since December when they started work on restoring diplomatic ties strained for a half century . The pair , who spoke by phone two days ago , saw each other briefly Friday in Panama City as they joined other leaders at Atlapa Convention Center before a formal dinner to start the Summit of the Americas meeting . The two probably will spend more time together on Saturday , Ben Rhodes , White House deputy national security adviser , said earlier Friday . `` We certainly do anticipate that they will have an opportunity to see each other tomorrow , '' Rhodes told reporters in Panama City . `` There 's a range of issues where we 've been in dialogue with the Cubans . The two leaders will be able to address and take stock '' of progress on negotiations . The Obama-Castro interaction is being closely watched as the two nations hammer out details of their improving diplomatic relationship . The two men spoke by telephone on Wednesday , before Obama left Washington , to discuss the negotiations on normalizing relations and issues related to the summit , Rhodes said . The guest list at the state dinner hosted by Panama President Juan Carlos Varela also features frequent U.S. critics , including Venezuela 's Nicolas Maduro and Nicaragua 's Daniel Ortega , who lambasted the United States in front of Obama for 50 minutes at an earlier summit in 2009 . The event marks the first time Cuba takes part in a Summit of the Americas and the first time since Nelson Mandela 's 2013 memorial service in South Africa that the neighboring presidents will be in the same place . `` As the United States begins a new chapter in our relationship with Cuba , we hope it 'll create an environment that will improve the lives of the Cuban people , '' Obama said Friday at a civil-society forum . `` Not because it 's imposed by us , the United States , but through the talent and ingenuity and aspirations and the conversation among Cubans from all walks of life . '' U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez met in Panama City on Thursday night . The State Department characterized it as a `` lengthy and very constructive '' meeting without saying what details were discussed . The U.S. and Cuba made their biggest move to improve ties , strained when Raul 's brother Fidel began nationalizing U.S. companies in the wake of his 1959 revolution , in a 45-minute phone call between Obama and Castro in December . As part of the deal announced by the two leaders simultaneously , the Cuban government released Alan Gross , a humanitarian worker who was jailed for more than five years . Cuba also freed a person — described by the U.S. as an American intelligence asset — who had been imprisoned for nearly 20 years , as well as dozens of political prisoners , in exchange for jailed Cuban spies . Since then , U.S. and Cuban negotiators have met three times in a bid to hammer out an agreement for establishing a U.S. embassy in Havana and easing travel and commercial restrictions . A sticking point in those negotiations has been the continued inclusion of Cuba on the administration 's list of state sponsors of terrorism . The State Department recommended this week that Obama remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism , according to an aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . The designation has meant Cuba is barred from exporting weapons and receiving certain economic aid . Those sanctions have complicated efforts by the regime to secure development loans from international institutions . Obama said on Thursday that efforts to normalize relations were `` proceeding as I expected '' and predicted `` that we 'll be in a position to move forward on the opening of embassies in respective countries . '' Only 90 miles south of Florida , Cuba has long been a fixation of American politics . Beloved by Ernest Hemingway , it underwent a communist revolution , was the locus of perhaps the world 's closest brush with nuclear war , and has remained the spiritual home of thousands of refugees who fled the Castro regime and who for decades drove U.S.-Cuban policy . Any encounter between Obama and Castro is sure to draw criticism from leaders within the refugee community , as well as critics of the administration 's Cuba policy in Washington . Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey , a Cuban-American Democrat who was the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee until he was indicted on corruption charges earlier this month , issued a statement criticizing `` unwarranted pressure from the White House to rush the State Department 's review process . '' `` The Castro regime 's utter disregard for international security standards should not be rewarded with continued concessions from the United States , and any decision to remove Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism must have close scrutiny by the Congress , '' Menendez said .

President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro met briefly in Panama, shaking hands and exchanging words in their first encounter since December when they started work on restoring diplomatic ties strained for a half century. The pair, who spoke by phone two days ago, saw each other briefly Friday in Panama City as they joined other leaders at Atlapa Convention Center before a formal dinner to start the Summit of the Americas meeting. The two probably will spend more time together on Saturday, Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser, said earlier Friday. "We certainly do anticipate that they will have an opportunity to see each other tomorrow," Rhodes told reporters in Panama City. "There's a range of issues where we've been in dialogue with the Cubans. The two leaders will be able to address and take stock" of progress on negotiations. The Obama-Castro interaction is being closely watched as the two nations hammer out details of their improving diplomatic relationship. The two men spoke by telephone on Wednesday, before Obama left Washington, to discuss the negotiations on normalizing relations and issues related to the summit, Rhodes said. The guest list at the state dinner hosted by Panama President Juan Carlos Varela also features frequent U.S. critics, including Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, who lambasted the United States in front of Obama for 50 minutes at an earlier summit in 2009. 'New Chapter' The event marks the first time Cuba takes part in a Summit of the Americas and the first time since Nelson Mandela's 2013 memorial service in South Africa that the neighboring presidents will be in the same place. "As the United States begins a new chapter in our relationship with Cuba, we hope it'll create an environment that will improve the lives of the Cuban people," Obama said Friday at a civil-society forum. "Not because it's imposed by us, the United States, but through the talent and ingenuity and aspirations and the conversation among Cubans from all walks of life." U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez met in Panama City on Thursday night. The State Department characterized it as a "lengthy and very constructive" meeting without saying what details were discussed. The U.S. and Cuba made their biggest move to improve ties, strained when Raul's brother Fidel began nationalizing U.S. companies in the wake of his 1959 revolution, in a 45-minute phone call between Obama and Castro in December. Alan Gross As part of the deal announced by the two leaders simultaneously, the Cuban government released Alan Gross, a humanitarian worker who was jailed for more than five years. Cuba also freed a person — described by the U.S. as an American intelligence asset — who had been imprisoned for nearly 20 years, as well as dozens of political prisoners, in exchange for jailed Cuban spies. Since then, U.S. and Cuban negotiators have met three times in a bid to hammer out an agreement for establishing a U.S. embassy in Havana and easing travel and commercial restrictions. A sticking point in those negotiations has been the continued inclusion of Cuba on the administration's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Terrorism List The State Department recommended this week that Obama remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, according to an aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The designation has meant Cuba is barred from exporting weapons and receiving certain economic aid. Those sanctions have complicated efforts by the regime to secure development loans from international institutions. Obama said on Thursday that efforts to normalize relations were "proceeding as I expected" and predicted "that we'll be in a position to move forward on the opening of embassies in respective countries." Only 90 miles south of Florida, Cuba has long been a fixation of American politics. Beloved by Ernest Hemingway, it underwent a communist revolution, was the locus of perhaps the world's closest brush with nuclear war, and has remained the spiritual home of thousands of refugees who fled the Castro regime and who for decades drove U.S.-Cuban policy. Any encounter between Obama and Castro is sure to draw criticism from leaders within the refugee community, as well as critics of the administration's Cuba policy in Washington. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Cuban-American Democrat who was the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee until he was indicted on corruption charges earlier this month, issued a statement criticizing "unwarranted pressure from the White House to rush the State Department's review process." "The Castro regime's utter disregard for international security standards should not be rewarded with continued concessions from the United States, and any decision to remove Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism must have close scrutiny by the Congress," Menendez said.

www.newsmax.com

right

OazZzgWLHx8hNXtb

test

EZFYQf0REviGzDcN

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-romney/former-presidential-candidate-romney-announces-utah-senate-bid-idUSKCN1G01FO

Former presidential candidate Romney announces Utah Senate bid

2018-02-17

Bob Lloyd

PROVO , Utah ( ███ ) - Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney , a frequent critic of President Donald Trump , announced on Friday he would run for a U.S. Senate seat in Utah , confirming months of speculation about a return to national politics . “ I ’ ve decided to run for United States Senate because I ’ ve decided I can help bring Utah ’ s values and Utah ’ s lessons to Washington , ” Romney , who is seeking to replace retiring Senator Orrin Hatch , said in a video posted to Twitter . Romney ’ s video made no mention of Trump but his relationship with the president looms as a major issue in the campaign . Much of the video focused on Utah values versus the Washington culture . “ Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in Washington , ” he said . “ ... Utah welcomes legal immigrants from around the world . Washington sends immigrants a message of exclusion . And on Utah ’ s Capitol Hill , people treat one another with respect . ” Trump has called for building a wall on the country ’ s border with Mexico and limiting legal migration . Romney , speaking on Friday evening at a Republican Party event in Provo , Utah , called Wednesday ’ s school shooting in Florida “ senseless , debased evil . ” “ We must take action to prevent this again , ” he said , adding that this would best be accomplished at the state and local levels , not in Washington . Republicans hold 51 of the Senate ’ s 100 seats but that majority is not always big enough to pass the Trump agenda . If Romney wins the Senate race , it could set him up for a direct collision with Trump , with whom he has publicly sparred . During the 2016 presidential campaign , Romney excoriated Trump as a “ fraud ” who was “ playing the American public for suckers. ” Trump responded that Romney had “ choked like a dog ” in his race against Obama . However , after Trump won the presidency in November 2016 , he briefly considered whether to pick Romney as his secretary of state . Responding to one of a series of written questions , Romney said in his speech he generally approved of Trump ’ s agenda , but would not hesitate to call out the president if need be . “ I ’ m with the president ’ s domestic policy agenda of low taxes , low regulation , smaller government , pushing back against the bureaucrats . By and large by the way his policies are very similar to those I campaigned on . ... I ’ m probably more of a deficit hawk than most Republicans . ” “ I ’ m not always with the president on what he might say or do , and if that happens I ’ ll call ’ em like I see ’ em , the way I have in the past , but we can certainly work together and our agenda will be for the best interests of the people of Utah and the people of our country , ” he said . Former U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the Utah County Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner , in Provo , Utah , U.S. February 16 , 2018 . ███/Jim Urquhart On the thorny issue of immigration , Romney said he thought Trump had the right idea about the Dream Act , which lets children of immigrants born in the United States remain in the country . “ We have to recognize that we as a nation will honor the commitment made by a prior president . So I agree with the president ( Trump ) . Let ’ s find a way to have these people be able to stay in our country . ” Romney also said he supported Trump ’ s so-called four pillars of immigration and favored stronger border security and stopping chain migration and the lottery program . Trump had lobbied Hatch to run for re-election in 2018 in what was viewed as an effort to prevent Romney from getting into the Senate . Trump and Romney spoke in January after Hatch announced his retirement , a White House official said . Romney said predictions that Republicans would lose the 2018 mid-term elections were wrong because of growing paychecks . “ We ’ re going to hold the House and we ’ re going to hold the Senate , ” he told the Republican audience . After the speech , when asked about whether Trump had taken meddling by Russians in the 2016 election seriously enough , he told reporters : “ I agree with the president that they didn ’ t determine the outcome in any way but what they ’ ve done is unacceptable , I ’ m glad that they ’ re being held accountable and believe that without question that Russians are trying to interfere with the principles of elected democracy and that ’ s got ta end . ” Romney , the son of former Michigan Governor George Romney , helped found the buyout firm Bain Capital and gained prominence after stepping in to lead the organizing committee for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics after a bribery scandal . He then served as governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 . Romney first sought the presidency in 2008 but lost the Republican nomination to Arizona Senator John McCain . Four years later , Romney won the party ’ s nomination but was defeated by incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama . Romney is the front-runner in the November election in Republican-dominated Utah . According to the Federal Election Commission , the field includes five other people , including a Salt Lake City councilwoman and a Marine Corps veteran . The race will be Romney ’ s second for the Senate . In 1994 , he failed to oust Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy from his seat in Massachusetts . Hatch , 83 , the most senior Republican in the Senate , said last month he would not seek an eighth term . Several high-profile Republicans expressed public support for Romney ’ s bid , including House Speaker Paul Ryan , who was Romney ’ s vice presidential running mate in 2012 . “ His campaign has my unwavering support and the people of Utah will be getting an accomplished and decent man when they make him their next senator , ” Ryan said in a statement . Romney has homes in Utah and California and Larry Meyers , an attorney who also is seeking the Republican nomination , questioned his ties to Utah . “ Unlike Massachusetts Mitt Romney , I ’ m from Utah , I support President Trump , and I am a conservative Republican , ” he said in a post on Facebook . Romney had successful treatment for prostate cancer in 2017 , a source close to him said in January .

PROVO, Utah (Reuters) - Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a frequent critic of President Donald Trump, announced on Friday he would run for a U.S. Senate seat in Utah, confirming months of speculation about a return to national politics. “I’ve decided to run for United States Senate because I’ve decided I can help bring Utah’s values and Utah’s lessons to Washington,” Romney, who is seeking to replace retiring Senator Orrin Hatch, said in a video posted to Twitter. Romney’s video made no mention of Trump but his relationship with the president looms as a major issue in the campaign. Much of the video focused on Utah values versus the Washington culture. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in Washington,” he said. “... Utah welcomes legal immigrants from around the world. Washington sends immigrants a message of exclusion. And on Utah’s Capitol Hill, people treat one another with respect.” Trump has called for building a wall on the country’s border with Mexico and limiting legal migration. Romney, speaking on Friday evening at a Republican Party event in Provo, Utah, called Wednesday’s school shooting in Florida “senseless, debased evil.” “We must take action to prevent this again,” he said, adding that this would best be accomplished at the state and local levels, not in Washington. Republicans hold 51 of the Senate’s 100 seats but that majority is not always big enough to pass the Trump agenda. If Romney wins the Senate race, it could set him up for a direct collision with Trump, with whom he has publicly sparred. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Romney excoriated Trump as a “fraud” who was “playing the American public for suckers.” Trump responded that Romney had “choked like a dog” in his race against Obama. However, after Trump won the presidency in November 2016, he briefly considered whether to pick Romney as his secretary of state. Responding to one of a series of written questions, Romney said in his speech he generally approved of Trump’s agenda, but would not hesitate to call out the president if need be. “I’m with the president’s domestic policy agenda of low taxes, low regulation, smaller government, pushing back against the bureaucrats. By and large by the way his policies are very similar to those I campaigned on. ... I’m probably more of a deficit hawk than most Republicans.” “I’m not always with the president on what he might say or do, and if that happens I’ll call’em like I see’em, the way I have in the past, but we can certainly work together and our agenda will be for the best interests of the people of Utah and the people of our country,” he said. Former U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the Utah County Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner, in Provo, Utah, U.S. February 16, 2018. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart On the thorny issue of immigration, Romney said he thought Trump had the right idea about the Dream Act, which lets children of immigrants born in the United States remain in the country. “We have to recognize that we as a nation will honor the commitment made by a prior president. So I agree with the president (Trump). Let’s find a way to have these people be able to stay in our country.” Romney also said he supported Trump’s so-called four pillars of immigration and favored stronger border security and stopping chain migration and the lottery program. Trump had lobbied Hatch to run for re-election in 2018 in what was viewed as an effort to prevent Romney from getting into the Senate. Trump and Romney spoke in January after Hatch announced his retirement, a White House official said. Romney said predictions that Republicans would lose the 2018 mid-term elections were wrong because of growing paychecks. “We’re going to hold the House and we’re going to hold the Senate,” he told the Republican audience. After the speech, when asked about whether Trump had taken meddling by Russians in the 2016 election seriously enough, he told reporters: “I agree with the president that they didn’t determine the outcome in any way but what they’ve done is unacceptable, I’m glad that they’re being held accountable and believe that without question that Russians are trying to interfere with the principles of elected democracy and that’s gotta end.” LIKELY FRONT-RUNNER Romney, the son of former Michigan Governor George Romney, helped found the buyout firm Bain Capital and gained prominence after stepping in to lead the organizing committee for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics after a bribery scandal. He then served as governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. Romney first sought the presidency in 2008 but lost the Republican nomination to Arizona Senator John McCain. Four years later, Romney won the party’s nomination but was defeated by incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama. Romney is the front-runner in the November election in Republican-dominated Utah. According to the Federal Election Commission, the field includes five other people, including a Salt Lake City councilwoman and a Marine Corps veteran. The race will be Romney’s second for the Senate. In 1994, he failed to oust Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy from his seat in Massachusetts. Hatch, 83, the most senior Republican in the Senate, said last month he would not seek an eighth term. Several high-profile Republicans expressed public support for Romney’s bid, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, who was Romney’s vice presidential running mate in 2012. “His campaign has my unwavering support and the people of Utah will be getting an accomplished and decent man when they make him their next senator,” Ryan said in a statement. Slideshow (7 Images) Romney has homes in Utah and California and Larry Meyers, an attorney who also is seeking the Republican nomination, questioned his ties to Utah. “Unlike Massachusetts Mitt Romney, I’m from Utah, I support President Trump, and I am a conservative Republican,” he said in a post on Facebook. Romney had successful treatment for prostate cancer in 2017, a source close to him said in January.

www.reuters.com

center

EZFYQf0REviGzDcN

test

sQdt3DV8hrITJQ2N

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/19/republicans_private_terror_why_they_despise_the_modern_american_state_and_embrace_fanaticism/

Republicans’ private terror: Why they despise the modern American state — and embrace fanaticism

2015-03-19

Kim Messick

As I write this , more than a week has passed since 47 Republican senators decided the leaders of Iran needed an American civics class . Their March 9 letter moved from the relatively arcane -- how to distinguish treaties from “ executive-congressional agreements ” and both from “ mere executive agreements ” -- to the comparatively straightforward : presidents come and go , the Republicans observed , but senators can last forever . ( Or at least for “ decades. ” ) Their lessons imparted , the 47 ( can it be long before a movie tells their story in the fashion of “ 300 ” ? ) wished “ clarity ” upon the mullahs and signed off , doubtless to prepare their next text -- a postcard on the Federalist Papers , perhaps , or an email on the blessings ( or the curse ) of judicial review . The latter , it goes without saying , will not be issued until the Supreme Court rules on the latest Obamacare case . Denunciations were immediate and thunderous , most of them from Democrats , of course , but some from that increasingly endangered species variously identified as “ establishment ” or “ mainstream ” Republicans . ( A species on a double-edged sword of extinction , because not only is it subject to constant predation , it has given up any effort to reproduce ! ) All of them decried the letter as utterly unprecedented , which forgets only the other utterly unprecedented moves by congressional Republicans , such as John Boehner ’ s decision a week earlier to turn the floor of the House into a mosh pit for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . Whether or not the Senate ’ s pedagogical moment was inspired by the example of their House colleagues -- - a pincer movement ! a tag-team event ! a double whammy ! -- - it certainly employed the same tactic : the use of a foreign power to shape the outcome of an American policy debate . Much froth has been expended on the question of whether this constitutes “ treason. ” Even more has been devoted to theories about why Republicans do these things . Why the dalliance with Netanyahu ? Why the love note to the Iranian right ? Predictably , many commentators link these events to Republican hatred of President Obama . On MSNBC ’ s `` Hardball , '' for example , Chris Matthews depicted both as simply the right ’ s latest primal scream , a two-headed monster from the Republican id : “ Some day years from now people will look back on this presidency… They will read how it started with the Republican Senate leader calling for the president ’ s defeat , declaring that the business of the opposition from the first day was to ensure the new president ( a ) accomplishes nothing and ( b ) gets booted from office as quickly as possible . They will… wonder what was it that made this Republican opposition so all out contemptuous of an American president… . They will… perhaps get the idea that the age of Jim Crow managed to find a new habitat in the early 21st century Republican Party . ” They may very well get that idea , and far be it from me to say they would be mistaken . But this can ’ t be a complete explanation of what happened here . After all , 21st century Republicans are also following in the footsteps of their late 20th century brethren , who , for example , didn ’ t just oppose and defame Bill Clinton -- they impeached him . So while it ’ s undoubtedly true that some Republicans despise Obama , their behavior as a party seems driven by something other than purely personal motives . Difficult as it may be for many Americans to realize , politics is really about something more than personalities . It ’ s about , er , politics , and the recent behavior of Republicans must be seen in that light to be fully understood . Their latest escapades merely extend the logic of the party ’ s evolution since the early 1960s . They may hate Barack Obama , but what they really hate is the modern American state . Constitutions matter , but every political system depends as well on informal norms , a more or less tacit consensus on how things will be done and what kind of behavior is and isn ’ t acceptable . This is especially true in America , where our constitutional separation of executive and legislature , and extra-constitutional devices like the filibuster , require compromise and cooperation if the government is to function effectively . Political actors must accept the constraints laid down by the rules ( formal and informal ) that define legitimate behavior , and must trust that others will do so in turn . When this trust lapses , confrontation replaces compromise and the political system lurches into crisis . There have been three moments in our history when something like this happened . The first arose very early , when anxieties about revolutionary France led the Federalist administration of John Adams to propose a number of measures , including the infamous “ Alien and Sedition Acts , ” intended to enhance executive authority and to repress domestic dissent . This led the Anti-federalists Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to draft a series of resolutions defending the right of states to nullify federal statutes they deemed unconstitutional . Adopted by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures , these ignited a confrontation between proponents of Federal power and advocates of “ states ’ rights ” that roiled our politics until the Civil War , and beyond . The second moment , of course , was the Civil War itself . The third is much more recent , extending over at least the Obama presidency but with roots as far back , perhaps , as the Clinton impeachment . It involves the readiness of Republicans to violate long-standing norms of institutional conduct in order to advance a highly divisive , intensely partisan agenda . Impeachment and the threat of impeachment ; the use of primaries to defeat Republican incumbents judged to be insufficiently “ conservative ” ; a willingness to default on the debt or shutdown the government ; the indiscriminate use of the filibuster to require super-majorities in the Senate on virtually every issue -- - this pattern of increasingly radical behavior may certainly be associated , in any given case , with the anger or pique of particular politicians . But its deepest source is in the political attitudes of an increasingly radical party . There are several different levels of explanation here . To some degree , the Republican obsession with impeachment and the filibuster -- - and the Iran letter too -- simply reflects the GOP ’ s growing sense of itself as primarily a congressional party . As it gradually loses the ability to compete for the presidency -- it has lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections -- its power base in Congress and legislative prerogatives generally are more important to it . The party that fought pitched battles during the Nixon , Ford , and Reagan years -- and even as recently as the Bush II presidency -- to safeguard executive authority from congressional “ overreach ” now defends the right of freshman senators to conduct foreign policy . One would love to hear what Dick Cheney thinks about that , if only he could be trusted to say what he thinks . Also relevant is the entrepreneurial environment GOP politicians inhabit nowadays . The proliferation of media outlets , PACs , and “ policy ” centers on the right has changed the calculus for many of its office-holders . They know an alternate career path is out there , one potentially more lucrative and less burdensome than government employment . A conservative politician who is fast on his or her feet , looks good in a suit , and adheres closely enough to right-wing dogma can trade public service for the private sector and make out like a bandit . The pioneer here , of course , is Sarah Palin , who ditched the governorship of Alaska for media celebrity after her ride on the Straight Talk Express in 2008 . Her example is surely not lost on the likes of Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton . As such people grow more and more detached from actual governing , the norms that enable and define successful governance matter less and less to them . But these two factors , important as they are , are not the deepest source of the GOP ’ s behavior . That is surely the mutation in its idea of government , a mutation that spread through the party as a whole when white Southerners flocked to it after the passage of Civil Rights laws in the mid-1960s . Until that time , the Republican Party , while “ conservative ” in the spectrum of American politics , largely accepted the modern state constructed by politicians -- Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt , Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt -- of both parties . This state tried to keep private markets free and fair , and imposed minimum standards for the safety and welfare of workers ; it sought a stable currency ; and it insisted on the equal citizenship of racial , religious , and ethnic minorities . More recently , it worked to extend this status to groups defined variously by gender and/or sexuality . Republicans might be suspicious of some of these aspirations , and more inclined than Democrats to urge caution and restraint , but in general they regarded the modern state as a necessary compromise with modern life . This began to change in response to the racial and cultural politics of the 1960s . The white Southerners who bolted the Democratic Party for the GOP didn ’ t view the modern state as a necessity ; they saw it as apostasy . It wasn ’ t a pragmatic compromise with the changed landscape of modernity , but a monstrous conspiracy to replace true American values with a spurious and corrupt humanism . In doing so , it sought to blot out God-given distinctions between the races and the sexes -- and between the productive and the unproductive -- in the name of an artificial equality that would both require and justify constant Federal intrusion . To maximize its appeal to these new Southern voters , the Republican Party adopted an increasingly radical version of conservative thought and expressed it in increasingly harsh rhetoric . As liberals and moderates in the North and upper Midwest began to desert the Party , its Southern supporters became ever more important to it -- which led to even more extreme advocacy and another round of desertions and defections . After 50 years , this relentless process of ideological purification has produced a party whose electoral appeal is almost wholly confined to rural and suburban whites , most of whom reside in Southern states . In the 2012 presidential election , the South provided 72 percent of Mitt Romney ’ s electoral votes . ( The Party is still strong in some areas of the West and Midwest , but these sparsely populated states provide little electoral heft . Today ’ s GOP is essentially a field of kudzu combed now and then by stray tumbleweeds . ) This is the party of Georgia boy Newt Gingrich , who dismissed Kansas Sen. Robert Dole , an old-school Robert Taft Republican , as “ a tax collector for the welfare state. ” It ’ s the party of Tennessee ’ s Martha Blackburn , a House member who hailed the 2013 government shutdown because it would show Americans “ they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed. ” It ’ s the party of Joe Wilson , the South Carolina congressman who shouted “ You lie ! ” at President Obama during a 2009 speech , and of former Texas governor Rick Perry , who peppers his speeches with references to secession and “ states ’ rights. ” This Republican Party shows little interest in the norms that have defined American politics because it has only contempt for the state those norms are designed to sustain . Full of scorn for their own government , the ideologues who control today ’ s GOP feel free to disregard any limitation on their pursuit of conservative purity . The letter to Iran , and the invitation to Netanyahu , merely enact this principle in the realm of foreign affairs . The real concern of the Tea Party isn ’ t the modern American state , which it despises , but its own hermetic vision of the conservative “ cause ” -- a cause that transcends national boundaries . Its adherents find it easier to cooperate with the leader of Israel ’ s Likud Party than with their Democratic colleagues in the American Congress . Tom Cotton ’ s dispatch to Tehran -- or something like it -- was the inevitable outcome of the process set in motion by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan . We should expect more of the same in the future . President Obama remarked that the Republican outreach to Iran ’ s leaders resulted in “ an unusual coalition. ” One of the many pleasures of Richard Condon ’ s novel `` The Manchurian Candidate '' -- and of the sublime 1962 film with Angela Lansbury and Lawrence Harvey -- was its suggestion that ultimately all fanaticisms merge and all fanatics , no matter how sharp their visible differences , become potential allies . Lansbury , an anti-communist Lady Macbeth to a vile , Joe McCarthy-like politician , plots to install her son ( Harvey ) in the White House with the help of China ’ s Communist Party . In the fractured world of the film it all makes a terrible kind of sense . The logic of fanaticism can be hard to resist . Just ask Tom Cotton .

As I write this, more than a week has passed since 47 Republican senators decided the leaders of Iran needed an American civics class. Their March 9 letter moved from the relatively arcane-- how to distinguish treaties from “executive-congressional agreements” and both from “mere executive agreements”-- to the comparatively straightforward: presidents come and go, the Republicans observed, but senators can last forever. (Or at least for “decades.”) Their lessons imparted, the 47 (can it be long before a movie tells their story in the fashion of “300”?) wished “clarity” upon the mullahs and signed off, doubtless to prepare their next text -- a postcard on the Federalist Papers, perhaps, or an email on the blessings (or the curse) of judicial review. The latter, it goes without saying, will not be issued until the Supreme Court rules on the latest Obamacare case. Denunciations were immediate and thunderous, most of them from Democrats, of course, but some from that increasingly endangered species variously identified as “establishment” or “mainstream” Republicans. (A species on a double-edged sword of extinction, because not only is it subject to constant predation, it has given up any effort to reproduce!) All of them decried the letter as utterly unprecedented, which forgets only the other utterly unprecedented moves by congressional Republicans, such as John Boehner’s decision a week earlier to turn the floor of the House into a mosh pit for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whether or not the Senate’s pedagogical moment was inspired by the example of their House colleagues--- a pincer movement! a tag-team event! a double whammy!--- it certainly employed the same tactic: the use of a foreign power to shape the outcome of an American policy debate. Advertisement: Much froth has been expended on the question of whether this constitutes “treason.” Even more has been devoted to theories about why Republicans do these things. Why the dalliance with Netanyahu? Why the love note to the Iranian right? Predictably, many commentators link these events to Republican hatred of President Obama. On MSNBC’s "Hardball," for example, Chris Matthews depicted both as simply the right’s latest primal scream, a two-headed monster from the Republican id: “Some day years from now people will look back on this presidency… They will read how it started with the Republican Senate leader calling for the president’s defeat, declaring that the business of the opposition from the first day was to ensure the new president (a) accomplishes nothing and (b) gets booted from office as quickly as possible. They will… wonder what was it that made this Republican opposition so all out contemptuous of an American president…. They will… perhaps get the idea that the age of Jim Crow managed to find a new habitat in the early 21st century Republican Party.” They may very well get that idea, and far be it from me to say they would be mistaken. But this can’t be a complete explanation of what happened here. After all, 21st century Republicans are also following in the footsteps of their late 20th century brethren, who, for example, didn’t just oppose and defame Bill Clinton -- they impeached him. So while it’s undoubtedly true that some Republicans despise Obama, their behavior as a party seems driven by something other than purely personal motives. Difficult as it may be for many Americans to realize, politics is really about something more than personalities. It’s about, er, politics, and the recent behavior of Republicans must be seen in that light to be fully understood. Their latest escapades merely extend the logic of the party’s evolution since the early 1960s. They may hate Barack Obama, but what they really hate is the modern American state. Constitutions matter, but every political system depends as well on informal norms, a more or less tacit consensus on how things will be done and what kind of behavior is and isn’t acceptable. This is especially true in America, where our constitutional separation of executive and legislature, and extra-constitutional devices like the filibuster, require compromise and cooperation if the government is to function effectively. Political actors must accept the constraints laid down by the rules (formal and informal) that define legitimate behavior, and must trust that others will do so in turn. When this trust lapses, confrontation replaces compromise and the political system lurches into crisis. Advertisement: There have been three moments in our history when something like this happened. The first arose very early, when anxieties about revolutionary France led the Federalist administration of John Adams to propose a number of measures, including the infamous “Alien and Sedition Acts,” intended to enhance executive authority and to repress domestic dissent. This led the Anti-federalists Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to draft a series of resolutions defending the right of states to nullify federal statutes they deemed unconstitutional. Adopted by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures, these ignited a confrontation between proponents of Federal power and advocates of “states’ rights” that roiled our politics until the Civil War, and beyond. The second moment, of course, was the Civil War itself. The third is much more recent, extending over at least the Obama presidency but with roots as far back, perhaps, as the Clinton impeachment. It involves the readiness of Republicans to violate long-standing norms of institutional conduct in order to advance a highly divisive, intensely partisan agenda. Impeachment and the threat of impeachment; the use of primaries to defeat Republican incumbents judged to be insufficiently “conservative”; a willingness to default on the debt or shutdown the government; the indiscriminate use of the filibuster to require super-majorities in the Senate on virtually every issue--- this pattern of increasingly radical behavior may certainly be associated, in any given case, with the anger or pique of particular politicians. But its deepest source is in the political attitudes of an increasingly radical party. There are several different levels of explanation here. To some degree, the Republican obsession with impeachment and the filibuster--- and the Iran letter too -- simply reflects the GOP’s growing sense of itself as primarily a congressional party. As it gradually loses the ability to compete for the presidency -- it has lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections -- its power base in Congress and legislative prerogatives generally are more important to it. The party that fought pitched battles during the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan years -- and even as recently as the Bush II presidency -- to safeguard executive authority from congressional “overreach” now defends the right of freshman senators to conduct foreign policy. One would love to hear what Dick Cheney thinks about that, if only he could be trusted to say what he thinks. Advertisement: Also relevant is the entrepreneurial environment GOP politicians inhabit nowadays. The proliferation of media outlets, PACs, and “policy” centers on the right has changed the calculus for many of its office-holders. They know an alternate career path is out there, one potentially more lucrative and less burdensome than government employment. A conservative politician who is fast on his or her feet, looks good in a suit, and adheres closely enough to right-wing dogma can trade public service for the private sector and make out like a bandit. The pioneer here, of course, is Sarah Palin, who ditched the governorship of Alaska for media celebrity after her ride on the Straight Talk Express in 2008. Her example is surely not lost on the likes of Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton. As such people grow more and more detached from actual governing, the norms that enable and define successful governance matter less and less to them. But these two factors, important as they are, are not the deepest source of the GOP’s behavior. That is surely the mutation in its idea of government, a mutation that spread through the party as a whole when white Southerners flocked to it after the passage of Civil Rights laws in the mid-1960s. Until that time, the Republican Party, while “conservative” in the spectrum of American politics, largely accepted the modern state constructed by politicians -- Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt -- of both parties. This state tried to keep private markets free and fair, and imposed minimum standards for the safety and welfare of workers; it sought a stable currency; and it insisted on the equal citizenship of racial, religious, and ethnic minorities. More recently, it worked to extend this status to groups defined variously by gender and/or sexuality. Advertisement: Republicans might be suspicious of some of these aspirations, and more inclined than Democrats to urge caution and restraint, but in general they regarded the modern state as a necessary compromise with modern life. This began to change in response to the racial and cultural politics of the 1960s. The white Southerners who bolted the Democratic Party for the GOP didn’t view the modern state as a necessity; they saw it as apostasy. It wasn’t a pragmatic compromise with the changed landscape of modernity, but a monstrous conspiracy to replace true American values with a spurious and corrupt humanism. In doing so, it sought to blot out God-given distinctions between the races and the sexes -- and between the productive and the unproductive -- in the name of an artificial equality that would both require and justify constant Federal intrusion. To maximize its appeal to these new Southern voters, the Republican Party adopted an increasingly radical version of conservative thought and expressed it in increasingly harsh rhetoric. As liberals and moderates in the North and upper Midwest began to desert the Party, its Southern supporters became ever more important to it -- which led to even more extreme advocacy and another round of desertions and defections. After 50 years, this relentless process of ideological purification has produced a party whose electoral appeal is almost wholly confined to rural and suburban whites, most of whom reside in Southern states. In the 2012 presidential election, the South provided 72 percent of Mitt Romney’s electoral votes. (The Party is still strong in some areas of the West and Midwest, but these sparsely populated states provide little electoral heft. Today’s GOP is essentially a field of kudzu combed now and then by stray tumbleweeds.) This is the party of Georgia boy Newt Gingrich, who dismissed Kansas Sen. Robert Dole, an old-school Robert Taft Republican, as “a tax collector for the welfare state.” It’s the party of Tennessee’s Martha Blackburn, a House member who hailed the 2013 government shutdown because it would show Americans “they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed.” It’s the party of Joe Wilson, the South Carolina congressman who shouted “You lie!” at President Obama during a 2009 speech, and of former Texas governor Rick Perry, who peppers his speeches with references to secession and “states’ rights.” This Republican Party shows little interest in the norms that have defined American politics because it has only contempt for the state those norms are designed to sustain. Advertisement: Full of scorn for their own government, the ideologues who control today’s GOP feel free to disregard any limitation on their pursuit of conservative purity. The letter to Iran, and the invitation to Netanyahu, merely enact this principle in the realm of foreign affairs. The real concern of the Tea Party isn’t the modern American state, which it despises, but its own hermetic vision of the conservative “cause”-- a cause that transcends national boundaries. Its adherents find it easier to cooperate with the leader of Israel’s Likud Party than with their Democratic colleagues in the American Congress. Tom Cotton’s dispatch to Tehran -- or something like it -- was the inevitable outcome of the process set in motion by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. We should expect more of the same in the future. President Obama remarked that the Republican outreach to Iran’s leaders resulted in “an unusual coalition.” One of the many pleasures of Richard Condon’s novel "The Manchurian Candidate" -- and of the sublime 1962 film with Angela Lansbury and Lawrence Harvey -- was its suggestion that ultimately all fanaticisms merge and all fanatics, no matter how sharp their visible differences, become potential allies. Lansbury, an anti-communist Lady Macbeth to a vile, Joe McCarthy-like politician, plots to install her son (Harvey) in the White House with the help of China’s Communist Party. In the fractured world of the film it all makes a terrible kind of sense. The logic of fanaticism can be hard to resist. Just ask Tom Cotton.

www.salon.com

left

sQdt3DV8hrITJQ2N

test

z0F4EDvmLd4FEN8n

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/clappers-nuremberg-defense/

Clapper’s Nuremberg Defense

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

Last week , Attorney General William Barr ’ s investigation into the illegal FBI–CIA spy operation against President Trump ’ s 2016 campaign was formally shifted to a criminal investigation . The means the investigative team , under the direction of John Durham , U.S. Attorney for Connecticut , can subpoena witnesses , convene grand juries , and obtain indictments . One of the principal perpetrators , former FBI director James Comey , insists he ’ s not worried at all . He and his co-conspirators have undoubtedly talked often and coordinated their stories . All voice communications , emails , text messages , and other communications have been erased or otherwise destroyed to the extent they can be . From a variety of reports we know that despite President Trump ’ s order that all federal agencies cooperate with the Durham investigation , the CIA is stonewalling and trying to deny Durham access to documents , electronically stored information , and probably witnesses . The CIA ’ s conduct is not surprising . CIA Director Gina Haspel is the protégé of Obama ’ s CIA director , John Brennan . Her interest is more in protecting Brennan and other current and former CIA people than in obeying the president ’ s order . As I wrote in June , Haspel was CIA station chief in London when the “ Crossfire Hurricane ” investigation into Trump and his campaign operated from there . She had to have known and approved of the op , and she must have taken an active part in it . She ’ s a major problem that Trump doesn ’ t recognize . But some of the principal perps , such as James Clapper , Obama ’ s director of national intelligence , are not descendants of Wernher von Braun . They will want to retract statements they ’ ve made to their media pals , such as the one Clapper made to CNN three weeks ago . On October 7 , Clapper made it clear that he was following Obama ’ s orders in conducting the spy op on Trump and his campaign . Asked if he was concerned that Durham ’ s investigation would uncover wrongdoing by intelligence officials such as himself , Clapper offered a response that is worth quoting at length : The message I ’ m getting from all this is , apparently what we were supposed to have done was to ignore the Russian interference , ignore the Russian meddling and the threat that it poses to us , and oh , by the way , blown off what the then commander in chief , President Obama , told us to do , which was to assemble all the reporting that we could that we had available to us and put it in one report that the president could pass on to the Congress and to the next administration . And while we ’ re at it , declassify as much as we possibly could to make it public , and that ’ s what we did . Clearly , unmistakably , Clapper said that he and the other intelligence officials — meaning at least Comey and Brennan — were following Obama ’ s orders to spy on the Trump campaign and probably Trump himself . The only possible basis for those orders was the “ Steele dossier , ” the opposition research document bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign . Clapper , Comey , or Brennan — or any combination of the three — used it as the basis to get orders from Obama to conduct the operation . In all probability , they coordinated with Obama and kept him posted on the spy op through his national security adviser , Susan Rice , who is another probable target for Durham ’ s investigation . Her conversations with Obama — on which she ( and Obama ) will claim executive privilege — would prove very enlightening if he can get her testimony about them . This wasn ’ t a matter of Obama only having knowledge and acquiescing in what they did . It was — according to Clapper ’ s statement — a decision Obama made to order the U.S. intelligence agencies to jointly conduct an operation spying on the Trump campaign to prove Trump was collaborating with Russia to cause his own election . Now Clapper is asserting the Nuremberg Defense : “ I was only following orders. ” May it do him as much good as it did those who first asserted it . Both the decision to turn the Durham investigation into a criminal proceeding and Clapper ’ s admission that Obama gave the order to spy on Trump based on the Steele dossier will have an enormous effect on the 2020 election . The election campaign is already running in the shadow of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff ’ s impeachment proceedings against President Trump . The media follow it breathlessly , cramming as much news of it as they can speak or print on any given day . The only other matter they pay attention to is the Democrats ’ primaries . But now , with the acceleration of Durham ’ s investigation , even the most liberal media outlets will have to take time to report Durham ’ s coming interviews and indictments . That time will have to be taken away from coverage of the impeachment or of the Dems ’ primaries . Clapper ’ s admission raises the question : What did Joe Biden know and when did he know it ? Biden continually brags about what he and Obama did and how close they were in thinking and acting . It ’ s possible that as vice president he wasn ’ t privy to the Obama ’ s orders to the intelligence community to spy on Trump , but he must have been aware of what they were doing . Biden has a choice : he can either can deny that he knew what the intelligence community was doing against Trump ( and appear the fool ) , or admit he knew and try to deny the illegality of Obama ’ s orders . He would thus implicate himself in the intelligence community ’ s crimes . Ol ’ Joe is toast . And so should be the other participants in the spy op on Trump ’ s campaign . People such as Comey , Brennan , and Clapper may never go to jail , but many — perhaps most of them — may be indicted for the host of crimes they evidently committed . We ’ ll ( finally ) get a small taste of what ’ s to come in the report by the Department of Justice ’ s Inspector General Michael Horowitz . His report supposedly is almost ready for publication . It covers only the abuse of the FBI ’ s powers in obtaining surveillance warrants for Trump campaign officials from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) court . Thanks to the investigation that Rep. Devin Nunes ( R-Calif. ) conducted while he was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — and the famous “ Nunes Memo ” published in February 2018 — we know that the FISA warrants were obtained fraudulently . The FISA court wasn ’ t told that the allegations in the warrant applications were based only on the Steele dossier and unverified by the FBI . That , at least , is a false official statement under 18 US Code 1001 punishable by a year in jail . But that offense is chicken feed compared to the illegality of what had to be a conspiracy to thwart Trump ’ s presidential ambitions and , after the election , to bring about his impeachment . The perps have a lot to fear from Durham ’ s investigation . He was chosen by AG Barr because he has considerable experience in intelligence matters , so he will know how to extract information and possibly obtain plea bargains from people who are threatened with jail time . It ’ s entirely possible — despite Clapper ’ s statement to CNN — that some will stonewall like Susan McDougal did in the Clinton impeachment . McDougal went to prison rather than testify against Clinton in the Whitewater scandal . Unlikely as it may be , people such as Clapper , Comey , and Brennan may try to protect Obama the same way . But people such as former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe , former FBI agent Peter Strzok , and former FBI lawyer ( and Strzok ’ s lover ) Lisa Page won ’ t . They ( and Comey ) were directly involved in preparing and approving the surveillance warrants against Trump campaign officials . So were Obama ’ s acting deputy AG Sally Yates and former deputy AG Rod Rosenstein . They could plead out and testify against Brennan and his ilk . Is it unthinkable that Durham would prosecute Obama ? Unfortunately it is , but Durham shouldn ’ t hesitate to do so . Americas are fed up with crimes committed by Democrats — such as Hillary ’ s illegal trafficking of classified information in unsecured non-government emails — who aren ’ t held accountable for their crimes . Whomever Durham prosecutes , the Dems won ’ t stop their campaigns against Trump . It ’ s almost certain that he will be impeached by the House . Who knows what will happen in the Senate trial when Trump enemies such as Mitt Romney , Susan Collins , and Lisa Murkowski vote ? If , despite the impeachment , Trump is reelected , the Dems will restart the “ Russia collusion ” campaign , claiming that his 2020 win was caused by collaboration with Russia , Iran , North Korea , China , and any other bad actors they can think of . You can take that to the bank .

Last week, Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the illegal FBI–CIA spy operation against President Trump’s 2016 campaign was formally shifted to a criminal investigation. The means the investigative team, under the direction of John Durham, U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, can subpoena witnesses, convene grand juries, and obtain indictments. One of the principal perpetrators, former FBI director James Comey, insists he’s not worried at all. He and his co-conspirators have undoubtedly talked often and coordinated their stories. All voice communications, emails, text messages, and other communications have been erased or otherwise destroyed to the extent they can be. From a variety of reports we know that despite President Trump’s order that all federal agencies cooperate with the Durham investigation, the CIA is stonewalling and trying to deny Durham access to documents, electronically stored information, and probably witnesses. The CIA’s conduct is not surprising. CIA Director Gina Haspel is the protégé of Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan. Her interest is more in protecting Brennan and other current and former CIA people than in obeying the president’s order. As I wrote in June, Haspel was CIA station chief in London when the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and his campaign operated from there. She had to have known and approved of the op, and she must have taken an active part in it. She’s a major problem that Trump doesn’t recognize. But some of the principal perps, such as James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, are not descendants of Wernher von Braun. They will want to retract statements they’ve made to their media pals, such as the one Clapper made to CNN three weeks ago. On October 7, Clapper made it clear that he was following Obama’s orders in conducting the spy op on Trump and his campaign. Asked if he was concerned that Durham’s investigation would uncover wrongdoing by intelligence officials such as himself, Clapper offered a response that is worth quoting at length: The message I’m getting from all this is, apparently what we were supposed to have done was to ignore the Russian interference, ignore the Russian meddling and the threat that it poses to us, and oh, by the way, blown off what the then commander in chief, President Obama, told us to do, which was to assemble all the reporting that we could that we had available to us and put it in one report that the president could pass on to the Congress and to the next administration. And while we’re at it, declassify as much as we possibly could to make it public, and that’s what we did. Clearly, unmistakably, Clapper said that he and the other intelligence officials — meaning at least Comey and Brennan — were following Obama’s orders to spy on the Trump campaign and probably Trump himself. The only possible basis for those orders was the “Steele dossier,” the opposition research document bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Clapper, Comey, or Brennan — or any combination of the three — used it as the basis to get orders from Obama to conduct the operation. In all probability, they coordinated with Obama and kept him posted on the spy op through his national security adviser, Susan Rice, who is another probable target for Durham’s investigation. Her conversations with Obama — on which she (and Obama) will claim executive privilege — would prove very enlightening if he can get her testimony about them. This wasn’t a matter of Obama only having knowledge and acquiescing in what they did. It was — according to Clapper’s statement — a decision Obama made to order the U.S. intelligence agencies to jointly conduct an operation spying on the Trump campaign to prove Trump was collaborating with Russia to cause his own election. Now Clapper is asserting the Nuremberg Defense: “I was only following orders.” May it do him as much good as it did those who first asserted it. Both the decision to turn the Durham investigation into a criminal proceeding and Clapper’s admission that Obama gave the order to spy on Trump based on the Steele dossier will have an enormous effect on the 2020 election. The election campaign is already running in the shadow of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff’s impeachment proceedings against President Trump. The media follow it breathlessly, cramming as much news of it as they can speak or print on any given day. The only other matter they pay attention to is the Democrats’ primaries. But now, with the acceleration of Durham’s investigation, even the most liberal media outlets will have to take time to report Durham’s coming interviews and indictments. That time will have to be taken away from coverage of the impeachment or of the Dems’ primaries. Clapper’s admission raises the question: What did Joe Biden know and when did he know it? Biden continually brags about what he and Obama did and how close they were in thinking and acting. It’s possible that as vice president he wasn’t privy to the Obama’s orders to the intelligence community to spy on Trump, but he must have been aware of what they were doing. Biden has a choice: he can either can deny that he knew what the intelligence community was doing against Trump (and appear the fool), or admit he knew and try to deny the illegality of Obama’s orders. He would thus implicate himself in the intelligence community’s crimes. Ol’ Joe is toast. And so should be the other participants in the spy op on Trump’s campaign. People such as Comey, Brennan, and Clapper may never go to jail, but many — perhaps most of them — may be indicted for the host of crimes they evidently committed. We’ll (finally) get a small taste of what’s to come in the report by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz. His report supposedly is almost ready for publication. It covers only the abuse of the FBI’s powers in obtaining surveillance warrants for Trump campaign officials from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Thanks to the investigation that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) conducted while he was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — and the famous “Nunes Memo” published in February 2018 — we know that the FISA warrants were obtained fraudulently. The FISA court wasn’t told that the allegations in the warrant applications were based only on the Steele dossier and unverified by the FBI. That, at least, is a false official statement under 18 US Code 1001 punishable by a year in jail. But that offense is chicken feed compared to the illegality of what had to be a conspiracy to thwart Trump’s presidential ambitions and, after the election, to bring about his impeachment. The perps have a lot to fear from Durham’s investigation. He was chosen by AG Barr because he has considerable experience in intelligence matters, so he will know how to extract information and possibly obtain plea bargains from people who are threatened with jail time. It’s entirely possible — despite Clapper’s statement to CNN — that some will stonewall like Susan McDougal did in the Clinton impeachment. McDougal went to prison rather than testify against Clinton in the Whitewater scandal. Unlikely as it may be, people such as Clapper, Comey, and Brennan may try to protect Obama the same way. But people such as former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, and former FBI lawyer (and Strzok’s lover) Lisa Page won’t. They (and Comey) were directly involved in preparing and approving the surveillance warrants against Trump campaign officials. So were Obama’s acting deputy AG Sally Yates and former deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. They could plead out and testify against Brennan and his ilk. Is it unthinkable that Durham would prosecute Obama? Unfortunately it is, but Durham shouldn’t hesitate to do so. Americas are fed up with crimes committed by Democrats — such as Hillary’s illegal trafficking of classified information in unsecured non-government emails — who aren’t held accountable for their crimes. Whomever Durham prosecutes, the Dems won’t stop their campaigns against Trump. It’s almost certain that he will be impeached by the House. Who knows what will happen in the Senate trial when Trump enemies such as Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski vote? If, despite the impeachment, Trump is reelected, the Dems will restart the “Russia collusion” campaign, claiming that his 2020 win was caused by collaboration with Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and any other bad actors they can think of. You can take that to the bank.

www.spectator.org

right

z0F4EDvmLd4FEN8n

test

iZYNCAJxP684s8yt

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/30/clinton-knocks-those-who-exploit-benghazi-in-memoir-chapter/?hpt=po_c2

Clinton knocks those 'who exploit' Benghazi in memoir chapter

2014-05-30

Washington ( CNN ) – Hillary Clinton strikes a defiant tone on Benghazi in her upcoming memoir `` Hard Choices '' and knocks those `` who exploit '' the September 11 , 2012 terrorist attack as `` a political tool , '' according to a Politico report on the chapter . The former secretary of state also writes that the attack – which Republicans have used to bludgeon Clinton since the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in the incident- is surrounded by a `` regrettable amount of misinformation , speculation , and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media . '' Politico obtained the chapter ahead of a Friday confab where Democratic national security experts and communicators will be briefed on Benghazi by Philippe Reines , a longtime Clinton adviser and spokesman . House Republicans have continued to pressure Clinton on Benghazi and earlier this month organized a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack . Democrats contend that the investigation is nothing more than a political tool to criticize Clinton as she mulls a run at the presidency in 2016 . While it is likely that Republicans will call on Clinton to testify before the select committee , Clinton casts doubt on her participation in the investigation , according to the report by Politico 's Maggie Haberman , who is also a CNN political analyst `` I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans , '' Clinton writes . `` It 's just plain wrong , and it 's unworthy of our great country . Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me . '' She continues to knock House Republicans , writing that while she respects the oversight role of Congress , `` many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions . But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers . '' GOP chairman of Select Benghazi Committee reacts to Hillary Clinton book chapter The U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11 , 2012 . Four Americans , including Ambassador 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 have questioned whether the former first lady is to blame for Stevens ' death - the first U.S. ambassador killed on duty in over 30 years . Earlier this year , Clinton said that Benghazi was her biggest regret during the four years she served as America 's top diplomat . `` It was a terrible tragedy losing four Americans , two diplomats and now it is public so I can say two CIA operatives , '' Clinton said at a speech in New Orleans . Clinton has also taken responsibility for the deaths and did so , according to Politico , in the memoir chapter , too . `` As Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people 's safety , and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day , '' she writes . Clinton testified about the attack in House and Senate hearings in 2013 . Republicans , however , say there are still questions left unanswered and some contend that the attack should disqualify the former secretary of state from holding future office . According to Politico , Clinton responds to some Republican questions on Benghazi , including claims that military assets were not scrambled in time to aid the compound and that requests for more security for the compound were ignored by the secretary of state . `` Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives – and would do more if they could , '' Clinton writes according to Politico . `` That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand . '' The former first lady also defends then-U.S . Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice , who used five Sunday talk show appearances soon after the attack to link the deaths to the anti-Islam video posted to YouTube . `` Susan stated what the intelligence community believed , rightly or wrongly , at the time , '' Clinton writes , according to Politico . `` That was the best she or anyone could do . '' Republicans contend that the talking points that link the attack to the video show the White House was playing politics with Benghazi because President Barack Obama 's 2012 re-election was just two months away . As to why Rice rather than Clinton appeared on the Sunday shows , Clinton writes , `` I do n't see appearing on Sunday-morning television as any more of a responsibility than appearing on late-night TV . Only in Washington is the definition of talking to Americans confined to 9 A.M. on Sunday mornings . '' CNN confirmed that Tommy Vietor , a National Security Council spokesman during Obama 's first term , has been brought on by the Clinton team to coordinate and assist in the response to the book . The hiring of Vietor , whose time with the President dates back to Obama ’ s days in the Senate and who has ties to both Clinton and Obama 's closest advisers , signals a closer cooperation between the White House and Clinton 's staff on communicating the news from Clinton 's book . In another sign of stepped up cooperation , Democratic surrogates and communicators who publicly support both Obama and Clinton met at the White House this week with Communications Director Jenn Palmieri and Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes to talk about a number of issues , including Benghazi and Clinton 's upcoming book , according to a source familiar with the meeting . While the topic was not on the official meeting agenda , one surrogate asked about it and the President ’ s aides made clear they want no daylight between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy issues as the book rolls out , the source added . The messaging , the White House aides said according to the source , is this : Obama ’ s team of rivals became an unrivaled team . In addition to working with the White House , the Clinton camp has stepped up their messaging around the book 's release to include a coordinated surrogate operation . Clinton 's team , according to a source familiar with the book rollout , has tapped Kiki McLean , a former Clinton senior adviser and veteran of five presidential campaigns , to coordinate the surrogate operation . This group includes a war room of former diplomats who stand ready to respond to criticism of Clinton ’ s tenure at the State Department , according to the source . During an interview that aired Friday on `` Live with Kelly and Michael , '' Obama spoke highly of Clinton and said if she chooses to run for president , he thinks she `` would be very effective at that . '' `` I always admired her . As soon as she got here , she could n't have been more effective , more loyal , '' Obama said . `` And since that time we have become really , really good friends . '' The President 's comments come a day after Obama and Clinton had an `` informal , private '' lunch at the White House , according to a White House official . Republicans were quick to respond to Clinton 's chapter on Benghazi . Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told CNN on Friday that the Benghazi chapter shows `` Hillary Clinton , President Obama and the Democrats would rather blame Republicans for asking questions than get answers for Americans . '' `` It isn ’ t acceptable for the Democrats to try to sweep this under the rug , '' Priebus said . `` Americans want answers so it doesn ’ t happen again . '' Tim Miller , the executive director of America Rising , an anti-Clinton super PAC , added in an email to reporters that `` Clinton offers plenty of finger-pointing but no real accountability of what she should 've done differently/better . '' `` In a 34-page recounting of her actions before and after a deadly terrorist attack , it appears Clinton offers few if any real regrets about how she handled the attack , '' Miller said . `` Hard Choices '' is an important moment for Clinton , the current favorite to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination should she run . Critics have charged that her time as America 's top diplomat was marked by a lack of a crowning achievement , while Clinton confidants have looked to frame those years as a success and see the book as the most potent way to do that . Clinton has said the book begins with her accepting Obama 's offer to become secretary of state and covers a range of topics , including Iran , Syria and Libya . She has joked that the memoir will be `` just another light summer read '' and will cover topics from `` Crimea to climate change . '' Asked why the Benghazi chapter was released prior to the overall release of the book , Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN that `` until the book is released , there ’ s nothing to say . And once it ’ s released , it will speak for itself . ''

5 years ago Updated 4:32 p.m. ET, 5/30/2014 Washington (CNN) – Hillary Clinton strikes a defiant tone on Benghazi in her upcoming memoir "Hard Choices" and knocks those "who exploit" the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack as "a political tool," according to a Politico report on the chapter. The former secretary of state also writes that the attack – which Republicans have used to bludgeon Clinton since the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in the incident- is surrounded by a "regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media." Follow @politicaltickerFollow @danmericacnn Politico obtained the chapter ahead of a Friday confab where Democratic national security experts and communicators will be briefed on Benghazi by Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton adviser and spokesman. House Republicans have continued to pressure Clinton on Benghazi and earlier this month organized a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack. Democrats contend that the investigation is nothing more than a political tool to criticize Clinton as she mulls a run at the presidency in 2016. While it is likely that Republicans will call on Clinton to testify before the select committee, Clinton casts doubt on her participation in the investigation, according to the report by Politico's Maggie Haberman, who is also a CNN political analyst "I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans," Clinton writes. "It's just plain wrong, and it's unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me." She continues to knock House Republicans, writing that while she respects the oversight role of Congress, "many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers." GOP chairman of Select Benghazi Committee reacts to Hillary Clinton book chapter The U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012. Four Americans, including Ambassador 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. Hillary Clinton's not-so-new book rollout Questions about Benghazi have dogged Clinton since the attack and some have questioned whether the former first lady is to blame for Stevens' death - the first U.S. ambassador killed on duty in over 30 years. Earlier this year, Clinton said that Benghazi was her biggest regret during the four years she served as America's top diplomat. "It was a terrible tragedy losing four Americans, two diplomats and now it is public so I can say two CIA operatives," Clinton said at a speech in New Orleans. Clinton has also taken responsibility for the deaths and did so, according to Politico, in the memoir chapter, too. "As Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people's safety, and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day," she writes. Clinton testified about the attack in House and Senate hearings in 2013. Republicans, however, say there are still questions left unanswered and some contend that the attack should disqualify the former secretary of state from holding future office. According to Politico, Clinton responds to some Republican questions on Benghazi, including claims that military assets were not scrambled in time to aid the compound and that requests for more security for the compound were ignored by the secretary of state. "Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives – and would do more if they could," Clinton writes according to Politico. "That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand." The former first lady also defends then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who used five Sunday talk show appearances soon after the attack to link the deaths to the anti-Islam video posted to YouTube. "Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time," Clinton writes, according to Politico. "That was the best she or anyone could do." Republicans contend that the talking points that link the attack to the video show the White House was playing politics with Benghazi because President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election was just two months away. As to why Rice rather than Clinton appeared on the Sunday shows, Clinton writes, "I don't see appearing on Sunday-morning television as any more of a responsibility than appearing on late-night TV. Only in Washington is the definition of talking to Americans confined to 9 A.M. on Sunday mornings." CNN confirmed that Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council spokesman during Obama's first term, has been brought on by the Clinton team to coordinate and assist in the response to the book. The hiring of Vietor, whose time with the President dates back to Obama’s days in the Senate and who has ties to both Clinton and Obama's closest advisers, signals a closer cooperation between the White House and Clinton's staff on communicating the news from Clinton's book. In another sign of stepped up cooperation, Democratic surrogates and communicators who publicly support both Obama and Clinton met at the White House this week with Communications Director Jenn Palmieri and Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes to talk about a number of issues, including Benghazi and Clinton's upcoming book, according to a source familiar with the meeting. While the topic was not on the official meeting agenda, one surrogate asked about it and the President’s aides made clear they want no daylight between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy issues as the book rolls out, the source added. The messaging, the White House aides said according to the source, is this: Obama’s team of rivals became an unrivaled team. In addition to working with the White House, the Clinton camp has stepped up their messaging around the book's release to include a coordinated surrogate operation. Clinton's team, according to a source familiar with the book rollout, has tapped Kiki McLean, a former Clinton senior adviser and veteran of five presidential campaigns, to coordinate the surrogate operation. This group includes a war room of former diplomats who stand ready to respond to criticism of Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, according to the source. During an interview that aired Friday on "Live with Kelly and Michael," Obama spoke highly of Clinton and said if she chooses to run for president, he thinks she "would be very effective at that." "I always admired her. As soon as she got here, she couldn't have been more effective, more loyal," Obama said. "And since that time we have become really, really good friends." The President's comments come a day after Obama and Clinton had an "informal, private" lunch at the White House, according to a White House official. Republicans were quick to respond to Clinton's chapter on Benghazi. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told CNN on Friday that the Benghazi chapter shows "Hillary Clinton, President Obama and the Democrats would rather blame Republicans for asking questions than get answers for Americans." "It isn’t acceptable for the Democrats to try to sweep this under the rug," Priebus said. "Americans want answers so it doesn’t happen again." Tim Miller, the executive director of America Rising, an anti-Clinton super PAC, added in an email to reporters that "Clinton offers plenty of finger-pointing but no real accountability of what she should've done differently/better." "In a 34-page recounting of her actions before and after a deadly terrorist attack, it appears Clinton offers few if any real regrets about how she handled the attack," Miller said. "Hard Choices" is an important moment for Clinton, the current favorite to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination should she run. Critics have charged that her time as America's top diplomat was marked by a lack of a crowning achievement, while Clinton confidants have looked to frame those years as a success and see the book as the most potent way to do that. Obama, Clinton have 'informal, private' White House lunch Clinton has said the book begins with her accepting Obama's offer to become secretary of state and covers a range of topics, including Iran, Syria and Libya. She has joked that the memoir will be "just another light summer read" and will cover topics from "Crimea to climate change." The memoir is due out on June 10. Asked why the Benghazi chapter was released prior to the overall release of the book, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN that "until the book is released, there’s nothing to say. And once it’s released, it will speak for itself."

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

iZYNCAJxP684s8yt

test

ZbhMtBxGYsPhHFIK

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/brewer-arizona-anti-gay/2014/02/23/id/554225

Arizona Businesses Urge Brewer to Veto Anti-Gay Bill

2014-02-23

Greg Richter

Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ? Vote Now in Urgent Poll Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ? Vote Now in Urgent Poll A recently passed bill in Arizona allowing businesses to refuse service to gays and others based on religious beliefs is stirring controversy as Gov . Jan Brewer considers whether to sign or veto it.Some businesses fear it will spark a boycott of the state , much like the yearlong one after Arizona passed a controversial immigration law in 2010.The law intends to allow business owners the right to refuse service to anyone if doing so would violate their religious convictions . It was sparked by incidents such as a case in New Mexico where the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a wedding photographer who refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony.Recent federal court rulings across the country have sided with allowing more rights to same-sex couples , and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has extended the rights of those married in one state even if they are living in a state that does not recognize the marriage . Both houses of the Arizona Legislature are controlled by Republicans . Three Republicans broke rank Thursday as the House of Representatives voted 33-27 for passage of the bill . That came after a 17-3 Senate vote on Wednesday that fell along party lines.The governor , also a Republican , has said she will decide whether to sign the bill by February 28 , but she vetoed a similar bill last year , The New York Daily News reports . Tennessee earlier this month introduced a similar bill . Opponents call the bill unconstitutional and discriminatory , but GOP backers say it is n't intended to discriminate against anyone , but to allow individuals to practice their religious convictions . Some Christians , in particular , say that their faith defines marriage between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a sin . To be forced to take part in a same-sex ceremony would force them to act against their beliefs , they say.The liberal think tank Center for American Progress says the previous boycott after the immigration bill passed cost the state more than $ 23 millin in lost taxes and at least $ 350 million in spending . The Greater Phoenix Economic Council urged Brewer to veto the bill , saying that four companies have said they may leave the state otherwise , reports The Los Angeles Times . `` With major events approaching in the coming year , including Super Bowl XLIX , Arizona will be the center of the world ’ s stage , ” the group 's letter said . `` This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl , and major events surrounding it , to the threats of boycotts . ''

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll A recently passed bill in Arizona allowing businesses to refuse service to gays and others based on religious beliefs is stirring controversy as Gov. Jan Brewer considers whether to sign or veto it.Some businesses fear it will spark a boycott of the state, much like the yearlong one after Arizona passed a controversial immigration law in 2010.The law intends to allow business owners the right to refuse service to anyone if doing so would violate their religious convictions. It was sparked by incidents such as a case in New Mexico where the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a wedding photographer who refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony.Recent federal court rulings across the country have sided with allowing more rights to same-sex couples, and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has extended the rights of those married in one state even if they are living in a state that does not recognize the marriage. Both houses of the Arizona Legislature are controlled by Republicans. Three Republicans broke rank Thursday as the House of Representatives voted 33-27 for passage of the bill. That came after a 17-3 Senate vote on Wednesday that fell along party lines.The governor, also a Republican, has said she will decide whether to sign the bill by February 28, but she vetoed a similar bill last year, The New York Daily News reports. Tennessee earlier this month introduced a similar bill. Opponents call the bill unconstitutional and discriminatory, but GOP backers say it isn't intended to discriminate against anyone, but to allow individuals to practice their religious convictions. Some Christians, in particular, say that their faith defines marriage between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a sin. To be forced to take part in a same-sex ceremony would force them to act against their beliefs, they say.The liberal think tank Center for American Progress says the previous boycott after the immigration bill passed cost the state more than $23 millin in lost taxes and at least $350 million in spending. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council urged Brewer to veto the bill, saying that four companies have said they may leave the state otherwise, reports The Los Angeles Times. "With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world’s stage,” the group's letter said. "This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts."

www.newsmax.com

right

ZbhMtBxGYsPhHFIK

test

KBtsbwJ1ECQYMyK0

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/all_this_crap_ive_put_up_with_the_greatest_and_worst_ever_responses_to_political_heckling_partner/

“All this crap I’ve put up with”: The greatest (and worst) ever responses to political heckling

2015-02-17

`` All this crap I 've put up with '' : The greatest ( and worst ) ever responses to political heckling In 1992 , Bill Clinton put on a master class in responding to hecklers . Ronald Reagan ? Not so much Every politician is bound to get heckled while delivering a speech at some point during their term—it ’ s the nature of the First Amendment . Some politicians , like President Obama , are great at heckler comebacks . Others , like John McCain , are just plain horrible at handling unscripted outbursts . Liberals seem to have a better sense of humor when it comes to hecklers , rolling with the punches and retorting with zingy barbs . Conservatives , on the other hand , usually handle the situation by adopting bully tactics to shut the hecklers down . As a comedian , I ’ d like to chart a history of politicians being heckled during speeches and rate their performances . All I can say to most of them is , don ’ t quit your day job ! Last month , Senator John McCain was confronted by protest group CodePink , which interrupted an Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill with cries of : “ Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes ! ” Comedian ’ s Perspective : When on stage , never , ever show the audience a heckler has gotten to you ; it ’ s a sign of amateurism . CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin commented on McCain ’ s retort , saying , “ I thought he was a little bit more of a polished politician than that . He lost his cool . ” As President Obama was wrapping up a speech during a fundraiser in San Jose , he got the left-field heckle : `` Freedom for Ethiopia . Freedom ! Freedom for Ethiopia , sir ! '' Obama ’ s Comeback : “ You kind of screwed up my ending , but that ’ s okay… . ” Comedian ’ s Perspective : Perfect heckle comeback : show that you ’ re human , kill them with kindness , and then tag your comeback line with something sharp like : “ We 've got free speech in this country , which is great , too . '' Hecklers from the Occupy movement tried to disrupt Sarah Palin 's 2012 CPAC speech , in which she regularly turned President Obama 's rhetoric against him . They called out , `` Change that we can believe in , change we need . We ca n't wait ; our country hangs in the balance . '' Palin ’ s Comeback : The former Alaska governor started chanting “ U-S-A ! U-S-A ! U-S-A ! ” Comedian 's Perspective : This is the comedy equivalent of responding to a heckler by simply shouting your popular catchphrase over and over again . It ’ s the equivalent of Larry the Cable Guy silencing a heckler by chanting “ GIT R DONE ! GIT R DONE ! GIT R DONE ! ” During a speech at the American Academy of Pediatrics in San Diego , Hillary Clinton was interrupted by a man who heckled her using a bullhorn . The man also tripped the bullhorn ’ s alarm , causing Clinton to flinch and stop speaking . Clinton ’ s Comeback : '' You know , there are some people who miss important developmental stages . ” Comedian ’ s Perspective : Well done , Mrs. Clinton ! Not only did she zing this heckler in his place , she also tailored her comeback line specifically to the audience of pediatricians . You ’ ve been served ! Sometimes words aren ’ t enough . During a speech at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri-al Maliki ’ s palace in Baghdad , a disgruntled Iraqi journalist heckled the then-president by hurling his shoe at him and shouting , `` This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people , you dog ! '' He then threw his other shoe at Bush ’ s head . Bush ’ s Comeback : “ So what if a guy threw a shoe at me ? ” He shrugged , and added , “ That ’ s what happens in free societies. ” ( The man was taken into custody and tortured . ) Comedian ’ s Perspective : Much like at a comedy club , Bush elected to have the security staff throw the heckler out . Then he was just a dick about the whole thing . During a speech at Miami Dade College , Vice President Joe Biden was confronted by a heckler who shouted , “ Stop deporting our families . ” Biden ’ s Comeback : `` We 'll do that too , kid—but let me finish my speech . '' Comedian ’ s Perspective : Great retort ; brevity is the soul of wit . Instead of ostracizing the heckler , Biden manages to make the person feel like he ’ s part of the community , and then tags the heckle comeback with a funny reprisal that plays into the situation . During a 1980 speech in Michigan , President Ronald Reagan was interrupted by a heckler while delivering the uncontroversial line : “ There are cities in Michigan…. ” He uttered the line twice before launching into an astute comeback . Comedian ’ s Perspective : This is the New York comic 's style of losing your cool and simply shouting at a heckler , “ Go fuck yourself ! ” New Jersey Governor Christie was addressing a crowd of 350 people on the second anniversary of Hurricane Sandy when a heckler—holding a sign reading “ Families Back Into Their Homes/Finish The Job '' —criticized the pace of the storm recovery . Comedian ’ s Perspective : Christie is such a phenomenal dick , and here he once again proves he ’ s a man utterly lacking in class and dignity . I ’ m surprised he didn ’ t block all the lanes of traffic leading to the heckler ’ s house . In 1992 , Bill Clinton was running for president for the first time and was speaking in favor of condoms in public schools when an activist heckled him . Clinton grabbed the mic Elvis-style and swiftly gave the heckler a lecture about being courteous . Clinton ’ s Comeback : “ Would you just calm down ? Let me tell you something . If I were dying of ambition , I would n't have stood up here and put up with all this crap I 've put up with for the last six months . I 'm fighting to change this country . ” Comedian 's Perspective : Clinton should have ended his heckler comeback by simply dropping the mic and walking off stage to a standing ovation .

"All this crap I've put up with": The greatest (and worst) ever responses to political heckling In 1992, Bill Clinton put on a master class in responding to hecklers. Ronald Reagan? Not so much Every politician is bound to get heckled while delivering a speech at some point during their term—it’s the nature of the First Amendment. Some politicians, like President Obama, are great at heckler comebacks. Others, like John McCain, are just plain horrible at handling unscripted outbursts. Liberals seem to have a better sense of humor when it comes to hecklers, rolling with the punches and retorting with zingy barbs. Conservatives, on the other hand, usually handle the situation by adopting bully tactics to shut the hecklers down. Advertisement: As a comedian, I’d like to chart a history of politicians being heckled during speeches and rate their performances. All I can say to most of them is, don’t quit your day job! 1. John McCain Heckled by CodePink Last month, Senator John McCain was confronted by protest group CodePink, which interrupted an Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill with cries of: “Arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes!” Advertisement: McCain’s Comeback: “Get out of here, you lowlife scum.” Comedian’s Perspective: When on stage, never, ever show the audience a heckler has gotten to you; it’s a sign of amateurism. CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin commented on McCain’s retort, saying, “I thought he was a little bit more of a polished politician than that. He lost his cool.” Advertisement: 2. Obama Heckled at Fundraiser As President Obama was wrapping up a speech during a fundraiser in San Jose, he got the left-field heckle: "Freedom for Ethiopia. Freedom! Freedom for Ethiopia, sir!" Obama’s Comeback:“You kind of screwed up my ending, but that’s okay….” Advertisement: Comedian’s Perspective: Perfect heckle comeback: show that you’re human, kill them with kindness, and then tag your comeback line with something sharp like: “We've got free speech in this country, which is great, too." 3. Palin Heckled by Occupy Protesters Advertisement: Hecklers from the Occupy movement tried to disrupt Sarah Palin's 2012 CPAC speech, in which she regularly turned President Obama's rhetoric against him. They called out, "Change that we can believe in, change we need. We can't wait; our country hangs in the balance." Palin’s Comeback: The former Alaska governor started chanting “U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!” Comedian's Perspective: This is the comedy equivalent of responding to a heckler by simply shouting your popular catchphrase over and over again. It’s the equivalent of Larry the Cable Guy silencing a heckler by chanting “GIT R DONE! GIT R DONE! GIT R DONE!” Advertisement: 4. Hillary Clinton Heckled by Bullhorn During a speech at the American Academy of Pediatrics in San Diego, Hillary Clinton was interrupted by a man who heckled her using a bullhorn. The man also tripped the bullhorn’s alarm, causing Clinton to flinch and stop speaking. Clinton’s Comeback:"You know, there are some people who miss important developmental stages.” Advertisement: Comedian’s Perspective: Well done, Mrs. Clinton! Not only did she zing this heckler in his place, she also tailored her comeback line specifically to the audience of pediatricians. You’ve been served! VIDEO:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aifD_y7D31s 5. George W. Bush Heckled by Shoe Advertisement: Sometimes words aren’t enough. During a speech at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri-al Maliki’s palace in Baghdad, a disgruntled Iraqi journalist heckled the then-president by hurling his shoe at him and shouting, "This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog!" He then threw his other shoe at Bush’s head. Bush’s Comeback: “So what if a guy threw a shoe at me?” He shrugged, and added, “That’s what happens in free societies.” (The man was taken into custody and tortured.) Comedian’s Perspective: Much like at a comedy club, Bush elected to have the security staff throw the heckler out. Then he was just a dick about the whole thing. Advertisement: 6. Biden Heckled About Deportation During a speech at Miami Dade College, Vice President Joe Biden was confronted by a heckler who shouted, “Stop deporting our families.” Biden’s Comeback: "We'll do that too, kid—but let me finish my speech." Comedian’s Perspective: Great retort; brevity is the soul of wit. Instead of ostracizing the heckler, Biden manages to make the person feel like he’s part of the community, and then tags the heckle comeback with a funny reprisal that plays into the situation. 7. Ronald Reagan Heckled in Michigan During a 1980 speech in Michigan, President Ronald Reagan was interrupted by a heckler while delivering the uncontroversial line: “There are cities in Michigan….” He uttered the line twice before launching into an astute comeback. Reagan’s Comeback: “Shut up!” Comedian’s Perspective: This is the New York comic's style of losing your cool and simply shouting at a heckler, “Go fuck yourself!” 8. Christie Heckled About Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Governor Christie was addressing a crowd of 350 people on the second anniversary of Hurricane Sandy when a heckler—holding a sign reading “Families Back Into Their Homes/Finish The Job"—criticized the pace of the storm recovery. Christie’s Comeback: “Sit down and shut up!” Comedian’s Perspective: Christie is such a phenomenal dick, and here he once again proves he’s a man utterly lacking in class and dignity. I’m surprised he didn’t block all the lanes of traffic leading to the heckler’s house. 9. Bill Clinton Heckled on the Campaign Trail In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for president for the first time and was speaking in favor of condoms in public schools when an activist heckled him. Clinton grabbed the mic Elvis-style and swiftly gave the heckler a lecture about being courteous. Clinton’s Comeback: “Would you just calm down? Let me tell you something. If I were dying of ambition, I wouldn't have stood up here and put up with all this crap I've put up with for the last six months. I'm fighting to change this country.” Comedian's Perspective: Clinton should have ended his heckler comeback by simply dropping the mic and walking off stage to a standing ovation.

www.salon.com

left

KBtsbwJ1ECQYMyK0

test

QHBUBAEBDI4dfdXg

republican_party

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/23/gop-congressional-leaders-pick-top-ranking-woman-to-deliver-state-of-the-union-response/

GOP congressional leaders pick top ranking woman to deliver State of the Union response

2014-01-23

Washington ( CNN ) - Emphasizing her family 's story , Republican congressional leaders tapped Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers , the fourth highest House GOP leader and highest ranking woman , to deliver the response to President Barack Obama 's State of the Union address next Tuesday . McMorris Rodgers is serving in her fifth term representing the district that runs along the eastern side of Washington State and delivered her third child in November , becoming the only member of Congress to give birth three times while in office . `` Through the lens of her family 's experiences , Cathy will share our vision for a better America built on a thriving middle class , guided by a fierce belief in life and liberty , and grounded in greater trust between citizens and their government , '' House Speaker John Boehner said in a written statement . The selection of the highest ranking female Republican in the House comes as the party is working to narrow a significant gender gap . President Obama defeated 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by double digits among female voters . Boehner and other top Republican leaders have acknowledged that the party needs to do a better job addressing the concerns of women . Some high profile gaffes from GOP Senate candidates in 2012 caused blowback among female voters . Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin referred to `` legitimate rape '' and Richard Mourdock in Indiana suggested rape was `` something God intended to happen . '' Both red-state candidates were favored to win but lost badly . Last month Boehner admitted , `` Some of our members just are n't as sensitive as they ought to be . '' The House GOP campaign arm is working with male candidates to improve their messaging to women this election cycle . Republican leaders released a video showing McMorris Rodgers getting her kids ready in the morning , discussing working in her father 's family owned agriculture business and touting that she was the first child in her family to graduate from college . But the real focus in McMorris Rodgers ' story is her family . Her son Cole was born in 2007 , and has Down syndrome . Her daughter Grace arrived in December 2010 , while the Washington State Congresswoman served as vice chair of the House GOP Conference , marking the first time a member of House leadership delivered a baby . Her second daughter , Brynn Catherine , arrived in late November . She is married to Brian Rodgers , who is a retired Navy officer . Addressing the camera in the short biographical video clip , McMorris Rodgers says her son 's diagnosis with Down 's syndrome has made her `` a better legislator and a better person '' and said her focus in Congress is to make sure the next generation has as many or more opportunities than she does . As the chair of the House Republican conference , McMorris Rodgers is tasked with communicating the public message for House GOP members . Since taking over the position last January she has made a major push for her colleagues to make Twitter and Facebook a big part of their communications strategies .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - Emphasizing her family's story, Republican congressional leaders tapped Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the fourth highest House GOP leader and highest ranking woman, to deliver the response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address next Tuesday. McMorris Rodgers is serving in her fifth term representing the district that runs along the eastern side of Washington State and delivered her third child in November, becoming the only member of Congress to give birth three times while in office. Follow @deirdrewalshcnn "Through the lens of her family's experiences, Cathy will share our vision for a better America built on a thriving middle class, guided by a fierce belief in life and liberty, and grounded in greater trust between citizens and their government," House Speaker John Boehner said in a written statement. The selection of the highest ranking female Republican in the House comes as the party is working to narrow a significant gender gap. President Obama defeated 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by double digits among female voters. Boehner and other top Republican leaders have acknowledged that the party needs to do a better job addressing the concerns of women. Some high profile gaffes from GOP Senate candidates in 2012 caused blowback among female voters. Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin referred to "legitimate rape" and Richard Mourdock in Indiana suggested rape was "something God intended to happen." Both red-state candidates were favored to win but lost badly. Last month Boehner admitted, "Some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be." The House GOP campaign arm is working with male candidates to improve their messaging to women this election cycle. Republican leaders released a video showing McMorris Rodgers getting her kids ready in the morning, discussing working in her father's family owned agriculture business and touting that she was the first child in her family to graduate from college. But the real focus in McMorris Rodgers' story is her family. Her son Cole was born in 2007, and has Down syndrome. Her daughter Grace arrived in December 2010, while the Washington State Congresswoman served as vice chair of the House GOP Conference, marking the first time a member of House leadership delivered a baby. Her second daughter, Brynn Catherine, arrived in late November. She is married to Brian Rodgers, who is a retired Navy officer. Addressing the camera in the short biographical video clip, McMorris Rodgers says her son's diagnosis with Down's syndrome has made her "a better legislator and a better person" and said her focus in Congress is to make sure the next generation has as many or more opportunities than she does. As the chair of the House Republican conference, McMorris Rodgers is tasked with communicating the public message for House GOP members. Since taking over the position last January she has made a major push for her colleagues to make Twitter and Facebook a big part of their communications strategies.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

QHBUBAEBDI4dfdXg

test

5Jg8oKprT1h8RXVM

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45185684

West Virginia votes to impeach state Supreme Court justices

Lawmakers in West Virginia have voted to impeach all four justices on the state 's Supreme Court for failing to carry out their duties . Three justices now face an impeachment trial in the Senate while a fourth announced her retirement on Tuesday . A fifth justice resigned from the top court in July . The judges are accused of spending hundreds of thousands of state dollars in office renovations , using state cars for personal use and overpaying judges . Chief Justice Margaret Workman and Justices Allen Loughry , Robin Davis , and Elizabeth Walker were impeached by the West Virginia House of Delegates on Monday . Justices Workman , Loughry and Walker will face the West Virginia Senate for impeachment trials . A fifth justice , Menis Ketchum , retired last month , but has agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud over using state-owned cars and fuel cards for personal use . The House impeached Justice Loughry on Monday for spending more than $ 363,000 ( £285,000 ) in office renovations - including for inlaying a map of the state in the floor of his office - and lying to the House Finance Committee about how involved he was in the costly renovation process . He is accused of moving a $ 42,000 desk and a $ 32,000 suede couch from the Supreme Court offices to his home , as well as misusing a state-owned vehicle , according to the impeachment documents . Justice Loughry was indicted earlier on fraud and other charges . Justice Davis was impeached for spending over $ 500,000 in renovations . Justices Walker and Workman were cleared on reports of extravagant spending as they spent less than their fellow justices ( $ 131,000 and $ 111,000 , respectively ) . But the justices all face neglect of duty charges , according to the impeachment articles . Justices Workman , Loughry , and Davis are also accused of overpaying retired , senior judges . `` This is truly a sad day for West Virginia , but it is an important step forward if we are going to restore the public 's confidence in the judiciary , '' state Congressman John Shot said in a statement earlier this month . `` After reviewing all the evidence available to us , it became clear that a culture of entitlement and disregard for both the law and taxpayer funds have damaged the reputation of our judicial system - and that all justices had a part in violating the public 's trust . '' Under state law , impeachment begins in the House , but the Senate will act as jurors to determine whether the accused should be removed from office . If the justices are all removed from office , the state 's governor , Republican Jim Justice , may end up appointing new justices .

Image copyright West Virginia Judiciary Image caption The three justices facing a Senate trial are: Allen Loughry (left), Elizabeth Walker (centre) and Margaret Workman (right) Lawmakers in West Virginia have voted to impeach all four justices on the state's Supreme Court for failing to carry out their duties. Three justices now face an impeachment trial in the Senate while a fourth announced her retirement on Tuesday. A fifth justice resigned from the top court in July. The judges are accused of spending hundreds of thousands of state dollars in office renovations, using state cars for personal use and overpaying judges. Chief Justice Margaret Workman and Justices Allen Loughry, Robin Davis, and Elizabeth Walker were impeached by the West Virginia House of Delegates on Monday. Justices Workman, Loughry and Walker will face the West Virginia Senate for impeachment trials. Justice Davis announced her retirement hours after her impeachment. A fifth justice, Menis Ketchum, retired last month, but has agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud over using state-owned cars and fuel cards for personal use. The House impeached Justice Loughry on Monday for spending more than $363,000 (£285,000) in office renovations - including for inlaying a map of the state in the floor of his office - and lying to the House Finance Committee about how involved he was in the costly renovation process. He is accused of moving a $42,000 desk and a $32,000 suede couch from the Supreme Court offices to his home, as well as misusing a state-owned vehicle, according to the impeachment documents. Justice Loughry was indicted earlier on fraud and other charges. Justice Davis was impeached for spending over $500,000 in renovations. Justices Walker and Workman were cleared on reports of extravagant spending as they spent less than their fellow justices ($131,000 and $111,000, respectively). Local media first reported the lavish spending last year. But the justices all face neglect of duty charges, according to the impeachment articles. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Impeachment, what's that? Justices Workman, Loughry, and Davis are also accused of overpaying retired, senior judges. "This is truly a sad day for West Virginia, but it is an important step forward if we are going to restore the public's confidence in the judiciary," state Congressman John Shot said in a statement earlier this month. "After reviewing all the evidence available to us, it became clear that a culture of entitlement and disregard for both the law and taxpayer funds have damaged the reputation of our judicial system - and that all justices had a part in violating the public's trust." Under state law, impeachment begins in the House, but the Senate will act as jurors to determine whether the accused should be removed from office. If the justices are all removed from office, the state's governor, Republican Jim Justice, may end up appointing new justices. In West Virginia, Supreme Court justices serve 12-year terms.

www.bbc.com

center

5Jg8oKprT1h8RXVM

test

lYj8cPDkGPDUbeep

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48982172

Trump under fire for racially-charged tweets against congresswomen

US President Donald Trump has been accused of racism after posting tweets attacking Democratic congresswomen . He claimed the women `` originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe '' , before suggesting they `` go back '' . The tweet was directed at a group of four congresswomen of colour ; three were born and raised in the US while the fourth moved to the US as a child . Republican Party representatives kept quiet amid a wave of criticism . The congresswomen - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley , and Ilhan Omar , who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - have all called the president racist , and have been backed by members of the Democratic Party . Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York , approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born . The British Prime Minister , Theresa May said President Trump 's remarks were `` completely unacceptable '' . In a three-tweet thread , Mr Trump accused the congresswomen of `` viciously '' criticising him and the US . The president did not explicitly name the women he was talking about , but the context - and references to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - made a clear link . He said Ms Pelosi would happily organise for them to leave the country . A week ago , Ms Pelosi clashed with the four women - sometimes nicknamed `` the squad '' - but she has since come to their defence following his tweets . The president wrote : `` So interesting to see 'progressive ' Democrat congresswomen , who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe , the worst , most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world ( if they even have a functioning government at all ) , now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States , the greatest and most powerful nation on earth , how our government is to be run . `` Why do n't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came . Then come back and show us how it is done . `` These places need your help badly , you ca n't leave fast enough . I 'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements ! '' There have been internal feuds among Democrats over a border funding package , with Ms Pelosi arguing in favour of the package , and the four women - all newcomers to Congress with a progressive agenda - voting against . Last week , Ms Ocasio-Cortez accused Ms Pelosi of singling out women of colour for criticism . Ms Pelosi quoted Mr Trump 's tweets and described them as `` xenophobic '' . `` When @ realDonaldTrump tells four American congresswomen to go back to their countries , he reaffirms his plan to 'Make America Great Again ' has always been about making America white again . Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power , '' she wrote . Ms Tlaib , congresswoman for Michigan 's 13th district , tweeted calling for Mr Trump 's impeachment . `` Want a response to a lawless and complete failure of a president ? He is the crisis . His dangerous ideology is the crisis . He needs to be impeached , '' she wrote . Ms Ocasio-Cortez tweeted at Mr Trump : `` On top of not accepting an America that elected us , you can not accept that we do n't fear you either . '' Ms Omar told the president that he was `` stoking white nationalism because you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda '' . And Ms Pressley shared a screenshot of Mr Trump 's tweet , adding : `` THIS is what racism looks like . WE are what democracy looks like . '' Candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination , including Elizabeth Warren , Beto O'Rourke and Bernie Sanders , condemned Mr Trump 's remarks as racist . Representative Justin Amash - who quit the Republican Party earlier this month to became an independent , in protest against the president - called the comments racist and disgusting . Democratic representative Don Beyer - who was born in Italy and is white - pointed out that he had never been targeted with similar criticism from the president . Mr Trump has tweeted since , further criticising `` people who speak so badly of our country '' . Mr Trump did not specifically mention a link to recent news events , but immigration at the southern border was a dominant topic in US news at the weekend . On Friday , Ms Ocasio-Cortez , Ms Tlaib and Ms Pressley testified to a House committee about conditions in a migrant detention centre they had visited . They expressed horror about alleged mistreatment happening `` under American flags '' . Ms Ocasio-Cortez said migrants told her they had drunk water from toilets because sinks were broken . Vice-President Mike Pence also toured a facility on Friday . He said everyone was being `` well cared for '' . The president tweeted that children 's detention centres had had `` great reviews '' and the adult male areas were `` loaded up with a big percentage of criminals '' . Mr Trump has been accused of racism many times in connection with different incidents . For years , he made false claims that former President Barack Obama was not born in the US - propagating the racist `` birther '' conspiracy . He has also made numerous slurs against Central American migrants , calling them criminals and rapists . In 2018 , he faced criticism from both Democrats and Republicans after reports said that during a meeting at the White House he called African nations `` shitholes '' . When white supremacists marched in Charlottesville , Virginia , resulting in the death of 32-year-old counter protester Heather Heyer , the president said there were `` good people on both sides '' . Mr Trump and his father Fred Trump were sued by the Department of Justice in 1973 for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices . They settled the case without admitting guilt in 1975 but were accused again by the justice department in 1978 of an `` underlying pattern of discrimination '' against black tenants . In 2018 , President Trump told a reporter : `` I am not a racist . I 'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed '' .

Image copyright EPA Image caption Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (left), Rashida Tlaib (centre) and Ayanna Pressley (right) US President Donald Trump has been accused of racism after posting tweets attacking Democratic congresswomen. He claimed the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe", before suggesting they "go back". The tweet was directed at a group of four congresswomen of colour; three were born and raised in the US while the fourth moved to the US as a child. Republican Party representatives kept quiet amid a wave of criticism. The congresswomen - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, and Ilhan Omar, who came to the US as a refugee aged 12 - have all called the president racist, and have been backed by members of the Democratic Party. Ms Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx in New York, approximately 12 miles away from the Queens hospital where Mr Trump was born. The British Prime Minister, Theresa May said President Trump's remarks were "completely unacceptable". What did the president say? In a three-tweet thread, Mr Trump accused the congresswomen of "viciously" criticising him and the US. The president did not explicitly name the women he was talking about, but the context - and references to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - made a clear link. He said Ms Pelosi would happily organise for them to leave the country. A week ago, Ms Pelosi clashed with the four women - sometimes nicknamed "the squad" - but she has since come to their defence following his tweets. The president wrote: "So interesting to see 'progressive' Democrat congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, how our government is to be run. "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. "These places need your help badly, you can't leave fast enough. I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!" Image copyright AFP Image caption President Trump has been accused of racism and white nationalism There have been internal feuds among Democrats over a border funding package, with Ms Pelosi arguing in favour of the package, and the four women - all newcomers to Congress with a progressive agenda - voting against. Last week, Ms Ocasio-Cortez accused Ms Pelosi of singling out women of colour for criticism. What has the response been? Ms Pelosi quoted Mr Trump's tweets and described them as "xenophobic". "When @realDonaldTrump tells four American congresswomen to go back to their countries, he reaffirms his plan to 'Make America Great Again' has always been about making America white again. Our diversity is our strength and our unity is our power," she wrote. Ms Tlaib, congresswoman for Michigan's 13th district, tweeted calling for Mr Trump's impeachment. "Want a response to a lawless and complete failure of a president? He is the crisis. His dangerous ideology is the crisis. He needs to be impeached," she wrote. Ms Ocasio-Cortez tweeted at Mr Trump: "On top of not accepting an America that elected us, you cannot accept that we don't fear you either." Ms Omar told the president that he was "stoking white nationalism because you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda". And Ms Pressley shared a screenshot of Mr Trump's tweet, adding: "THIS is what racism looks like. WE are what democracy looks like." Candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination, including Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Rourke and Bernie Sanders, condemned Mr Trump's remarks as racist. Representative Justin Amash - who quit the Republican Party earlier this month to became an independent, in protest against the president - called the comments racist and disgusting. Democratic representative Don Beyer - who was born in Italy and is white - pointed out that he had never been targeted with similar criticism from the president. Mr Trump has tweeted since, further criticising "people who speak so badly of our country". What sparked Trump's tweets? Mr Trump did not specifically mention a link to recent news events, but immigration at the southern border was a dominant topic in US news at the weekend. On Friday, Ms Ocasio-Cortez, Ms Tlaib and Ms Pressley testified to a House committee about conditions in a migrant detention centre they had visited. They expressed horror about alleged mistreatment happening "under American flags". Ms Ocasio-Cortez said migrants told her they had drunk water from toilets because sinks were broken. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ocasio-Cortez on detained migrants: 'The women were told to drink out of a toilet bowl' Vice-President Mike Pence also toured a facility on Friday. He said everyone was being "well cared for". The president tweeted that children's detention centres had had "great reviews" and the adult male areas were "loaded up with a big percentage of criminals". The president on race Mr Trump has been accused of racism many times in connection with different incidents. For years, he made false claims that former President Barack Obama was not born in the US - propagating the racist "birther" conspiracy. He has also made numerous slurs against Central American migrants, calling them criminals and rapists. In 2018, he faced criticism from both Democrats and Republicans after reports said that during a meeting at the White House he called African nations "shitholes". When white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, resulting in the death of 32-year-old counter protester Heather Heyer, the president said there were "good people on both sides". Mr Trump and his father Fred Trump were sued by the Department of Justice in 1973 for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices. They settled the case without admitting guilt in 1975 but were accused again by the justice department in 1978 of an "underlying pattern of discrimination" against black tenants. In 2018, President Trump told a reporter: "I am not a racist. I'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed".

www.bbc.com

center

lYj8cPDkGPDUbeep

test

6jyFOezs4Na4kbni

fbi

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/31/james-comey-fbi-clinton-trump-email-investigation-russia-hack

Clinton campaign blasts James Comey over 'jaw-dropping' double standards at FBI

2016-10-31

Dan Roberts, David Smith, Spencer Ackerman

Team questioned email investigation amid reports that he sought to withhold evidence of Russian support for Trump for fear of influencing the election The Clinton campaign blasted the FBI director , James Comey , for “ jaw-dropping ” double standards on Monday after claims that he had sought to withhold evidence of Russian support for Donald Trump for fear of influencing next week ’ s US election . In a sharp escalation of their unprecedented war of words with federal law enforcement authorities , Clinton ’ s key aides contrasted this apparent caution with Comey ’ s controversial decision to release new details of its investigation into Clinton ’ s private email server to lawmakers on Friday . “ It is impossible to view this as anything less than a blatant double standard , ” her campaign manager , Robby Mook , told reporters , claiming the decision “ defied all logic ” , especially as other intelligence agencies had favoured disclosure of suspected Russian involvement . “ Through these two decisions he shows he favours acting alone and without consulting … these are not the hallmarks of a responsible investigation , ” added Mook . Both CNBC and the Huffington Post have reported that Comey privately urged against naming Russia for allegedly meddling in the election and hacking Democratic email accounts . Though this advice has not been confirmed officially , it tallies with the fact the FBI ’ s name did not appear on a list of US intelligence agencies supporting the allegations . “ A foreign power was trying to undermine the election . He believed it to be true but was against putting it out before the election , ” one former official told CNBC . Comey ’ s position , this official reportedly said , was : “ If it is said , it shouldn ’ t come from the FBI , which as you ’ ll recall it did not . ” The Clinton campaign called on Comey to “ immediately explain this incongruence ” . “ He has set the standard for narrating a play-by-play , ” added spokesman Brian Fallon . “ If that is his way of handling things , he needs to take the same approach to the Trump campaign . ” On Monday night , NBC News reported that the FBI was conducting a preliminary inquiry into former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort ’ s business ties to Russia , though it was not yet a criminal investigation . Manafort called the report “ an outrageous smear being driven by Harry Reid and the Clinton campaign ” . Earlier the White House highlighted concerns over the FBI director ’ s decision to announce that the bureau was examining whether newly discovered emails may be relevant to its investigation of Clinton ’ s use of a private email server . Press secretary Josh Earnest was careful to say that Comey is regarded by Barack Obama as a man of integrity and principle . But he also noted the importance of “ longstanding tradition and practice and norms ” and warned of the “ risk ” of communicating with Congress . Comey has faced a fierce backlash for going public with the new FBI investigation just 11 days before a presidential election , reportedly against the advice and guidelines of the attorney general , Loretta Lynch , and other senior figures at the Department of Justice . On Sunday the FBI obtained a search warrant to begin reviewing the emails , reportedly numbering 650,000 and found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner , estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin . FBI director James Comey may be under investigation for Hatch Act violation Read more On Monday , a spokesman for the Office of Special Counsel indicated that the independent federal agency may be investigating Comey over an alleged violation of the Hatch Act , which guards against federal officials seeking to influence an election . An emboldened Trump has described the revelation as “ bigger than Watergate ” , but there is little initial evidence the news has upended the presidential race . A Morning Consult/Politico poll carried out after the announcement put Clinton three points ahead , while a CBS/YouGov survey of likely voters in 13 battleground states showed that only 1 % of Clinton supporters were less likely to vote for her as a consequence . Trump claimed on Monday that the FBI had stumbled across a digital “ mother lode ” and predicted they would discover missing work-related emails that had been deleted from Clinton ’ s computers . “ Six hundred and fifty thousand [ emails ] ? … I think you are going to find the 33,000 that are missing , ” he told supporters in Michigan . “ I think we hit the mother lode , as they say in the mining industry . ” Trump urged Comey to resist political pressure . “ He ’ s got ta hang tough because a lot of people think he did the wrong thing , but he did the right thing , ” he told the Grand Rapids rally . “ I was not his fan but what he did he brought back his reputation . ” “ It took guts for Director Comey to do what he did , ” he added , to chants of “ lock her up ” from the crowd . Trump has seized on signs of momentum to push into once-safe Democratic territory in the industrial midwest . He was also due to speak in Warren in Michigan on Monday before appearing with running mate Mike Pence in Eau Claire , Wisconsin , on Tuesday . Until his polling gap began to narrow again last week , Trump had been forced back to a dwindling number of swing states , while Clinton eyed Republican territory in Utah , Arizona and Georgia . Renewed optimism among Republicans has created an unusually vast national battleground , particularly as Trump ’ s economic populism scrambles traditional demographic dividing lines . Michigan and Wisconsin have both been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs and were the scene of surprise defeats for Clinton in the Democratic primary , when large numbers of blue-collar workers favoured Bernie Sanders . Signs of Democratic nervousness in Wisconsin became apparent last week when the Clinton campaign suddenly announced an advertising blitz . Sanders has been dispatched to help campaign for Clinton in the state on Wednesday . The impact of early voting may also be forcing Trump to look further afield . States such as a North Carolina have seen heavy early turnout among Democrats and may be relatively immune from any late swing away from Clinton . If he can not win North Carolina but picks up Florida and Ohio , Trump ’ s best hope of pulling off a shock victory will rely on either rustbelt states like Michigan and Wisconsin or , in the north-east , New Hampshire , Pennsylvania and Maine . Clinton is redoubling her efforts . Two stops on Monday in Ohio were to be followed by three in Florida on Tuesday and another swing to North Carolina later in the week . “ Most people have decided quite a long time ago what they think about all this , ” she told a rally in Ohio on Monday . “ Now what people are focused upon is choosing the next president and commander-in-chief . ” “ I am sure a lot of you may be asking what this email business is about and why in the world the FBI would decide to jump into an election without any evidence and it ’ s a good a question , ” she said , to boos from a young crowd at Kent State University . “ By all mean they should look at [ the emails ] and I am sure they will reach the same conclusion as when they looked at my emails : there is no case . ” Meanwhile , Clinton suffered another blow from a separate source : the ongoing WikiLeaks release of emails from her campaign chairman , John Podesta . The latest batch appeared to show that Donna Brazile , the interim head of the Democratic National Committee and a CNN contributor , gave Clinton a heads up about a likely debate question the day before she was due to take on Sanders in a primary debate . CNN spokeswoman Lauren Pratapas said : “ CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions , prep material , attendee list , background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate . ”

Team questioned email investigation amid reports that he sought to withhold evidence of Russian support for Trump for fear of influencing the election The Clinton campaign blasted the FBI director, James Comey, for “jaw-dropping” double standards on Monday after claims that he had sought to withhold evidence of Russian support for Donald Trump for fear of influencing next week’s US election. In a sharp escalation of their unprecedented war of words with federal law enforcement authorities, Clinton’s key aides contrasted this apparent caution with Comey’s controversial decision to release new details of its investigation into Clinton’s private email server to lawmakers on Friday. “It is impossible to view this as anything less than a blatant double standard,” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, told reporters, claiming the decision “defied all logic”, especially as other intelligence agencies had favoured disclosure of suspected Russian involvement. “Through these two decisions he shows he favours acting alone and without consulting … these are not the hallmarks of a responsible investigation,” added Mook. Both CNBC and the Huffington Post have reported that Comey privately urged against naming Russia for allegedly meddling in the election and hacking Democratic email accounts. Though this advice has not been confirmed officially, it tallies with the fact the FBI’s name did not appear on a list of US intelligence agencies supporting the allegations. “A foreign power was trying to undermine the election. He believed it to be true but was against putting it out before the election,” one former official told CNBC. Comey’s position, this official reportedly said, was: “If it is said, it shouldn’t come from the FBI, which as you’ll recall it did not.” The Clinton campaign called on Comey to “immediately explain this incongruence”. “He has set the standard for narrating a play-by-play,” added spokesman Brian Fallon. “If that is his way of handling things, he needs to take the same approach to the Trump campaign.” On Monday night, NBC News reported that the FBI was conducting a preliminary inquiry into former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business ties to Russia, though it was not yet a criminal investigation. Manafort called the report “an outrageous smear being driven by Harry Reid and the Clinton campaign”. Earlier the White House highlighted concerns over the FBI director’s decision to announce that the bureau was examining whether newly discovered emails may be relevant to its investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server. Press secretary Josh Earnest was careful to say that Comey is regarded by Barack Obama as a man of integrity and principle. But he also noted the importance of “longstanding tradition and practice and norms” and warned of the “risk” of communicating with Congress. Comey has faced a fierce backlash for going public with the new FBI investigation just 11 days before a presidential election, reportedly against the advice and guidelines of the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, and other senior figures at the Department of Justice. On Sunday the FBI obtained a search warrant to begin reviewing the emails, reportedly numbering 650,000 and found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. FBI director James Comey may be under investigation for Hatch Act violation Read more On Monday, a spokesman for the Office of Special Counsel indicated that the independent federal agency may be investigating Comey over an alleged violation of the Hatch Act, which guards against federal officials seeking to influence an election. An emboldened Trump has described the revelation as “bigger than Watergate”, but there is little initial evidence the news has upended the presidential race. A Morning Consult/Politico poll carried out after the announcement put Clinton three points ahead, while a CBS/YouGov survey of likely voters in 13 battleground states showed that only 1% of Clinton supporters were less likely to vote for her as a consequence. Trump claimed on Monday that the FBI had stumbled across a digital “mother lode” and predicted they would discover missing work-related emails that had been deleted from Clinton’s computers. Facebook Twitter Pinterest On Sunday the FBI obtained a search warrant to begin reviewing the emails, reportedly numbering 650,000 and found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin (pictured). Photograph: Jim Young / Reuters/Reuters “Six hundred and fifty thousand [emails]? … I think you are going to find the 33,000 that are missing,” he told supporters in Michigan. “I think we hit the mother lode, as they say in the mining industry.” Trump urged Comey to resist political pressure. “He’s gotta hang tough because a lot of people think he did the wrong thing, but he did the right thing,” he told the Grand Rapids rally. “I was not his fan but what he did he brought back his reputation.” “It took guts for Director Comey to do what he did,” he added, to chants of “lock her up” from the crowd. Trump has seized on signs of momentum to push into once-safe Democratic territory in the industrial midwest. He was also due to speak in Warren in Michigan on Monday before appearing with running mate Mike Pence in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on Tuesday. Until his polling gap began to narrow again last week, Trump had been forced back to a dwindling number of swing states, while Clinton eyed Republican territory in Utah, Arizona and Georgia. Renewed optimism among Republicans has created an unusually vast national battleground, particularly as Trump’s economic populism scrambles traditional demographic dividing lines. Michigan and Wisconsin have both been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs and were the scene of surprise defeats for Clinton in the Democratic primary, when large numbers of blue-collar workers favoured Bernie Sanders. Signs of Democratic nervousness in Wisconsin became apparent last week when the Clinton campaign suddenly announced an advertising blitz. Sanders has been dispatched to help campaign for Clinton in the state on Wednesday. The impact of early voting may also be forcing Trump to look further afield. States such as a North Carolina have seen heavy early turnout among Democrats and may be relatively immune from any late swing away from Clinton. If he cannot win North Carolina but picks up Florida and Ohio, Trump’s best hope of pulling off a shock victory will rely on either rustbelt states like Michigan and Wisconsin or, in the north-east, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Maine. Clinton is redoubling her efforts. Two stops on Monday in Ohio were to be followed by three in Florida on Tuesday and another swing to North Carolina later in the week. “Most people have decided quite a long time ago what they think about all this,” she told a rally in Ohio on Monday. “Now what people are focused upon is choosing the next president and commander-in-chief.” “I am sure a lot of you may be asking what this email business is about and why in the world the FBI would decide to jump into an election without any evidence and it’s a good a question,” she said, to boos from a young crowd at Kent State University. “By all mean they should look at [the emails] and I am sure they will reach the same conclusion as when they looked at my emails: there is no case.” Meanwhile, Clinton suffered another blow from a separate source: the ongoing WikiLeaks release of emails from her campaign chairman, John Podesta. The latest batch appeared to show that Donna Brazile, the interim head of the Democratic National Committee and a CNN contributor, gave Clinton a heads up about a likely debate question the day before she was due to take on Sanders in a primary debate. CNN spokeswoman Lauren Pratapas said: “CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate.” Brazile has subsequently announced her resignation from CNN.

www.theguardian.com

left

6jyFOezs4Na4kbni

test

260veFFaYQa2fG8D

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/17/george-stephanopoulos-twitter-explodes-with-calls-for-resignation/

George Stephanopoulos' Twitter Explodes with Calls for Resignation

2015-05-17

Mary Chastain

People ticked off with George Stephanopoulos took to Twitter this week to demand his resignation . With each tweet , there were many responses about his donations to the Clinton Foundation . Here are a few of the best . @ GStephanopoulos @ BarackObama I 'll sign a petition to have you fired , you Clinton hack — ❌Orwellian Apocalypse❌ ( @ GoogleDoesEvil ) May 15 , 2015 @ GStephanopoulos @ jonkarl does Team Hillary write your copy , or do you simply clear it with them ? — Mark Stickle ( @ MarkStickle ) May 14 , 2015 @ GStephanopoulos And after that , new details on your $ 50,000 Clinton Foundation donation . Right ? RIGHT ? ? ? @ GMA — Amy ( @ a_doodle ) May 14 , 2015 @ GStephanopoulos Did George keep lookout for Hillary when Bill had female guests in the Oval Office ? Asking for a friend — Beatlegal09 ( @ Beatlegal09 ) May 15 , 2015 @ GStephanopoulos @ TerryMoran You should donate to help Nepal ! But maybe to an organization w/ better than 85 % overhead . — Beelzebub ’ s Tesseract ( @ CJHerod ) May 15 , 2015 @ GStephanopoulos come on midget man , the gig is up . You are a Clinton hack . @ abcnews — Adorable Deplorable ( @ NoTransparency ) May 15 , 2015 Your donation disappeared . MT @ GStephanopoulos Breaking news–wreckage of US military helicopter that disappeared in Nepal has been found . — Anthony Bialy ( @ AnthonyBialy ) May 15 , 2015 . @ GStephanopoulos Any other news since yesterday ? I heard about a biased stooge donating to a former boss 's slush fund . You should cover it . — Anthony Bialy ( @ AnthonyBialy ) May 15 , 2015 @ lc20190 @ GStephanopoulos @ TerryMoran As the man said George , just resign and try to save your last shred of dignity . — howitzer33 ( @ howitzer3310 ) May 16 , 2015 Not only did Stephanopoulos donate $ 75,000 to the foundation , but he is also listed as a notable member of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 and 2011 . ABC even admitted he was a member but told ███ he did not pay any fees . Instead , the CGI listed him as a member because he moderated a panel for the foundation in those years . Andrew Stiles at the Washington Free Beacon contacted ABC about the donations . ABC replied to Stiles only ten minutes after the left-wing site Politico broke the news , leading the Washington Post to demand ABC apologize for seemingly shopping around a scoop to a friendlier news outlet .

People ticked off with George Stephanopoulos took to Twitter this week to demand his resignation. With each tweet, there were many responses about his donations to the Clinton Foundation. Here are a few of the best. @GStephanopoulos @BarackObama I'll sign a petition to have you fired, you Clinton hack — ❌Orwellian Apocalypse❌ (@GoogleDoesEvil) May 15, 2015 @GStephanopoulos @jonkarl does Team Hillary write your copy, or do you simply clear it with them? — Mark Stickle (@MarkStickle) May 14, 2015 @GStephanopoulos And after that, new details on your $50,000 Clinton Foundation donation. Right? RIGHT??? @GMA — Amy (@a_doodle) May 14, 2015 https://twitter.com/y67940482/status/599247403540094976 @GStephanopoulos Did George keep lookout for Hillary when Bill had female guests in the Oval Office? Asking for a friend — Beatlegal09 (@Beatlegal09) May 15, 2015 https://twitter.com/Qtraxer/status/599207429251964928 @GStephanopoulos @TerryMoran You should donate to help Nepal! But maybe to an organization w/ better than 85% overhead. — Beelzebub’s Tesseract (@CJHerod) May 15, 2015 https://twitter.com/donarndt248/status/599267717196042240 https://twitter.com/LizzzT/status/599346024767889408 https://twitter.com/yesnicksearcy/status/599218732930469889 @GStephanopoulos come on midget man, the gig is up. You are a Clinton hack. @abcnews — Adorable Deplorable (@NoTransparency) May 15, 2015 https://twitter.com/dan_themandan/status/599224841636577280 https://twitter.com/TheColonel2700/status/599248515139698690 Your donation disappeared. MT @GStephanopoulos Breaking news–wreckage of US military helicopter that disappeared in Nepal has been found. — Anthony Bialy (@AnthonyBialy) May 15, 2015 .@GStephanopoulos Any other news since yesterday? I heard about a biased stooge donating to a former boss's slush fund. You should cover it. — Anthony Bialy (@AnthonyBialy) May 15, 2015 @lc20190 @GStephanopoulos @TerryMoran As the man said George, just resign and try to save your last shred of dignity. — howitzer33 (@howitzer3310) May 16, 2015 Not only did Stephanopoulos donate $75,000 to the foundation, but he is also listed as a notable member of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 and 2011. ABC even admitted he was a member but told Breitbart News he did not pay any fees. Instead, the CGI listed him as a member because he moderated a panel for the foundation in those years. Andrew Stiles at the Washington Free Beacon contacted ABC about the donations. ABC replied to Stiles only ten minutes after the left-wing site Politico broke the news, leading the Washington Post to demand ABC apologize for seemingly shopping around a scoop to a friendlier news outlet.

www.breitbart.com

right

260veFFaYQa2fG8D

test

jD5oiRuO8lDQ36Ir

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/judge-gives-trump-ex-aide-manafort-leniency-under-four-years-in-prison-idUSKCN1QO17N

U.S. judge gives Trump ex-aide Manafort leniency: under four years in prison

2019-03-08

Sarah N. Lynch

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump ’ s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced on Thursday by a U.S. judge to less than four years in prison - far shy of federal sentencing guidelines - for financial crimes uncovered during Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russia ’ s role in the 2016 election . U.S. District Judge T.S . Ellis imposed the surprisingly lenient 47-month sentence on Manafort , 69 , during a hearing in Alexandria , Virginia , in which the veteran Republican political consultant asked for mercy but expressed no remorse for his actions . Manafort was convicted by a jury last August of five counts of tax fraud , two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts . Ellis disregarded federal sentencing guidelines cited by prosecutors that called for 19-1/2 to 24 years in prison . The judge ordered Manafort to pay a fine of $ 50,000 and restitution of just over $ 24 million . Manafort , brought into the courtroom in a wheelchair because of a condition called gout , listened during the hearing as Ellis extolled his “ otherwise blameless ” life in which he “ earned the admiration of a number of people ” and engaged in “ a lot of good things . ” “ Clearly the guidelines were way out of whack on this , ” Ellis said . Manafort was convicted after prosecutors accused him of hiding from the U.S. government millions of dollars he earned as a consultant for Ukraine ’ s former pro-Russia government . After pro-Kremlin Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych ’ s ouster , prosecutors said , Manafort lied to banks to secure loans and maintain an opulent lifestyle with luxurious homes , designer suits and even a $ 15,000 ostrich-skin jacket . The judge also said Manafort “ is not before the court for any allegations that he , or anyone at his direction , colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election . ” The sentence was even less than the sentence recommended by Manafort ’ s lawyers of 4-1/4 to 5-1/4 years in prison . “ These are serious crimes , we understand that , ” said Thomas Zehnle , one of Manafort ’ s lawyers . “ Tax evasion is by no means jaywalking . But it ’ s not narcotics trafficking . ” Legal experts expressed surprise over the sentence . “ This is a tremendous defeat for the special counsel ’ s office , ” former federal prosecutor David Weinstein said . Manafort ’ s sentence was less than half of what people who plead guilty and cooperate with the government typically get in similar cases , according to Mark Allenbaugh , a former attorney with the U.S . Sentencing Commission . “ Very shocking , ” he said . Ellis , appointed to the bench by Republican former President Ronald Reagan , called the sentence “ sufficiently punitive , ” and noted that Manafort ’ s time already served would be subtracted from the 47 months . Manafort has been jailed since June 2018 . Manafort ’ s legal troubles are not over . He faces sentencing next Wednesday in Washington in a separate case for two conspiracy charges involving lobbying and money laundering to which he pleaded guilty last September . Legal experts said the light sentence from Ellis could prompt U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to impose a sentence closer to the maximum of 10 years in the Washington case , and order that the sentence run after the current one is completed rather than concurrently . Jackson was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama . Before the sentencing , Manafort expressed no remorse but talked about how the case had been difficult for him and his family . Manafort , who opted not to testify during his trial , told Ellis that “ to say I have been humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement. ” He described his life as “ professionally and financially in shambles . ” The judge told Manafort : “ I was surprised I did not hear you express regret for engaging in wrongful conduct . ” Manafort , with noticeably grayer hair than just months ago , came into the courtroom in a wheelchair holding a cane , wearing a green prison jumpsuit emblazoned with the words “ Alexandria Inmate ” on the back . It was a far cry from Manafort ’ s usual dapper appearance and stylish garb . During a break shortly before the sentence was handed down , Manafort turned around and blew his wife , Kathleen , a kiss . Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort appears for sentencing in this court sketch in U.S. District Court in Alexandria , Virginia , U.S. , March 7 , 2019 . ███/Bill Hennessy The case capped a stunning downfall for Manafort , a prominent figure in Republican Party circles for decades who also worked as a consultant to such international figures as former Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi , former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Yanukovych . Ellis had faced criticism by some in the legal community for comments he made during the trial that were widely interpreted as biased against the prosecution . Ellis repeatedly interrupted prosecutors , told them to stop using the word “ oligarch ” to describe people associated with Manafort because it made him seem “ despicable , ” and objected to pictures of Manafort ’ s luxury items they planned to show jurors . “ It isn ’ t a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending , ” Ellis told prosecutors during the trial . Prosecutor Greg Andres urged Ellis to impose a steep sentence . “ This case must stand as a beacon to others that this conduct can not be accepted , ” Andres told the hearing on Thursday . Jackson ruled on Feb. 13 that Manafort had breached his agreement to cooperate with Mueller ’ s office by lying to prosecutors about three matters pertinent to the Russia probe including his interactions with a business partner they have said has ties to Russian intelligence . Manafort is the only one of the 34 people and three companies charged by Mueller to have gone to trial . Several others including former campaign aides Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos , former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen have pleaded guilty , while longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone has pleaded not guilty . Trump , a Republican who has called Mueller ’ s investigation a politically motivated “ witch hunt , ” has not ruled out giving Manafort a presidential pardon , saying in November : “ I wouldn ’ t take it off the table . ” “ There ’ s absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved with any collusion with any government official from Russia , ” Kevin Downing , another Manafort lawyer , said outside the courthouse . The Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee , Adam Schiff , quickly accused Downing of making “ a deliberate appeal for a pardon ” from Trump . Trump ’ s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said after the sentencing : “ I believe Manafort has been disproportionately harassed and hopefully soon there will be an investigation of the overzealous prosecutorial intimidation so it doesn ’ t happen again . ” Mueller is preparing to submit to U.S. Attorney General William Barr a report on his investigation into whether Trump ’ s campaign conspired with Russia and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe . Trump has denied collusion and obstruction and Russia has denied U.S. intelligence findings that it interfered in the 2016 election in an effort to boost Trump . Manafort worked for Trump ’ s campaign for five pivotal months in 2016 that included the Republican National Convention where Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination , three of them as campaign chairman .

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced on Thursday by a U.S. judge to less than four years in prison - far shy of federal sentencing guidelines - for financial crimes uncovered during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis imposed the surprisingly lenient 47-month sentence on Manafort, 69, during a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, in which the veteran Republican political consultant asked for mercy but expressed no remorse for his actions. Manafort was convicted by a jury last August of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. Ellis disregarded federal sentencing guidelines cited by prosecutors that called for 19-1/2 to 24 years in prison. The judge ordered Manafort to pay a fine of $50,000 and restitution of just over $24 million. Manafort, brought into the courtroom in a wheelchair because of a condition called gout, listened during the hearing as Ellis extolled his “otherwise blameless” life in which he “earned the admiration of a number of people” and engaged in “a lot of good things.” “Clearly the guidelines were way out of whack on this,” Ellis said. Manafort was convicted after prosecutors accused him of hiding from the U.S. government millions of dollars he earned as a consultant for Ukraine’s former pro-Russia government. After pro-Kremlin Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster, prosecutors said, Manafort lied to banks to secure loans and maintain an opulent lifestyle with luxurious homes, designer suits and even a $15,000 ostrich-skin jacket. The judge also said Manafort “is not before the court for any allegations that he, or anyone at his direction, colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.” The sentence was even less than the sentence recommended by Manafort’s lawyers of 4-1/4 to 5-1/4 years in prison. “These are serious crimes, we understand that,” said Thomas Zehnle, one of Manafort’s lawyers. “Tax evasion is by no means jaywalking. But it’s not narcotics trafficking.” Legal experts expressed surprise over the sentence. “This is a tremendous defeat for the special counsel’s office,” former federal prosecutor David Weinstein said. Manafort’s sentence was less than half of what people who plead guilty and cooperate with the government typically get in similar cases, according to Mark Allenbaugh, a former attorney with the U.S. Sentencing Commission. “Very shocking,” he said. Ellis, appointed to the bench by Republican former President Ronald Reagan, called the sentence “sufficiently punitive,” and noted that Manafort’s time already served would be subtracted from the 47 months. Manafort has been jailed since June 2018. Manafort’s legal troubles are not over. He faces sentencing next Wednesday in Washington in a separate case for two conspiracy charges involving lobbying and money laundering to which he pleaded guilty last September. Legal experts said the light sentence from Ellis could prompt U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to impose a sentence closer to the maximum of 10 years in the Washington case, and order that the sentence run after the current one is completed rather than concurrently. Jackson was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama. ‘IN SHAMBLES’ Before the sentencing, Manafort expressed no remorse but talked about how the case had been difficult for him and his family. Manafort, who opted not to testify during his trial, told Ellis that “to say I have been humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement.” He described his life as “professionally and financially in shambles.” The judge told Manafort: “I was surprised I did not hear you express regret for engaging in wrongful conduct.” Manafort, with noticeably grayer hair than just months ago, came into the courtroom in a wheelchair holding a cane, wearing a green prison jumpsuit emblazoned with the words “Alexandria Inmate” on the back. It was a far cry from Manafort’s usual dapper appearance and stylish garb. During a break shortly before the sentence was handed down, Manafort turned around and blew his wife, Kathleen, a kiss. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort appears for sentencing in this court sketch in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., March 7, 2019. REUTERS/Bill Hennessy The case capped a stunning downfall for Manafort, a prominent figure in Republican Party circles for decades who also worked as a consultant to such international figures as former Angolan rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Yanukovych. Ellis had faced criticism by some in the legal community for comments he made during the trial that were widely interpreted as biased against the prosecution. Ellis repeatedly interrupted prosecutors, told them to stop using the word “oligarch” to describe people associated with Manafort because it made him seem “despicable,” and objected to pictures of Manafort’s luxury items they planned to show jurors. “It isn’t a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending,” Ellis told prosecutors during the trial. Prosecutor Greg Andres urged Ellis to impose a steep sentence. “This case must stand as a beacon to others that this conduct cannot be accepted,” Andres told the hearing on Thursday. Jackson ruled on Feb. 13 that Manafort had breached his agreement to cooperate with Mueller’s office by lying to prosecutors about three matters pertinent to the Russia probe including his interactions with a business partner they have said has ties to Russian intelligence. Manafort is the only one of the 34 people and three companies charged by Mueller to have gone to trial. Several others including former campaign aides Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen have pleaded guilty, while longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone has pleaded not guilty. Trump, a Republican who has called Mueller’s investigation a politically motivated “witch hunt,” has not ruled out giving Manafort a presidential pardon, saying in November: “I wouldn’t take it off the table.” “There’s absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved with any collusion with any government official from Russia,” Kevin Downing, another Manafort lawyer, said outside the courthouse. The Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, quickly accused Downing of making “a deliberate appeal for a pardon” from Trump. Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani said after the sentencing: “I believe Manafort has been disproportionately harassed and hopefully soon there will be an investigation of the overzealous prosecutorial intimidation so it doesn’t happen again.” Slideshow (6 Images) Mueller is preparing to submit to U.S. Attorney General William Barr a report on his investigation into whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia and whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe. Trump has denied collusion and obstruction and Russia has denied U.S. intelligence findings that it interfered in the 2016 election in an effort to boost Trump. Manafort worked for Trump’s campaign for five pivotal months in 2016 that included the Republican National Convention where Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination, three of them as campaign chairman.

www.reuters.com

center

jD5oiRuO8lDQ36Ir

test

HFWrdvZbzVjgJU81

fbi

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/10/the-fbi-is-reeling-from-shock-of-comeys-unexpected-firing/

The FBI is reeling from shock of Comey’s unexpected firing

2017-05-10

Matthew Rozsa

Agents who work for the FBI are reported to be devastated at President Donald Trump 's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey . Part of the problem , it seems , is with the way Trump dismissed Comey — namely , out of the blue and without so much as an opportunity to save face . As one source told The Los Angeles Times , Comey was `` caught flat-footed '' and only learned of his termination from a TV news report while speaking to FBI agents in Los Angeles . As former FBI agent Lewis Schiliro told Politico , `` I think the way it was done was not real nice . He could have asked for his resignation and given him a little bit of time to bow out gracefully . '' Another senior official told the site that `` we were caught totally off guard . '' Yet another official told Politico that `` no one knew this was coming . Everyone is just shocked that this happened . '' Another problem is that the timing of Comey 's firing raises questions about whether it was the result of the bureau 's ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign 's alleged relationship with Russia . As one official told Politico , `` Everyone is asking , ‘ Why now ? What is the reason for doing it now ? ’ If this had happened immediately after the election , that would be one thing . Everyone was thinking it may happen then . But now ? People keep asking if it ’ s because of Russia . '' Another agent said that `` the working agents don ’ t like the way the FBI has been portrayed over the last six or eight or 10 months . I think this will be very tough . It ’ s really going to require a non-politicized effort to ensure the current investigations are allowed to proceed without any interference . '' None of this has stopped one of Trump 's greatest media boosters , Fox News host Sean Hannity , from praising the decision on the grounds that Comey was a `` national embarrassment '' for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal . Hannity also tweeted on Wednesday that he believed many rank-and-file FBI agents were happy at the decision .

Agents who work for the FBI are reported to be devastated at President Donald Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey. Part of the problem, it seems, is with the way Trump dismissed Comey — namely, out of the blue and without so much as an opportunity to save face. As one source told The Los Angeles Times, Comey was "caught flat-footed" and only learned of his termination from a TV news report while speaking to FBI agents in Los Angeles. Advertisement: As former FBI agent Lewis Schiliro told Politico, "I think the way it was done was not real nice. He could have asked for his resignation and given him a little bit of time to bow out gracefully." Another senior official told the site that "we were caught totally off guard." Yet another official told Politico that "no one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened." Another problem is that the timing of Comey's firing raises questions about whether it was the result of the bureau's ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged relationship with Russia. As one official told Politico, "Everyone is asking, ‘Why now? What is the reason for doing it now?’ If this had happened immediately after the election, that would be one thing. Everyone was thinking it may happen then. But now? People keep asking if it’s because of Russia." Advertisement: Another agent said that "the working agents don’t like the way the FBI has been portrayed over the last six or eight or 10 months. I think this will be very tough. It’s really going to require a non-politicized effort to ensure the current investigations are allowed to proceed without any interference." None of this has stopped one of Trump's greatest media boosters, Fox News host Sean Hannity, from praising the decision on the grounds that Comey was a "national embarrassment" for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Hannity also tweeted on Wednesday that he believed many rank-and-file FBI agents were happy at the decision. Advertisement: Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2017/05/16adc883e7c7f1a7b1475084dae80486.mp4" image="http://media.salon.com/2017/05/5b35c55d5a23330b825aba0ce1117cf2-1280x720.png"][/jwplayer]

www.salon.com

left

HFWrdvZbzVjgJU81

test

3RPngfcfnjjNiTDP

fbi

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/how-many-fbi-agents-does-it-take-to-terrorize-an-unarmed-66-year-old/

How Many FBI Agents Does It Take to Terrorize an Unarmed 66-Year-Old?

George Parry, Paul Kengor, Jeffrey Lord, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Geoff Shepard, Mark Hyman

— The Wonderful Wizard of Oz , by L. Frank Baum Long ago , as a Special Attorney with the Justice Department ’ s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section , I participated in planning and — in a handful of instances — executing arrests of members of La Cosa Nostra and their associates . From personal observation , I early on concluded that , in apprehending mobsters , one of the primary threats to agent safety was the risk of fratricide , i.e. , one amped-up , anxious and heavily armed agent accidentally shooting some other amped-up , anxious and heavily armed agent . The FBI , ATF , and other federal agents with whom I was privileged to work shared that concern . For that reason , they planned operations meticulously and kept the number of arresting agents to the absolute minimum in order to reduce the risk of injury or error . To that end , I opted whenever possible to avoid arrests altogether by having defense counsel surrender their clients at the marshal ’ s lock up during regular business hours . From the media ’ s standpoint , the visuals must have been underwhelming . But then , we didn ’ t much care about meeting the needs of the news media . Having targets surrender was simple , held down costs , and reduced the risk of harm to one and all . This is not to say that we never made arrests . Sometimes , we had no choice . I recall one early morning arrest of a violence-prone mobster . The assigned agents were aware that the target was at a bar with his girlfriend . Since we wanted to take him at his home so that the premises could be searched incident to arrest , the agents parked outside his residence and waited for him to show up . Around 6:00 A.M. , the target arrived and went inside with his girlfriend . Two FBI agents ( the total number needed to take down this dangerous felon and conduct the search ) knocked on the door . A split second later , the target stepped outside , slammed the door behind him , and announced , “ Okay , let ’ s go . ” By this tactic , he had cleverly defeated our plan to search his residence . Despite the target ’ s extensive criminal record , one of the agents said to him , “ Vinnie [ not his real name ] , if you promise to behave , I won ’ t put you in cuffs. ” The violent felon smiled and said , “ Deal. ” Thus , he was transported without handcuffs or incident to the federal building where he was processed . But today , with the example of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the FBI ’ s recent daring dawn raid and arrest of serial false declarant Roger Stone , it is apparent that my ancient generation of federal law enforcement had it all wrong . Team Mueller ’ s use of 29 agents plus CNN video support elements were confronted with a challenging tactical problem . Despite the fact that Stone has no prior criminal record , he is nevertheless 66 years old . This is an age when people are sometimes cranky and disagreeable . Obviously , those 29 agents were necessary to establish tactical dominance and to quickly subdue this lawless false declarant . Hopefully , the overwhelming show of force prevented Stone from making any further false declarations during the course of his arrest . And , equally important , the visuals of the assault broadcast by the CNN tactical elements undoubtedly will serve as a deterrent to others who may harbor thoughts of uttering untruths sworn or otherwise . All of which leads me to shake my wooly gray head and wonder aloud if any of these two-fisted crime fighters who took down the cunning and dangerous Roger Stone are in any way embarrassed by their participation in this vaudeville act . I mean , come on ! 29 agents ? Seriously ? Once upon a time , you could have invaded a small country with that much firepower much less arrest a white haired gadfly who allegedly lied to the authorities . Is the wimp quotient really that high in today ’ s FBI ? Or was there some other reason for this televised silliness ? Could it be that Mueller and his team of Hillary Clinton acolytes are trying to fool us with their comedy act ? Is this ridiculous armed raid supposed to distract us from the humiliating fact that the Team Mueller elephant has once again given birth to a mouse ? Is this an act of misdirection calculated to obscure the fact that Mueller ’ s Hillary Clinton fan club seems incapable of bringing nothing but process crime indictments devoid of any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion ? If so , they are sadly mistaken . After all these years of investigation , indictments of foreign nationals who will never appear in an American courtroom , and process crimes generated in large part by the investigators themselves , the mask is slipping and the act is wearing thin . Just like the Wonderful Wizard of Oz , the Great and Terrible Mueller is slowly emerging as , in the words of Dorothy , the Great and Terrible humbug . So what can Team Mueller do to prepare the public for what appears to be the inevitable and ignominious end of their sputtering investigation ? Maybe for their next big arrest , the Team Mueller Clintonistas should use 100 FBI agents to surround the target ’ s luxury condo , land an assault force on the roof , lob some teargas canisters through the windows , kick in the front door and have NBC , ABC and CBS broadcast the event live .

“I am Oz, the Great and Terrible!” — The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum Long ago, as a Special Attorney with the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, I participated in planning and — in a handful of instances — executing arrests of members of La Cosa Nostra and their associates. From personal observation, I early on concluded that, in apprehending mobsters, one of the primary threats to agent safety was the risk of fratricide, i.e., one amped-up, anxious and heavily armed agent accidentally shooting some other amped-up, anxious and heavily armed agent. The FBI, ATF, and other federal agents with whom I was privileged to work shared that concern. For that reason, they planned operations meticulously and kept the number of arresting agents to the absolute minimum in order to reduce the risk of injury or error. To that end, I opted whenever possible to avoid arrests altogether by having defense counsel surrender their clients at the marshal’s lock up during regular business hours. From the media’s standpoint, the visuals must have been underwhelming. But then, we didn’t much care about meeting the needs of the news media. Having targets surrender was simple, held down costs, and reduced the risk of harm to one and all. This is not to say that we never made arrests. Sometimes, we had no choice. I recall one early morning arrest of a violence-prone mobster. The assigned agents were aware that the target was at a bar with his girlfriend. Since we wanted to take him at his home so that the premises could be searched incident to arrest, the agents parked outside his residence and waited for him to show up. Around 6:00 A.M., the target arrived and went inside with his girlfriend. Two FBI agents (the total number needed to take down this dangerous felon and conduct the search) knocked on the door. A split second later, the target stepped outside, slammed the door behind him, and announced, “Okay, let’s go.” By this tactic, he had cleverly defeated our plan to search his residence. Despite the target’s extensive criminal record, one of the agents said to him, “Vinnie [not his real name], if you promise to behave, I won’t put you in cuffs.” The violent felon smiled and said, “Deal.” Thus, he was transported without handcuffs or incident to the federal building where he was processed. That’s how the old Hoover era FBI rolled. But today, with the example of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the FBI’s recent daring dawn raid and arrest of serial false declarant Roger Stone, it is apparent that my ancient generation of federal law enforcement had it all wrong. Team Mueller’s use of 29 agents plus CNN video support elements were confronted with a challenging tactical problem. Despite the fact that Stone has no prior criminal record, he is nevertheless 66 years old. This is an age when people are sometimes cranky and disagreeable. Obviously, those 29 agents were necessary to establish tactical dominance and to quickly subdue this lawless false declarant. Hopefully, the overwhelming show of force prevented Stone from making any further false declarations during the course of his arrest. And, equally important, the visuals of the assault broadcast by the CNN tactical elements undoubtedly will serve as a deterrent to others who may harbor thoughts of uttering untruths sworn or otherwise. All of which leads me to shake my wooly gray head and wonder aloud if any of these two-fisted crime fighters who took down the cunning and dangerous Roger Stone are in any way embarrassed by their participation in this vaudeville act. I mean, come on! 29 agents? Seriously? Once upon a time, you could have invaded a small country with that much firepower much less arrest a white haired gadfly who allegedly lied to the authorities. Is the wimp quotient really that high in today’s FBI? Or was there some other reason for this televised silliness? Could it be that Mueller and his team of Hillary Clinton acolytes are trying to fool us with their comedy act? Is this ridiculous armed raid supposed to distract us from the humiliating fact that the Team Mueller elephant has once again given birth to a mouse? Is this an act of misdirection calculated to obscure the fact that Mueller’s Hillary Clinton fan club seems incapable of bringing nothing but process crime indictments devoid of any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion? If so, they are sadly mistaken. After all these years of investigation, indictments of foreign nationals who will never appear in an American courtroom, and process crimes generated in large part by the investigators themselves, the mask is slipping and the act is wearing thin. Just like the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the Great and Terrible Mueller is slowly emerging as, in the words of Dorothy, the Great and Terrible humbug. So what can Team Mueller do to prepare the public for what appears to be the inevitable and ignominious end of their sputtering investigation? Maybe for their next big arrest, the Team Mueller Clintonistas should use 100 FBI agents to surround the target’s luxury condo, land an assault force on the roof, lob some teargas canisters through the windows, kick in the front door and have NBC, ABC and CBS broadcast the event live. After all, in show business, bigger is always better. George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor who practices law in Philadelphia. He is a regular contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer and blogs at knowledgeisgood.net. He may be reached by email at [email protected].

www.spectator.org

right

3RPngfcfnjjNiTDP

test

0Q8VESHcuHhiriP7

politics

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/93913bc0456849718587c8b7a176e748

Senate rejection of Trump border emergency no longer certain

2019-03-13

Alan Fram, Lisa Mascaro

Vice President Mike Pence , center , accompanied by his Chief of Staff Marc Short , second from left , leaves the U.S. Capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington , Tuesday , March 12 , 2019 . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik ) Vice President Mike Pence , center , accompanied by his Chief of Staff Marc Short , second from left , leaves the U.S. Capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington , Tuesday , March 12 , 2019 . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The White House and Republican senators sought compromise Tuesday on limiting presidents ’ powers to unilaterally declare national emergencies , as chances improved that President Donald Trump might avoid a long-expected rejection by Congress of his effort to divert billions more for building barriers along the Mexican border . As a Thursday showdown vote in the Senate neared , GOP Sens . Mike Lee of Utah , Thom Tillis of North Carolina and others were talking with the White House about related legislation that would curb the ability of presidents to declare future emergencies . If Trump would commit to signing a bill handcuffing future emergency declarations , more GOP senators might support his border emergency declaration in Thursday ’ s vote . Lee and Tillis were among five GOP senators who met privately Tuesday at the Capitol with Vice President Mike Pence as Republicans sought a way to bolster support for Trump in Thursday ’ s crucial vote . Since the Democratic-run House voted last month to block Trump , Senate passage of the resolution rejecting the border emergency would send it to the White House , where it would face a certain veto — Trump ’ s first . By late Tuesday , there were indications that GOP opposition to Trump ’ s emergency along the Mexican border was softening . If it stands , the declaration would let Trump divert $ 3.6 billion from military construction projects to build border barriers , even though Congress had voted to limit him to less than $ 1.4 billion for barrier construction in the budget . Tillis is among four Senate Republicans who have said they ’ d vote with Democrats to oppose Trump ’ s border emergency . At a closed-door lunch Tuesday , Tillis suggested he could be open to backing the president , said two people familiar with his comments . One said Tillis told his colleagues he could change his vote if Trump was indeed ready to curb presidential powers to declare emergencies without Congress ’ approval . The two spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal private conversations . A Tillis aide did not return messages left for him . Tillis faces a potentially tough re-election fight next year . Republicans control the Senate 53-47 , meaning that four GOP defections would be enough to send the resolution blocking Trump ’ s border emergency to the White House . The others are Sens . Susan Collins of Maine , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky . Paul said earlier this month that there were “ at least 10 ” GOP senators prepared to oppose Trump ’ s emergency . But he told reporters Tuesday that he now expects fewer defections . GOP senators are “ being beaten up right now ” to fall in line , he said . “ So if you see anybody that ’ s got blood dripping out of their ear , they may be changing , ” he said . Murkowski said in an interview that she would consider backing legislation “ that actually does constrain ” the president ’ s emergency powers , but added , “ At this point in time , we don ’ t have it . ” If the Senate sends the resolution blocking Trump ’ s border emergency to the White House , Congress would be highly unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities needed to eventually override a veto . But final congressional approval of the resolution on Thursday would highlight a clash in which Trump was being forced to protect his signature campaign promise — building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — by vetoing legislation sent to him by a Republican-led Senate . Congress has never before voted to overturn a president ’ s emergency declaration . “ They ’ d like to win and short of that they don ’ t want a jailbreak ” with large numbers of Republicans defecting , Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas , an adviser to Senate GOP leadership , said of the eleventh-hour White House lobbying effort . Under a 1976 law , presidents have wide discretion in determining when a national emergency has occurred . Congress can vote to block an emergency declaration , but the two-thirds majorities required to overcome presidential vetoes make it hard for lawmakers to prevail . Lee ’ s proposal , released late Tuesday , says a presidential emergency would last 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it . It would apply to future emergencies , not Trump ’ s current border emergency . The White House wants to extend the 30-day period , perhaps to 30 days when Congress is in session , said one GOP aide familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe closed-door talks . A vote on Lee ’ s plan was expected after Congress returns from a recess later this month . Democrats and some Republicans say Trump was abusing the emergency law by issuing a declaration to access money Congress had explicitly voted to deny him . Trump had repeatedly said Mexico would pay for the wall , which is not happening . Tillis requested Pence ’ s meeting with senators , and Pence largely was there to listen , an administration official said . Pence urged them to stand with Trump in Thursday ’ s vote . The White House says that Trump is within his rights to declare the national emergency and that opposing him will be seen as a vote against border security — which could play poorly in their home states . The strongest chance of blocking Trump ’ s border emergency is likely several lawsuits filed by Democratic state attorneys general , environmental groups and others .

Vice President Mike Pence, center, accompanied by his Chief of Staff Marc Short, second from left, leaves the U.S. Capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) Vice President Mike Pence, center, accompanied by his Chief of Staff Marc Short, second from left, leaves the U.S. Capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House and Republican senators sought compromise Tuesday on limiting presidents’ powers to unilaterally declare national emergencies, as chances improved that President Donald Trump might avoid a long-expected rejection by Congress of his effort to divert billions more for building barriers along the Mexican border. As a Thursday showdown vote in the Senate neared, GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and others were talking with the White House about related legislation that would curb the ability of presidents to declare future emergencies. If Trump would commit to signing a bill handcuffing future emergency declarations, more GOP senators might support his border emergency declaration in Thursday’s vote. Lee and Tillis were among five GOP senators who met privately Tuesday at the Capitol with Vice President Mike Pence as Republicans sought a way to bolster support for Trump in Thursday’s crucial vote. Since the Democratic-run House voted last month to block Trump, Senate passage of the resolution rejecting the border emergency would send it to the White House, where it would face a certain veto — Trump’s first. By late Tuesday, there were indications that GOP opposition to Trump’s emergency along the Mexican border was softening. If it stands, the declaration would let Trump divert $3.6 billion from military construction projects to build border barriers, even though Congress had voted to limit him to less than $1.4 billion for barrier construction in the budget. Tillis is among four Senate Republicans who have said they’d vote with Democrats to oppose Trump’s border emergency. At a closed-door lunch Tuesday, Tillis suggested he could be open to backing the president, said two people familiar with his comments. One said Tillis told his colleagues he could change his vote if Trump was indeed ready to curb presidential powers to declare emergencies without Congress’ approval. The two spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal private conversations. A Tillis aide did not return messages left for him. Tillis faces a potentially tough re-election fight next year. Republicans control the Senate 53-47, meaning that four GOP defections would be enough to send the resolution blocking Trump’s border emergency to the White House. The others are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Paul said earlier this month that there were “at least 10” GOP senators prepared to oppose Trump’s emergency. But he told reporters Tuesday that he now expects fewer defections. GOP senators are “being beaten up right now” to fall in line, he said. “So if you see anybody that’s got blood dripping out of their ear, they may be changing,” he said. Murkowski said in an interview that she would consider backing legislation “that actually does constrain” the president’s emergency powers, but added, “At this point in time, we don’t have it.” If the Senate sends the resolution blocking Trump’s border emergency to the White House, Congress would be highly unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities needed to eventually override a veto. But final congressional approval of the resolution on Thursday would highlight a clash in which Trump was being forced to protect his signature campaign promise — building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — by vetoing legislation sent to him by a Republican-led Senate. Congress has never before voted to overturn a president’s emergency declaration. “They’d like to win and short of that they don’t want a jailbreak” with large numbers of Republicans defecting, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, an adviser to Senate GOP leadership, said of the eleventh-hour White House lobbying effort. Under a 1976 law, presidents have wide discretion in determining when a national emergency has occurred. Congress can vote to block an emergency declaration, but the two-thirds majorities required to overcome presidential vetoes make it hard for lawmakers to prevail. Lee’s proposal, released late Tuesday, says a presidential emergency would last 30 days unless Congress votes to extend it. It would apply to future emergencies, not Trump’s current border emergency. The White House wants to extend the 30-day period, perhaps to 30 days when Congress is in session, said one GOP aide familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe closed-door talks. A vote on Lee’s plan was expected after Congress returns from a recess later this month. Democrats and some Republicans say Trump was abusing the emergency law by issuing a declaration to access money Congress had explicitly voted to deny him. Trump had repeatedly said Mexico would pay for the wall, which is not happening. Tillis requested Pence’s meeting with senators, and Pence largely was there to listen, an administration official said. Pence urged them to stand with Trump in Thursday’s vote. The White House says that Trump is within his rights to declare the national emergency and that opposing him will be seen as a vote against border security — which could play poorly in their home states. The strongest chance of blocking Trump’s border emergency is likely several lawsuits filed by Democratic state attorneys general, environmental groups and others. ___ Associated Press writer Catherine Lucey contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

0Q8VESHcuHhiriP7

test

Fi6V9APAiobGbV0D

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/31/the_rights_sham_christianity_how_an_attack_on_john_kasich_exposes_the_fraud/

The right’s sham Christianity: How an attack on John Kasich exposes the fraud

2014-10-31

Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig

Could Republican Gov . John Kasich run for president ? According to the Washington Post , he ’ s poised to , and he certainly seems to be among the better options out there , with the other obvious choices either clearly deranged ( Ted Cruz ) or totally uninterested ( Mitt Romney ) . But conservatives have not been roundly pleased with Kasich , in part because he is evidently something of a committed Christian . Last year , Kasich fought doggedly to expand Medicaid coverage in Ohio , extending healthcare to some 275,000 poor people . When queried as to why a conservative would push for expanded coverage , Kasich explained his reasoning thus : “ I had a conversation with one of the members of the legislature the other day . I said , ‘ I respect the fact that you believe in small government . I do , too . I also know that you ’ re a person of faith . Now , when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter , he ’ s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small . But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor . You better have a good answer . ’ ” Conservative critics did not have a good answer . If Kasich ’ s challenge required a faith-based , well-reasoned critique of Medicaid to defend Republican animus , that wasn ’ t what it received . Instead , Kasich ’ s right-wing opponents produced a series of attacks that seemed straight out of the Richard Dawkins school of rhetoric . At RedState , for instance , Jason Hart complained that “ Kasich leaned heavily on his Christian faith to push the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , ” and glossed over Kasich ’ s explanation of his Christian reasoning as : “ anyone who opposes Medicaid expansion will have to answer for their opposition when they die . ” Of course , Kasich didn ’ t suggest that anyone who opposes Medicaid expansion will have to answer for such at the pearly gates ; he merely pointed out that , at this point in time , Medicaid expansion is the only option for extending healthcare coverage to poor people in Ohio , making it the most sensible Christian option . Were there other options – that is , if Republicans had some small-government program that resulted in equal or better coverage – Kasich ’ s argument would fall out in favor of that . But as it stands no such substitute exists . It ’ s notable that misrepresenting Kasich ’ s Christian defense of Medicaid expansion remains a popular smear . Consider the National Review ’ s Avik Roy : Roy ’ s lie is as glib as it is lazy , suggesting two simultaneous pathologies : first , that conservatives have mostly given up on an actual faith-based critique of extending healthcare coverage to poor people ; second , that unless Christianity is acting as a helpful crutch to prop up libertarian fiscal policies , it ’ s more or less a joke . True to form , the Wall Street Journal had an absolute field day making fun of Kasich ’ s Christian reasoning . “ Believe it or not , there are still a few disciples with faith in an ObamaCare higher power , ” the article titled “ Medicaid and the Apostle Kasich ” opens , and the faith-themed snark just rolls on from there . Both theologically tone-deaf and redolent with Hitchensian disdain of Christian thought , the piece sneers that Kasich “ really must feel like he 's guided by the Holy Spirit ” ( perish the thought ! ) , and sniffs that Kasich ’ s “ government-as-thy-brother's-keeper riff needs some moral fine-tuning. ” But the most damning line is the last : “ Republicans get a vote before St. Peter does . ” It seems this is where Kasich and his critics depart : For the governor , and for any faithful Christian , Christian ethics precede party politics . For some time the line from Christian politicians like Paul Ryan has been that their faith inspires their political affiliation , not vice versa . But the response of various conservative venues to a Christian argument that , while theologically orthodox and sensible , nonetheless reverses a cherished partisan position , suggests another situation of priorities . Kasich ’ s sin is to present a vision of fiscal conservatism that is limited rather than necessitated by Christian ethics . His argument , despite what Roy , Hart and the Wall Street Journal would present , is actually sophisticated : He points out that Christian doctrine directly requires the consideration of the poor ahead of the interests of profit . It is not that Christian doctrine has traditionally held that any profit from business is wrong ( though more radical strands have moved in that direction ) , but that excess wealth has generally been viewed by Christian authorities as acceptable only insofar as the needs of the most vulnerable have been met . This is foundational , ancient Christian teaching , ranging from the earliest church fathers to the medieval scholars and into the modern day . Naturally , Kasich ’ s critics don ’ t bother to attempt a reversal on theological grounds . Instead they suggest , pace Hart , that there is some small-government solution directly at hand that Kasich has ignored . Yet they have roundly failed to produce it . If you could link to a policy proposal that better accomplishes the goal of ensuring the poor healthcare coverage , why sneer about “ hating Jesus ” instead ? Because , it seems , the comedy of Christian sentiment opposed to conservative dogma is rote among right-wingers . Conservatives are smart to saturate airwaves with turf wars over social issues , wherein they ’ re more than happy to prop up Christian views ; but Christian voters should be wary of the swiftness and viciousness with which conservatives seem prepared to dismiss even perfectly solid Christian reasoning altogether when it no longer suits them . If party policy is that the interests of the GOP precede the interests of the Prince of Peace , there ’ s not much room for negotiation .

Could Republican Gov. John Kasich run for president? According to the Washington Post, he’s poised to, and he certainly seems to be among the better options out there, with the other obvious choices either clearly deranged (Ted Cruz) or totally uninterested (Mitt Romney). But conservatives have not been roundly pleased with Kasich, in part because he is evidently something of a committed Christian. Last year, Kasich fought doggedly to expand Medicaid coverage in Ohio, extending healthcare to some 275,000 poor people. When queried as to why a conservative would push for expanded coverage, Kasich explained his reasoning thus: Advertisement: “I had a conversation with one of the members of the legislature the other day. I said, ‘I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do, too. I also know that you’re a person of faith. Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.’ ” Conservative critics did not have a good answer. If Kasich’s challenge required a faith-based, well-reasoned critique of Medicaid to defend Republican animus, that wasn’t what it received. Instead, Kasich’s right-wing opponents produced a series of attacks that seemed straight out of the Richard Dawkins school of rhetoric. At RedState, for instance, Jason Hart complained that “Kasich leaned heavily on his Christian faith to push the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” and glossed over Kasich’s explanation of his Christian reasoning as: “anyone who opposes Medicaid expansion will have to answer for their opposition when they die.” Of course, Kasich didn’t suggest that anyone who opposes Medicaid expansion will have to answer for such at the pearly gates; he merely pointed out that, at this point in time, Medicaid expansion is the only option for extending healthcare coverage to poor people in Ohio, making it the most sensible Christian option. Were there other options – that is, if Republicans had some small-government program that resulted in equal or better coverage – Kasich’s argument would fall out in favor of that. But as it stands no such substitute exists. It’s notable that misrepresenting Kasich’s Christian defense of Medicaid expansion remains a popular smear. Consider the National Review’s Avik Roy: [embedtweet id=524584726175416320] Advertisement: Roy’s lie is as glib as it is lazy, suggesting two simultaneous pathologies: first, that conservatives have mostly given up on an actual faith-based critique of extending healthcare coverage to poor people; second, that unless Christianity is acting as a helpful crutch to prop up libertarian fiscal policies, it’s more or less a joke. True to form, the Wall Street Journal had an absolute field day making fun of Kasich’s Christian reasoning. “Believe it or not, there are still a few disciples with faith in an ObamaCare higher power,” the article titled “Medicaid and the Apostle Kasich” opens, and the faith-themed snark just rolls on from there. Both theologically tone-deaf and redolent with Hitchensian disdain of Christian thought, the piece sneers that Kasich “really must feel like he's guided by the Holy Spirit” (perish the thought!), and sniffs that Kasich’s “government-as-thy-brother's-keeper riff needs some moral fine-tuning.” But the most damning line is the last: “Republicans get a vote before St. Peter does.” It seems this is where Kasich and his critics depart: For the governor, and for any faithful Christian, Christian ethics precede party politics. For some time the line from Christian politicians like Paul Ryan has been that their faith inspires their political affiliation, not vice versa. But the response of various conservative venues to a Christian argument that, while theologically orthodox and sensible, nonetheless reverses a cherished partisan position, suggests another situation of priorities. Advertisement: Kasich’s sin is to present a vision of fiscal conservatism that is limited rather than necessitated by Christian ethics. His argument, despite what Roy, Hart and the Wall Street Journal would present, is actually sophisticated: He points out that Christian doctrine directly requires the consideration of the poor ahead of the interests of profit. It is not that Christian doctrine has traditionally held that any profit from business is wrong (though more radical strands have moved in that direction), but that excess wealth has generally been viewed by Christian authorities as acceptable only insofar as the needs of the most vulnerable have been met. This is foundational, ancient Christian teaching, ranging from the earliest church fathers to the medieval scholars and into the modern day. Naturally, Kasich’s critics don’t bother to attempt a reversal on theological grounds. Instead they suggest, pace Hart, that there is some small-government solution directly at hand that Kasich has ignored. Yet they have roundly failed to produce it. If you could link to a policy proposal that better accomplishes the goal of ensuring the poor healthcare coverage, why sneer about “hating Jesus” instead? Advertisement: Because, it seems, the comedy of Christian sentiment opposed to conservative dogma is rote among right-wingers. Conservatives are smart to saturate airwaves with turf wars over social issues, wherein they’re more than happy to prop up Christian views; but Christian voters should be wary of the swiftness and viciousness with which conservatives seem prepared to dismiss even perfectly solid Christian reasoning altogether when it no longer suits them. If party policy is that the interests of the GOP precede the interests of the Prince of Peace, there’s not much room for negotiation.

www.salon.com

left

Fi6V9APAiobGbV0D

test

J0JfImgLRe5ElZaO

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-Court-Gay-Marriage/2015/06/09/id/649576/

High Court Ruling Against Gay Marriage Would Produce 'Chaos'

2015-06-09

Mark Sherman

Gay and lesbian couples could face legal chaos if the Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage in the next few weeks . Same-sex weddings could come to a halt in many states , depending on a confusing mix of lower-court decisions and the sometimes-contradictory views of state and local officials . Among the 36 states in which same-sex couples can now marry are 20 in which federal judges invoked the Constitution to strike down marriage bans . Those rulings would be in conflict with the nation 's highest court if the justices uphold the power of states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples . A decision is expected by late June in cases from Kentucky , Michigan , Ohio and Tennessee . Top officials in some states , including California , seem determined to allow gay and lesbian couples to continue to marry no matter how the court decision comes out . But some county clerks , who actually issue marriage licenses , might not go along , experts said . In other states , a high court ruling in favor of state bans would serve to prohibit any more such unions , but also could give rise to new efforts to repeal marriage bans through the legislature or the ballot . The scenario may be unlikely , given the Supreme Court 's role in allowing those lower court rulings to take effect before the justices themselves decided the issue . But if the court does n't endorse same-sex marriage nationwide , `` it would be chaos , '' said Howard Wasserman , a Florida International University law professor . Marriages already on the books probably are safe , said several scholars and civil liberties lawyers . `` There 's a very strong likelihood these marriages would have to be respected , no matter what , '' said Christopher Stoll , senior staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights . Gay and lesbian couples could continue to marry in the 16 states that have same-sex marriage because of state court rulings , acts of the legislature or statewide votes . Similarly , the 14 states that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying , including the four directly involved in the Supreme Court cases , could continue enforcing their state marriage laws . That would include Alabama , where a federal judge has struck down the state 's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage , but put her ruling on hold pending the high court 's decision . Of the remaining 20 states , any that fought unsuccessfully to preserve marriage bans would not have much trouble resuming enforcement . `` That state can immediately start saying we 're going to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples going forward , '' said Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf . That list might include Alaska , Arizona , Florida , Idaho , Indiana , Kansas , Montana , Nevada , North Carolina , Oklahoma , South Carolina , Utah , West Virginia , Wisconsin and Wyoming . Officials in some of those states refused to comment on how they would respond , citing the ongoing Supreme Court case . `` I 'm just not going to speculate on what the court may or may not do , '' said Kansas Gov . Sam Brownback . Things might be different in California , Colorado , Oregon , Pennsylvania and Virginia because top elected officials did not contest lower-court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage . Courts in those states issued orders , or injunctions , that forbid the state from enforcing the constitutional amendments or state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman . Typically , a participant in the lawsuit that led to the injunction has to ask the judge to undo it . But if the governor and attorney general are same-sex marriage supporters , they may have little incentive to go back into court . In California , for instance , Gov . Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris both opposed Proposition 8 , the state constitutional amendment that prohibited same-sex marriage . `` I think it 's very unlikely that anyone would try to turn back the clock in California , '' Stoll said . But Gene Schaerr , a Washington-based lawyer who has defended same-sex marriage bans , said he thinks even in states where the political leadership favors gay and lesbian unions , county clerks who actually issue marriage licenses would be on safe ground if they were to deny licenses to same-sex couples . In Schaerr 's view , only the clerks in Alameda and Los Angeles counties are bound by the 2010 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker . A Supreme Court ruling rejecting a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples would `` free the clerks in counties other than Los Angeles and Alameda to adhere to Proposition 8 , '' Schaerr said . Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman , a Republican , said she supports same-sex marriage , but believes voters need to remove the marriage ban from the state constitution — and would replace it with legal protection for same-sex marriage if given the chance . Coffman said she would `` gladly defend '' such an outcome . If same-sex marriages cease in Virginia , Attorney General Mark Herring would try to get the state General Assembly to repeal the state 's statutory and constitutional bans , Herring spokesman Michael Kelly said . Some gay rights groups and state officials said the chance the court would not come out in favor of same-sex marriage is remote . `` Recent history of the past eight months , plus all the rulings of the past 20 years , do n't indicate that to us this is going to go against us , '' said Tom Witt , executive director of gay rights organization Equality Kansas . `` It could , but a giant meteor could fall on my head in the next five seconds . ''

Gay and lesbian couples could face legal chaos if the Supreme Court rules against same-sex marriage in the next few weeks. Same-sex weddings could come to a halt in many states, depending on a confusing mix of lower-court decisions and the sometimes-contradictory views of state and local officials. Among the 36 states in which same-sex couples can now marry are 20 in which federal judges invoked the Constitution to strike down marriage bans. Those rulings would be in conflict with the nation's highest court if the justices uphold the power of states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. A decision is expected by late June in cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Top officials in some states, including California, seem determined to allow gay and lesbian couples to continue to marry no matter how the court decision comes out. But some county clerks, who actually issue marriage licenses, might not go along, experts said. In other states, a high court ruling in favor of state bans would serve to prohibit any more such unions, but also could give rise to new efforts to repeal marriage bans through the legislature or the ballot. The scenario may be unlikely, given the Supreme Court's role in allowing those lower court rulings to take effect before the justices themselves decided the issue. But if the court doesn't endorse same-sex marriage nationwide, "it would be chaos," said Howard Wasserman, a Florida International University law professor. Marriages already on the books probably are safe, said several scholars and civil liberties lawyers. "There's a very strong likelihood these marriages would have to be respected, no matter what," said Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Gay and lesbian couples could continue to marry in the 16 states that have same-sex marriage because of state court rulings, acts of the legislature or statewide votes. Similarly, the 14 states that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, including the four directly involved in the Supreme Court cases, could continue enforcing their state marriage laws. That would include Alabama, where a federal judge has struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but put her ruling on hold pending the high court's decision. Of the remaining 20 states, any that fought unsuccessfully to preserve marriage bans would not have much trouble resuming enforcement. "That state can immediately start saying we're going to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples going forward," said Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf. That list might include Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Officials in some of those states refused to comment on how they would respond, citing the ongoing Supreme Court case. "I'm just not going to speculate on what the court may or may not do," said Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. Things might be different in California, Colorado, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia because top elected officials did not contest lower-court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. Courts in those states issued orders, or injunctions, that forbid the state from enforcing the constitutional amendments or state laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. Typically, a participant in the lawsuit that led to the injunction has to ask the judge to undo it. But if the governor and attorney general are same-sex marriage supporters, they may have little incentive to go back into court. In California, for instance, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris both opposed Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that prohibited same-sex marriage. "I think it's very unlikely that anyone would try to turn back the clock in California," Stoll said. But Gene Schaerr, a Washington-based lawyer who has defended same-sex marriage bans, said he thinks even in states where the political leadership favors gay and lesbian unions, county clerks who actually issue marriage licenses would be on safe ground if they were to deny licenses to same-sex couples. In Schaerr's view, only the clerks in Alameda and Los Angeles counties are bound by the 2010 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. A Supreme Court ruling rejecting a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples would "free the clerks in counties other than Los Angeles and Alameda to adhere to Proposition 8," Schaerr said. Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, a Republican, said she supports same-sex marriage, but believes voters need to remove the marriage ban from the state constitution — and would replace it with legal protection for same-sex marriage if given the chance. Coffman said she would "gladly defend" such an outcome. If same-sex marriages cease in Virginia, Attorney General Mark Herring would try to get the state General Assembly to repeal the state's statutory and constitutional bans, Herring spokesman Michael Kelly said. Some gay rights groups and state officials said the chance the court would not come out in favor of same-sex marriage is remote. "Recent history of the past eight months, plus all the rulings of the past 20 years, don't indicate that to us this is going to go against us," said Tom Witt, executive director of gay rights organization Equality Kansas. "It could, but a giant meteor could fall on my head in the next five seconds." None did.

www.newsmax.com

right

J0JfImgLRe5ElZaO

test

Sc83QHdzbMu8Y8k8

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/c5201196cdc5897e76e49a3352a2c8dd

Sanders-linked group entered into racial discrimination NDA

2020-02-28

Brian Slodysko, Will Weissert

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — A political advocacy group founded by Bernie Sanders entered into a nondisclosure agreement with an African American political consultant that bars her from discussing a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination at the organization and the Vermont senator ’ s 2016 presidential campaign . The consultant , Tezlyn Figaro , confirmed the existence of the nondisclosure agreement to The ███ without providing additional details . The deal is tied to a 2019 lawsuit in which Figaro said she was fired from the Sanders-created political group Our Revolution a year earlier due to her race and in “ retaliation for complaining about the organization ’ s treatment towards her and African-Americans. ” The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money . Though the lawsuit was aimed at Our Revolution , it included broad criticism of Sanders ’ campaign , arguing an all-white leadership staff “ was accused of racism ” by black staffers and failed to engage black voters . Nondisclosure agreements , or NDAs , have become common in presidential campaigns and political organizations in recent years as tools to guard against the release of private data , strategic conversations or other proprietary information . But such deals have become increasingly controversial as people alleging that they ’ re victims of sexual harassment and misconduct or , in Figaro ’ s case , racial discrimination have said they ’ re prevented from publicly sharing their stories . Billionaire Mike Bloomberg , one of Sanders ’ Democratic presidential race rivals , has faced criticism for the use of nondisclosure agreements at his company in cases related to sexual harassment . The former New York mayor has said he ’ s willing to release three women from nondisclosure agreements related to comments he was accused of making in the past . Sanders has acknowledged the mistreatment of women and minorities who worked on his 2016 campaign , and his advisers say they ’ ve taken corrective measures for his second run . Now the front-runner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination , Sanders frequently says he is building a “ multiracial , multi-generational movement ” that will appeal to the broad coalition needed to win the primary and defeat President Donald Trump . But legal experts say that argument could be undermined by a nondisclosure agreement that prevents a woman of color who has criticized Sanders ’ record on race from talking about her experience . “ Anyone running for the presidency should be accountable to the electorate , and we should have access to the full set of information , ” said Debra S. Katz , a prominent employment attorney in Washington who has donated to Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign . “ If the allegations are about his campaign and running a racist operation , he should direct this organization to let her out of those non-disparagement obligations and talk about it . ” Figaro was the director of racial justice for Sanders ’ 2016 campaign , then worked on black outreach issues for Our Revolution . According to federal court records , her case against Our Revolution was settled in July 2019 for an undisclosed amount . Figaro confirmed the existence of the NDA but declined to comment further . Her attorney , Anthony J . Hall , said he could not comment on the terms of the settlement . A spokesman for Our Revolution did not respond to multiple requests for comment . The Sanders campaign said it couldn ’ t comment on the specifics of the case , arguing the campaign can ’ t legally have insight into the activities of Our Revolution . In a statement , Sanders campaign spokeswoman Sarah Ford said , “ We oppose using NDAs to silence the victims of toxic workplace issues . ” After his effort to win the 2016 Democratic nomination failed , Sanders founded Our Revolution to keep up the momentum from the campaign . The group has employed current and former Sanders presidential staffers but operates independently from his campaign , though it has raised millions of dollars to support his current bid . She was brought on by former Our Revolution President Nina Turner , a top Sanders surrogate who is now national co-chair of his 2020 campaign . When Turner tried to make Figaro Our Revolution ’ s chief of staff , board members objected . Past comments Figaro made about immigration on Twitter and as a pundit on Fox News quickly surfaced and drew rebuke , with critics and some Our Revolution staffers saying that they were anti-immigrant . “ If AMERICAN black folks can go to jail when they break the law then certainly so can an illegal immigrant , ” she said in one tweet . “ U r being distracted abt ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS meanwhile more blacks are under prison/parole control in in 2010 than were enslaved in 1850 , ” she wrote in another . Figaro , who had long worked as a consultant to Turner , publicly apologized but was fired . Our Revolution was aware of her past comments when she was hired , according to her lawsuit . Turner didn ’ t respond to a request for comment . In the past , Figaro defended herself by noting that her comments echoed what Sanders has previously said . “ If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down , I don ’ t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now , ” Sanders said in a 2007 television interview explaining why he opposed a bipartisan immigration bill . Sanders ’ campaign says its key to victory in the 2020 Democratic primary and general election is to dramatically grow the electorate , appealing to working-class Americans and minorities who have often felt disillusioned with the political system . Sanders ’ campaign manager , Faiz Shakir , is the first Muslim American to lead a presidential campaign . Sanders likens his movement to the civil rights struggle , and he often mentions his own activist past , including getting arrested during protests decrying racism while at the University of Chicago in the 1960s . He has worked hard to woo minority groups , which has energized many young voters . But in 2016 , black staffers who were hired by Sanders to conduct African American outreach say the campaign did not take them seriously . Minority staffers said they were sent to do other tasks , like driving people around , instead of courting the black voters Sanders said he wanted to win . “ People will say it ’ s not a racial issue , ” said John Solomon , who was based in Atlanta for the 2016 campaign and said he was sometimes assigned responsibilities that were outside of his job description . “ But if I ’ m hired to gain support from African Americans and you go direct me to do something other than reach out to the African American community , what are we doing ? ” After the black outreach team booked several successful events , including a rally at historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta , resources dwindled and black outreach staffers say Sanders ’ campaign began brushing them off . His campaign has acknowledged Sanders ’ past failings and said it is trying to right them now . Sanders has invested heavily in Spanish-language television advertising and organized dozens of events meant to appeal to Hispanic voters , including soccer tournaments for volunteers in Iowa and Texas and a town hall in Spanish led by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Nevada . His backers affectionately call him “ Tio ” ( Uncle ) Bernie . His campaign says that outreach helped him appeal to minorities who participated in satellite caucuses in Iowa and drove his win in Nevada decisively last weekend . He has said he can win Saturday ’ s Democratic primary in South Carolina , where the support of black voters is crucial . But Solomon said the existence of Figaro ’ s nondisclosure agreement reinforces his experience on the 2016 campaign . “ I know he wants to move past this , but I feel that he still has some work to do , ” Solomon said . Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast , “ Ground Game . ”

WASHINGTON (AP) — A political advocacy group founded by Bernie Sanders entered into a nondisclosure agreement with an African American political consultant that bars her from discussing a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination at the organization and the Vermont senator’s 2016 presidential campaign. The consultant, Tezlyn Figaro, confirmed the existence of the nondisclosure agreement to The Associated Press without providing additional details. The deal is tied to a 2019 lawsuit in which Figaro said she was fired from the Sanders-created political group Our Revolution a year earlier due to her race and in “retaliation for complaining about the organization’s treatment towards her and African-Americans.” The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. Though the lawsuit was aimed at Our Revolution, it included broad criticism of Sanders’ campaign, arguing an all-white leadership staff “was accused of racism” by black staffers and failed to engage black voters. Nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, have become common in presidential campaigns and political organizations in recent years as tools to guard against the release of private data, strategic conversations or other proprietary information. But such deals have become increasingly controversial as people alleging that they’re victims of sexual harassment and misconduct or, in Figaro’s case, racial discrimination have said they’re prevented from publicly sharing their stories. Billionaire Mike Bloomberg, one of Sanders’ Democratic presidential race rivals, has faced criticism for the use of nondisclosure agreements at his company in cases related to sexual harassment. The former New York mayor has said he’s willing to release three women from nondisclosure agreements related to comments he was accused of making in the past. Sanders has acknowledged the mistreatment of women and minorities who worked on his 2016 campaign, and his advisers say they’ve taken corrective measures for his second run. Now the front-runner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders frequently says he is building a “multiracial, multi-generational movement” that will appeal to the broad coalition needed to win the primary and defeat President Donald Trump. But legal experts say that argument could be undermined by a nondisclosure agreement that prevents a woman of color who has criticized Sanders’ record on race from talking about her experience. “Anyone running for the presidency should be accountable to the electorate, and we should have access to the full set of information,” said Debra S. Katz, a prominent employment attorney in Washington who has donated to Elizabeth Warren’s campaign. “If the allegations are about his campaign and running a racist operation, he should direct this organization to let her out of those non-disparagement obligations and talk about it.” Figaro was the director of racial justice for Sanders’ 2016 campaign, then worked on black outreach issues for Our Revolution. According to federal court records, her case against Our Revolution was settled in July 2019 for an undisclosed amount. Figaro confirmed the existence of the NDA but declined to comment further. Her attorney, Anthony J. Hall, said he could not comment on the terms of the settlement. A spokesman for Our Revolution did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Sanders campaign said it couldn’t comment on the specifics of the case, arguing the campaign can’t legally have insight into the activities of Our Revolution. In a statement, Sanders campaign spokeswoman Sarah Ford said, “We oppose using NDAs to silence the victims of toxic workplace issues.” After his effort to win the 2016 Democratic nomination failed, Sanders founded Our Revolution to keep up the momentum from the campaign. The group has employed current and former Sanders presidential staffers but operates independently from his campaign, though it has raised millions of dollars to support his current bid. Figaro’s roughly yearlong tenure at Our Revolution was tumultuous. She was brought on by former Our Revolution President Nina Turner, a top Sanders surrogate who is now national co-chair of his 2020 campaign. When Turner tried to make Figaro Our Revolution’s chief of staff, board members objected. Past comments Figaro made about immigration on Twitter and as a pundit on Fox News quickly surfaced and drew rebuke, with critics and some Our Revolution staffers saying that they were anti-immigrant. “If AMERICAN black folks can go to jail when they break the law then certainly so can an illegal immigrant,” she said in one tweet. “U r being distracted abt ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS meanwhile more blacks are under prison/parole control in in 2010 than were enslaved in 1850,” she wrote in another. Figaro, who had long worked as a consultant to Turner, publicly apologized but was fired. Our Revolution was aware of her past comments when she was hired, according to her lawsuit. Turner didn’t respond to a request for comment. In the past, Figaro defended herself by noting that her comments echoed what Sanders has previously said. “If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don’t know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now,” Sanders said in a 2007 television interview explaining why he opposed a bipartisan immigration bill. Sanders’ campaign says its key to victory in the 2020 Democratic primary and general election is to dramatically grow the electorate, appealing to working-class Americans and minorities who have often felt disillusioned with the political system. Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, is the first Muslim American to lead a presidential campaign. Sanders likens his movement to the civil rights struggle, and he often mentions his own activist past, including getting arrested during protests decrying racism while at the University of Chicago in the 1960s. He has worked hard to woo minority groups, which has energized many young voters. But in 2016, black staffers who were hired by Sanders to conduct African American outreach say the campaign did not take them seriously. Minority staffers said they were sent to do other tasks, like driving people around, instead of courting the black voters Sanders said he wanted to win. “People will say it’s not a racial issue,” said John Solomon, who was based in Atlanta for the 2016 campaign and said he was sometimes assigned responsibilities that were outside of his job description. “But if I’m hired to gain support from African Americans and you go direct me to do something other than reach out to the African American community, what are we doing?” After the black outreach team booked several successful events, including a rally at historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta, resources dwindled and black outreach staffers say Sanders’ campaign began brushing them off. His campaign has acknowledged Sanders’ past failings and said it is trying to right them now. Sanders has invested heavily in Spanish-language television advertising and organized dozens of events meant to appeal to Hispanic voters, including soccer tournaments for volunteers in Iowa and Texas and a town hall in Spanish led by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Nevada. His backers affectionately call him “Tio” (Uncle) Bernie. His campaign says that outreach helped him appeal to minorities who participated in satellite caucuses in Iowa and drove his win in Nevada decisively last weekend. He has said he can win Saturday’s Democratic primary in South Carolina, where the support of black voters is crucial. But Solomon said the existence of Figaro’s nondisclosure agreement reinforces his experience on the 2016 campaign. “I know he wants to move past this, but I feel that he still has some work to do,” Solomon said. ___ Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, “Ground Game.”

www.apnews.com

center

Sc83QHdzbMu8Y8k8

test

8LIOOWpoWG8OZqPv

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/11/watch-this-con-law-prof-knock-down-msnbcs-obstruction-of-justice-narrative-in-less-than-two-minutes-video/

Watch This Con Law Prof Knock Down MSNBC’s ‘Obstruction Of Justice’ Narrative In Less Than Two Minutes

2017-06-11

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley spent her Sunday afternoon knocking down the “ obstruction of justice ” narrative on MSNBC . The Harvard-educated Foley calmly explained to frustrated MSNBC host Yasmin Vossoughian why President Trump would have been legally allowed to suggest former FBI Director James Comey let go of the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn , and why Trump was well within his constitutional authority to later fire Comey . “ If the American people are unhappy with the way Trump acted , ” Foley said , “ their two options under our constitutional system are to push for impeachment or to vote somebody else into office in 2020 . ” “ To the extent that people want try to make this obstruction of justice , there ’ s a million different layers why this is not technically obstruction of justice , either as a statutory matter or a constitutional matter , ” Foley said . “ But this point particularly about a ‘ corrupt intent ’ is even worse . Because think about it , the president also has the authority under Article II [ of the Constitution ] to pardon people , but we don ’ t say for example that the president can ’ t pardon a certain person because he has a corrupt intent , he likes the guy he ’ s known him for a long time so therefore he can ’ t pardon him . ” “ The pardon power like the power to head the investigative , or the rest of the executive branch like the FBI , like the DOJ is a plenary discretionary authority of the president . He can pardon anybody for any reason he wants , corrupt purpose or no , and he can direct the investigation or non- investigation corrupt motive or no , ” she added . “ You don ’ t put discretionary limits on constitutional authority ap and if you do you invite Article III non-elected non-accountable judges to second-guess the president ’ s authority . You never want to have a constitutional regime that sets up that way . We the people can either not vote the president in or we can impeach him , those are the political pushback mechanisms . ”

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley spent her Sunday afternoon knocking down the “obstruction of justice” narrative on MSNBC. The Harvard-educated Foley calmly explained to frustrated MSNBC host Yasmin Vossoughian why President Trump would have been legally allowed to suggest former FBI Director James Comey let go of the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and why Trump was well within his constitutional authority to later fire Comey. “If the American people are unhappy with the way Trump acted,” Foley said, “their two options under our constitutional system are to push for impeachment or to vote somebody else into office in 2020.” “To the extent that people want try to make this obstruction of justice, there’s a million different layers why this is not technically obstruction of justice, either as a statutory matter or a constitutional matter,” Foley said. “But this point particularly about a ‘corrupt intent’ is even worse. Because think about it, the president also has the authority under Article II [of the Constitution] to pardon people, but we don’t say for example that the president can’t pardon a certain person because he has a corrupt intent, he likes the guy he’s known him for a long time so therefore he can’t pardon him.” “The pardon power like the power to head the investigative, or the rest of the executive branch like the FBI, like the DOJ is a plenary discretionary authority of the president. He can pardon anybody for any reason he wants, corrupt purpose or no, and he can direct the investigation or non- investigation corrupt motive or no,” she added. “You don’t put discretionary limits on constitutional authority ap and if you do you invite Article III non-elected non-accountable judges to second-guess the president’s authority. You never want to have a constitutional regime that sets up that way. We the people can either not vote the president in or we can impeach him, those are the political pushback mechanisms.” WATCH:

www.dailycaller.com

right

8LIOOWpoWG8OZqPv

test

K8VSbm2DguV4Ei69

federal_budget

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/president-obama-pushes-infrastructure-spending-to-spur-job-growth/

President Obama Pushes Infrastructure Spending to Spur Job Growth

Arlette Saenz

MIAMI - Standing in front of a giant cargo crane at the port of Miami Friday , President Obama promoted his plan to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure to increase job creation in the United States . `` There are few more important things we can do to create jobs right now and strengthen our economy over the long haul than rebuilding the infrastructure that powers our businesses and our economy - our roads , our bridges , our schools and our ports like this one , '' President Obama said . `` There 's work to be done , '' Obama added . `` There are workers who are ready to do it . Let 's prove to the world there is no better place to do business than right here in the United States of America , and let 's get started rebuilding America . '' The president outlined his infrastructure spending plan , called the `` Rebuild America Partnership , '' which consists of three components - the creation of a $ 10 billion national infrastructure bank , the establishment of new `` America Fast Forward Bonds '' for infrastructure investment , and the expansion of funding for the TIGER and TIFFIA infrastructure programs . `` Let 's rebuild this country we love . Let 's make sure we 're staying on the cutting edge . Let 's make sure we 've always got the best ports . Let 's make sure we 've got the best airports . Let 's make sure we 've got the best rail lines . Let 's make sure we 've got the best roads . Let 's make sure we 've got the best schools , '' he said . `` We 're going to push on this issue each and every day and make sure we get the middle class going again . '' As he pushed for creating more jobs through infrastructure investment in America , the president stood in front of a crane manufactured by a Chinese company called ZPMC . Before he delivered his speech , the president toured a tunnel project at the port of Miami , which is undergoing a $ 2 billion renovation funded by government and private money . `` Breaking ground on more projects like this tunnel that I just saw means more good construction jobs that ca n't be outsourced , '' Obama said . `` They have to be done right here in America and they end up getting people good pay and good opportunities to raise their family . '' Alan Krueger , chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors , said the program will total $ 21 billion but vowed that it would not increase the deficit . Details of the costs of the program will be outlined in the president 's budget , which will be presented on April 10 . `` They will not increase the deficit by a dime because they are paid for in our budget , '' Krueger told reporters aboard Air Force One Friday .

Image credit: Luis M. Alvarez/AP Photo MIAMI - Standing in front of a giant cargo crane at the port of Miami Friday, President Obama promoted his plan to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure to increase job creation in the United States. "There are few more important things we can do to create jobs right now and strengthen our economy over the long haul than rebuilding the infrastructure that powers our businesses and our economy - our roads, our bridges, our schools and our ports like this one," President Obama said. "There's work to be done," Obama added. "There are workers who are ready to do it. Let's prove to the world there is no better place to do business than right here in the United States of America, and let's get started rebuilding America." The president outlined his infrastructure spending plan, called the "Rebuild America Partnership," which consists of three components - the creation of a $10 billion national infrastructure bank, the establishment of new "America Fast Forward Bonds" for infrastructure investment, and the expansion of funding for the TIGER and TIFFIA infrastructure programs. "Let's rebuild this country we love. Let's make sure we're staying on the cutting edge. Let's make sure we've always got the best ports. Let's make sure we've got the best airports. Let's make sure we've got the best rail lines. Let's make sure we've got the best roads. Let's make sure we've got the best schools," he said. "We're going to push on this issue each and every day and make sure we get the middle class going again." As he pushed for creating more jobs through infrastructure investment in America, the president stood in front of a crane manufactured by a Chinese company called ZPMC. Before he delivered his speech, the president toured a tunnel project at the port of Miami, which is undergoing a $2 billion renovation funded by government and private money. "Breaking ground on more projects like this tunnel that I just saw means more good construction jobs that can't be outsourced," Obama said. "They have to be done right here in America and they end up getting people good pay and good opportunities to raise their family." Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, said the program will total $21 billion but vowed that it would not increase the deficit. Details of the costs of the program will be outlined in the president's budget, which will be presented on April 10. "They will not increase the deficit by a dime because they are paid for in our budget," Krueger told reporters aboard Air Force One Friday.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

K8VSbm2DguV4Ei69

test

WsBtII9l0FlpeH9Q

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gay-rights-religious-freedom-expand-state/2015/04/04/id/636446/

Advocates Aim to Expand Gay Rights at State Level

2015-04-04

Tom Davies, Andrew Demillo

Gay rights advocates are hoping to parlay the momentum from their legislative victories in Indiana and Arkansas this week into further expanding legal protections for gays and lesbians in those states and others . Facing widespread pressure , including from big businesses such as Apple and Wal-Mart , lawmakers in Indiana and Arkansas rolled back their states ' new religious objections laws , which critics said could be used to discriminate against gays . Amid the uproar , the Republican governors of Michigan and South Dakota urged their own legislatures to extend anti-discrimination protections to gays . Twenty-nine states currently do n't include protections for gays and lesbians in their non-discrimination laws , according to the American Civil Liberties Union . But the Indiana and Arkansas laws , along with court rulings or legislatures legalizing same-sex marriage in 37 states and an expected U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage this year , are fueling efforts to change that as the 2016 elections approach . `` We 're not going to let any of these people off the hot seat , '' said Kathy Sarris , co-founder of the gay-rights group Indiana Equality Action . `` This ultimately is going to happen in Indiana . '' Most of the states without sexual orientation protections are in the South or the Plains , which tend to be more conservative . As public opinion has become more supportive of same-sex marriage and other gay rights in recent years , many businesses say such protections factor into their decisions about expansions and help them attract top employees . Arkansas state Rep. Warwick Sabin , a Democrat from Little Rock , said the issue is n't going away . `` Other states are moving ahead of us and Arkansas is being left in the dust . We need to make an affirmative statement about our values as a state , and I know that the vast majority of Arkansans believe in fairness and opportunity for all of its citizens , '' he said . Indiana 's Republican-controlled Legislature took a first step by adding language to its new religious objections law stating that service providers ca n't use the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide goods , services , facilities or accommodations based on sexual orientation , gender identity and other factors . It is now the first Indiana state law that explicitly mentions sexual orientation and gender identity . Arkansas ' amended law only addresses actions by the government , not by businesses or individuals . The law 's supporters say the changes would prevent businesses from using it to deny services to individuals , even though it does n't include specific anti-discrimination language similar to Indiana 's law . Gay rights proponents want Arkansas to go further , though , and are trying to build support for adding sexual orientation to the protected statuses covered by the state 's civil rights laws . The state 's attorney general , Leslie Rutledge , last week approved the wording of a proposed ballot measure that would add such protections , clearing the way for supporters to begin gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November 2016 ballot . `` Today , LGBT Arkansans are still unequal , and today 's battle points toward a broader struggle ahead — a fight where full and complete equality for all Arkansans that can not be undermined is the only acceptable outcome , '' Chad Griffin , president of the Human Rights Campaign , the nation 's largest LGBT rights group , said in a statement after Republican Gov . Asa Hutchinson signed that state 's law . Hutchinson , meanwhile , has left open the possibility of issuing an executive order that would prohibit workplace discrimination against lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender people at state agencies . Similar debates are going on elsewhere . In North Dakota on Thursday the Republican-controlled Legislature voted down a measure that would have prohibited discrimination based on a person 's sexual orientation in the areas of housing and employment . Gov . Jack Dalrymple rebuked lawmakers , saying such discrimination was n't acceptable . In Michigan , meanwhile , GOP Gov . Rick Snyder warned legislators that he would veto a religious objections bill unless they also sent him a measure that would extend anti-discrimination protections to gays . He cited the Indiana outcry in making his warning . Indiana Gov . Mike Pence and fellow Republicans maintained that the state 's religious objections law never sanctioned discrimination against anyone . They said considering changes to the state 's civil rights law was too major of a policy change to take up with less than a month left in the legislative session . State Senate President David Long acknowledged `` it 's probably likely '' that extending anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation will be on next year 's agenda . `` You can see that this discussion has been elevated in Indiana and it 's an important one , '' Long said . Some gay-rights supporters say the push for religious freedom laws proposed in about a dozen states this year amounts to a consolation prize for conservatives dismayed over the legalization of same-sex marriages across much of the country . Eric Miller , the executive director of an Indiana group , Advance America , called the national outcry over the state 's law an `` orchestrated effort of misinformation '' led by those pushing for `` government recognition , government approval , adding to our civil-rights laws protections for sexual orientation and gender identity . ''

Gay rights advocates are hoping to parlay the momentum from their legislative victories in Indiana and Arkansas this week into further expanding legal protections for gays and lesbians in those states and others. Facing widespread pressure, including from big businesses such as Apple and Wal-Mart, lawmakers in Indiana and Arkansas rolled back their states' new religious objections laws, which critics said could be used to discriminate against gays. Amid the uproar, the Republican governors of Michigan and South Dakota urged their own legislatures to extend anti-discrimination protections to gays. Twenty-nine states currently don't include protections for gays and lesbians in their non-discrimination laws, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But the Indiana and Arkansas laws, along with court rulings or legislatures legalizing same-sex marriage in 37 states and an expected U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage this year, are fueling efforts to change that as the 2016 elections approach. "We're not going to let any of these people off the hot seat," said Kathy Sarris, co-founder of the gay-rights group Indiana Equality Action. "This ultimately is going to happen in Indiana." Most of the states without sexual orientation protections are in the South or the Plains, which tend to be more conservative. As public opinion has become more supportive of same-sex marriage and other gay rights in recent years, many businesses say such protections factor into their decisions about expansions and help them attract top employees. Arkansas state Rep. Warwick Sabin, a Democrat from Little Rock, said the issue isn't going away. "Other states are moving ahead of us and Arkansas is being left in the dust. We need to make an affirmative statement about our values as a state, and I know that the vast majority of Arkansans believe in fairness and opportunity for all of its citizens," he said. Indiana's Republican-controlled Legislature took a first step by adding language to its new religious objections law stating that service providers can't use the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide goods, services, facilities or accommodations based on sexual orientation, gender identity and other factors. It is now the first Indiana state law that explicitly mentions sexual orientation and gender identity. Arkansas' amended law only addresses actions by the government, not by businesses or individuals. The law's supporters say the changes would prevent businesses from using it to deny services to individuals, even though it doesn't include specific anti-discrimination language similar to Indiana's law. Gay rights proponents want Arkansas to go further, though, and are trying to build support for adding sexual orientation to the protected statuses covered by the state's civil rights laws. The state's attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, last week approved the wording of a proposed ballot measure that would add such protections, clearing the way for supporters to begin gathering the signatures needed to get it on the November 2016 ballot. "Today, LGBT Arkansans are still unequal, and today's battle points toward a broader struggle ahead — a fight where full and complete equality for all Arkansans that cannot be undermined is the only acceptable outcome," Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights group, said in a statement after Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed that state's law. Hutchinson, meanwhile, has left open the possibility of issuing an executive order that would prohibit workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people at state agencies. Similar debates are going on elsewhere. In North Dakota on Thursday the Republican-controlled Legislature voted down a measure that would have prohibited discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation in the areas of housing and employment. Gov. Jack Dalrymple rebuked lawmakers, saying such discrimination wasn't acceptable. In Michigan, meanwhile, GOP Gov. Rick Snyder warned legislators that he would veto a religious objections bill unless they also sent him a measure that would extend anti-discrimination protections to gays. He cited the Indiana outcry in making his warning. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and fellow Republicans maintained that the state's religious objections law never sanctioned discrimination against anyone. They said considering changes to the state's civil rights law was too major of a policy change to take up with less than a month left in the legislative session. State Senate President David Long acknowledged "it's probably likely" that extending anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation will be on next year's agenda. "You can see that this discussion has been elevated in Indiana and it's an important one," Long said. Some gay-rights supporters say the push for religious freedom laws proposed in about a dozen states this year amounts to a consolation prize for conservatives dismayed over the legalization of same-sex marriages across much of the country. Some conservative activists have a different take. Eric Miller, the executive director of an Indiana group, Advance America, called the national outcry over the state's law an "orchestrated effort of misinformation" led by those pushing for "government recognition, government approval, adding to our civil-rights laws protections for sexual orientation and gender identity."

www.newsmax.com

right

WsBtII9l0FlpeH9Q

test

ejsavf98B8XqXmNZ

race_and_racism

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/04/21/carrollton-high-school-tiktok-racist-video-free-speech/

Georgia High School Students Expelled for Racist TikTok Video Had Their Free Speech Rights Violated

2020-04-21

Eugene Volokh, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Josh Blackman, Peter Suderman, Charles Oliver, Jacob Sullum, Brian Doherty, Ronald Bailey, Christian Britschgi

A Georgia high school expelled two students for making a racist video on the social media site TikTok . `` They are no longer students at Carrollton High School , '' said District Superintendent Mark Albertus in a statement . The video is highly offensive , and the two students responsible for it—a teenage boy and girl—exercised exceedingly poor judgment . But in punishing them so severely for conduct that took place entirely outside of school , Carrollton education officials have exercised poor judgment as well . In the video , the two students place a piece of paper that reads `` niggers '' in the bathroom sink and proceed to fill it with cups of water representing `` do n't have a dad , '' `` rob people , '' and other racist tropes . The pair made no effort to hide their identities , and their names are publicly associated with the video , which quickly went viral . TikTok eventually deleted it . According to Insider , the girl offered an extremely weak apology `` to any blacks that got offended , '' placed the blame on her boyfriend , and asked her critics to stop trying to get her `` cancelled . '' No doubt , the video will be associated with their names for a long time , severely harming their college and job prospects , perhaps deservedly . In any case , the school 's handling of the incident is troubling . Indeed , school officials probably violated the First Amendment , though court decisions have limited the free speech rights of K-12 students so egregiously that the matter is not completely clear . Keep in mind that the video was filmed at a home—not on school property or during school hours . It did n't name or threaten any specific individuals associated with the school . And it did not advocate or involve illegal behavior . Racists statements , loathsome though they are , qualify as protected speech in most cases . These are all important considerations , because courts have generally limited students ' free speech rights only when necessary to prevent substantial interference with a school 's educational functioning . The landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines held that action taken by schools to punish speech must be `` caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint . '' Subsequent rulings have been less favorable to K-12 students ' free speech rights . In the well-known `` bong hits for Jesus '' case , Frederick v. Morse ( 2007 ) , the Supreme Court upheld a school 's decision to censor students whose speech was construed as promoting illegal drug use at a school function . A more recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit , Bell v. Itawamba County Board ( 2012 ) , sided against a student whose offensive speech was directed at a school employee . In a statement , Carrollton officials acknowledged that the racist speech took place outside of school but nevertheless asserted that they had the authority to punish the students for it . CHS Principal David Brooks , who began investigating the incident Thursday night after the release of the video , said even if the offending incident was recorded after-school hours , it does n't alleviate the students ' responsibility to uphold a high standard of behavior . `` It is our priority to keep our schools safe , and there is no doubt this incident has caused significant tension at Carrollton High School , across the district , state and nation – even the world , '' he said . It seems like a stretch to argue that the racist video was a safety matter—again , it did not threaten violence or name a specific individual . It may have caused tension , but that is a thin rationale for giving education officials virtually unlimited power to punish any action that upsets someone at school . I do n't know if a civil liberties group would have any interest in taking this case given how deeply unsympathetic its subjects are , but it strikes me as worth it , if only for the sake of defending even minimal free speech rights for school-aged young people .

A Georgia high school expelled two students for making a racist video on the social media site TikTok. "They are no longer students at Carrollton High School," said District Superintendent Mark Albertus in a statement. The video is highly offensive, and the two students responsible for it—a teenage boy and girl—exercised exceedingly poor judgment. But in punishing them so severely for conduct that took place entirely outside of school, Carrollton education officials have exercised poor judgment as well. In the video, the two students place a piece of paper that reads "niggers" in the bathroom sink and proceed to fill it with cups of water representing "don't have a dad," "rob people," and other racist tropes. The pair made no effort to hide their identities, and their names are publicly associated with the video, which quickly went viral. TikTok eventually deleted it. According to Insider, the girl offered an extremely weak apology "to any blacks that got offended," placed the blame on her boyfriend, and asked her critics to stop trying to get her "cancelled." No doubt, the video will be associated with their names for a long time, severely harming their college and job prospects, perhaps deservedly. In any case, the school's handling of the incident is troubling. Indeed, school officials probably violated the First Amendment, though court decisions have limited the free speech rights of K-12 students so egregiously that the matter is not completely clear. Keep in mind that the video was filmed at a home—not on school property or during school hours. It didn't name or threaten any specific individuals associated with the school. And it did not advocate or involve illegal behavior. Racists statements, loathsome though they are, qualify as protected speech in most cases. These are all important considerations, because courts have generally limited students' free speech rights only when necessary to prevent substantial interference with a school's educational functioning. The landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines held that action taken by schools to punish speech must be "caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." Subsequent rulings have been less favorable to K-12 students' free speech rights. In the well-known "bong hits for Jesus" case, Frederick v. Morse (2007), the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor students whose speech was construed as promoting illegal drug use at a school function. A more recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Bell v. Itawamba County Board (2012), sided against a student whose offensive speech was directed at a school employee. In a statement, Carrollton officials acknowledged that the racist speech took place outside of school but nevertheless asserted that they had the authority to punish the students for it. CHS Principal David Brooks, who began investigating the incident Thursday night after the release of the video, said even if the offending incident was recorded after-school hours, it doesn't alleviate the students' responsibility to uphold a high standard of behavior. "It is our priority to keep our schools safe, and there is no doubt this incident has caused significant tension at Carrollton High School, across the district, state and nation – even the world," he said. It seems like a stretch to argue that the racist video was a safety matter—again, it did not threaten violence or name a specific individual. It may have caused tension, but that is a thin rationale for giving education officials virtually unlimited power to punish any action that upsets someone at school. I don't know if a civil liberties group would have any interest in taking this case given how deeply unsympathetic its subjects are, but it strikes me as worth it, if only for the sake of defending even minimal free speech rights for school-aged young people.

www.reason.com

right

ejsavf98B8XqXmNZ

test

6NAICTgm52sAvtm2

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42041975

US nuclear chief would resist 'illegal' presidential strike order

The top nuclear commander in the US says he would resist any `` illegal '' presidential order to launch a strike . Air Force Gen John Hyten , said as head of the US Strategic Command he provided advice to a president and expected that a legal alternative would be found . His comments come just days after US senators discussed a president 's authority to launch a nuclear attack . Some of them expressed concern that President Donald Trump might irresponsibly order such a strike . Others though said a president must have the authority to act without meddling from lawyers . It was the first such hearing in more than 40 years . In August , Mr Trump vowed to unleash `` fire and fury like the world has never seen '' on North Korea if it threatened the US . Last month , the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 's Republican chairman , Senator Bob Corker , accused the president of setting the US `` on a path to World War Three '' . Speaking at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada , Gen Hyten said : `` We think about these things a lot . When you have this responsibility , how do you not think about it ? '' As for the legality of a strike , the general said that he had studied US laws of armed conflict for many years which stipulates key criteria the president must consider before launching any attack : The armed conflict report quotes an International Court of Justice ruling which states that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited by international law , `` the use of such weapons seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict '' . While Senators and expert witnesses agree the president has full authority to defend the nation , commentators have pointed out that because there is no all-encompassing definition of `` imminent attack '' , the president is not given an entirely free hand . `` I provide advice to the president , he will tell me what to do , '' Gen Hyten said . `` And if it 's illegal , guess what 's going to happen ? I 'm going to say : 'Mr President , that 's illegal . ' And guess what he 's going to do ? He 's going to say , 'What would be legal ? ' And we 'll come up with options , of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is , and that 's the way it works . He added : `` If you execute an unlawful order , you will go to jail . You could go to jail for the rest of your life . '' President Trump has not publicly commented on Gen Hyten 's remarks .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Gen John Hyten (left): "If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail." The top nuclear commander in the US says he would resist any "illegal" presidential order to launch a strike. Air Force Gen John Hyten, said as head of the US Strategic Command he provided advice to a president and expected that a legal alternative would be found. His comments come just days after US senators discussed a president's authority to launch a nuclear attack. Some of them expressed concern that President Donald Trump might irresponsibly order such a strike. Others though said a president must have the authority to act without meddling from lawyers. It was the first such hearing in more than 40 years. In August, Mr Trump vowed to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea if it threatened the US. Last month, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Republican chairman, Senator Bob Corker, accused the president of setting the US "on a path to World War Three". Speaking at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada, Gen Hyten said: "We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?" As for the legality of a strike, the general said that he had studied US laws of armed conflict for many years which stipulates key criteria the president must consider before launching any attack: Necessity Distinction Proportionality Unnecessary suffering The armed conflict report quotes an International Court of Justice ruling which states that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited by international law, "the use of such weapons seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict". While Senators and expert witnesses agree the president has full authority to defend the nation, commentators have pointed out that because there is no all-encompassing definition of "imminent attack", the president is not given an entirely free hand. "I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," Gen Hyten said. "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say: 'Mr President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. "It's not that complicated," Gen Hyten added. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Would the US military disobey a nuclear order from President Trump? He added: "If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life." President Trump has not publicly commented on Gen Hyten's remarks.

www.bbc.com

center

6NAICTgm52sAvtm2

test

Ud4NfWO8LBWaiziO

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/dick-morris-hillary-clinton-indicted-drop/2015/08/14/id/670201/

Dick Morris: Hillary Will Be Indicted

2015-08-14

Jason Devaney

Political analyst Dick Morris is convinced Hillary Clinton 's email scandal will lead to her being indicted and forced out of the race for president.During an interview with ███ TV 's `` ███ Now , '' Morris tells host Miranda Khan Clinton 's actions — using a private email address and server during her time as Secretary of State , which presumably allowed classified material to be passed over the non-government server — will lead to `` overwhelming '' evidence that she broke the law . Watch ███ TV on DirecTV Ch . 349 , DISH Ch . 223 and Verizon FiOS Ch . 115 . Get ███ TV on your cable system — Click Here Now `` It 's shocking that she would do this stuff on an unsecured server . And remember that these are two emails out of 40 that were reviewed . There are 30,000 more to go , '' Morris says . `` What does the Secretary of State talk about ? National parks or garbage collection ? She 's going to speak about stuff that 's either classified or borderline classified . `` When they go through all 30,000 , the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that I believe she will be indicted . `` Clinton 's alternative email setup first involved a server located at the family 's home in Chappaqua , N.Y . In 2013 , shortly after she left the State Department , Clinton gave a Denver-based company — Platte River Networks — control of the server , and it was moved to a data center in New Jersey.This week , the FBI seized the server , which was apparently wiped clean . Last week , the bureau took a thumb drive from Clinton lawyer David Kendall that contained copies of Clinton 's work-related emails.Morris thinks Clinton acted in a `` reckless '' manner . Reports have said top secret content about drones passed through Clinton 's email . `` Who 's the one who 's in charge of deciding what 's secret and what 's not ? Hillary Clinton . So if the documents came and they were unclassified , unmarked , it was her duty to mark them and to respect that marking , '' Morris says . `` Obviously , drones and the kind of information you 're talking about would be top secret . Hillary was reckless in consigning all this to her personal server because of the very material that the Secretary of State deals with . I believe the evidence will be so overwhelming that she violated the protocols that I do n't think they 're going to have any choice but to go after her . `` Morris sees Clinton getting `` forced out of the race , '' which will open the door for several other Democrats with presidential aspirations . `` I see her being indicted , I see her being forced out of the race , I see [ Vice President Joe ] Biden running and I see a lot of pressure ramping up on other Democrats like [ Secretary of State John ] Kerry and [ former Vice President Al ] Gore and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts and a bunch of others , Elizabeth Warren , to get into the race . Not as opponents of Hillary but as understudies . `` Morris underscores his point in a separate interview on `` ███ Prime . `` `` The magnitude of the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that it ’ ll be impossible not to indict her , '' Morris says . `` So yes , I do believe Hillary Clinton will be indicted and will be forced out of this race . `` Months before Clinton announced her candidacy in April , she had a significant lead in every major national poll over her potential challengers for the Democratic nomination at the time . But with the layers of the email scandal being peeled back rather quickly now , her poll numbers are taking a hit . Clinton 's main challenger at this point , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , is still well behind her but is making up ground . Others , such as former Maryland Gov . Martin O'Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb , who are already in the race , could see a boost in their poll numbers if Clinton were to exit . There 's also talk Biden will join the race . Bloomberg reported Thursday that the FBI is now investigating whether the data on Clinton 's email server may have been backed up somewhere else . A former Justice Department prosecutor said the FBI might be able to recover data from a server that has been erased . `` Most people do n't understand really what it takes to actually delete things from a computer permanently , '' former computer crimes prosecutor Peter Toren told Bloomberg . `` The FBI has had a great deal of training and they 're very good about recovering data from computers that people think have been erased or deleted . `` Donald Trump , who leads the crowded field of Republicans vying for the nomination , said this week he thinks the race for the White House will come down to himself and Biden . `` I think Hillary has got huge problems right now , '' Trump said . `` Is she going to make it ? I hear this thing is big league . Why did she do it ? You use the server ? Because [ the Clintons are ] always looking to go over the edge , whether it 's Whitewater or anything else . They always want to go over the edge . `` I 'm just looking at it saying , 'What the hell was she doing ? You know what she was doing ? She was guarding from the president seeing what she doing . ''

Political analyst Dick Morris is convinced Hillary Clinton's email scandal will lead to her being indicted and forced out of the race for president.During an interview with Newsmax TV's "Newsmax Now," Morris tells host Miranda Khan Clinton's actions — using a private email address and server during her time as Secretary of State, which presumably allowed classified material to be passed over the non-government server — will lead to "overwhelming" evidence that she broke the law. Watch Newsmax TV on DirecTV Ch. 349, DISH Ch. 223 and Verizon FiOS Ch. 115. Get Newsmax TV on your cable system — Click Here Now "It's shocking that she would do this stuff on an unsecured server. And remember that these are two emails out of 40 that were reviewed. There are 30,000 more to go," Morris says. "What does the Secretary of State talk about? National parks or garbage collection? She's going to speak about stuff that's either classified or borderline classified."When they go through all 30,000, the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that I believe she will be indicted."Clinton's alternative email setup first involved a server located at the family's home in Chappaqua, N.Y. In 2013, shortly after she left the State Department, Clinton gave a Denver-based company — Platte River Networks — control of the server, and it was moved to a data center in New Jersey.This week, the FBI seized the server, which was apparently wiped clean. Last week, the bureau took a thumb drive from Clinton lawyer David Kendall that contained copies of Clinton's work-related emails.Morris thinks Clinton acted in a "reckless" manner. Reports have said top secret content about drones passed through Clinton's email."Who's the one who's in charge of deciding what's secret and what's not? Hillary Clinton. So if the documents came and they were unclassified, unmarked, it was her duty to mark them and to respect that marking," Morris says."Obviously, drones and the kind of information you're talking about would be top secret. Hillary was reckless in consigning all this to her personal server because of the very material that the Secretary of State deals with. I believe the evidence will be so overwhelming that she violated the protocols that I don't think they're going to have any choice but to go after her."Morris sees Clinton getting "forced out of the race," which will open the door for several other Democrats with presidential aspirations."I see her being indicted, I see her being forced out of the race, I see [Vice President Joe] Biden running and I see a lot of pressure ramping up on other Democrats like [Secretary of State John] Kerry and [former Vice President Al] Gore and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts and a bunch of others, Elizabeth Warren, to get into the race. Not as opponents of Hillary but as understudies."Morris underscores his point in a separate interview on "Newsmax Prime.""The magnitude of the evidence is going to be so overwhelming that it’ll be impossible not to indict her," Morris says. "So yes, I do believe Hillary Clinton will be indicted and will be forced out of this race."Months before Clinton announced her candidacy in April, she had a significant lead in every major national poll over her potential challengers for the Democratic nomination at the time. But with the layers of the email scandal being peeled back rather quickly now, her poll numbers are taking a hit. Clinton's main challenger at this point, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is still well behind her but is making up ground. Others, such as former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who are already in the race, could see a boost in their poll numbers if Clinton were to exit. There's also talk Biden will join the race. Bloomberg reported Thursday that the FBI is now investigating whether the data on Clinton's email server may have been backed up somewhere else. A former Justice Department prosecutor said the FBI might be able to recover data from a server that has been erased."Most people don't understand really what it takes to actually delete things from a computer permanently," former computer crimes prosecutor Peter Toren told Bloomberg. "The FBI has had a great deal of training and they're very good about recovering data from computers that people think have been erased or deleted."Donald Trump, who leads the crowded field of Republicans vying for the nomination, said this week he thinks the race for the White House will come down to himself and Biden. "I think Hillary has got huge problems right now," Trump said. "Is she going to make it? I hear this thing is big league. Why did she do it? You use the server? Because [the Clintons are] always looking to go over the edge, whether it's Whitewater or anything else. They always want to go over the edge."I'm just looking at it saying, 'What the hell was she doing? You know what she was doing? She was guarding from the president seeing what she doing."

www.newsmax.com

right

Ud4NfWO8LBWaiziO

test

KiEUVVA38h7ImE8I

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/december/trump-americans-will-be-captains-of-their-own-destiny-again

Trump: 'Americans Will Be Captains of Their Own Destiny Again'

2016-12-02

President-elect Donald Trump returned to his campaign roots Thursday in his first major public appearance since Election Day . His first stop was in Indiana at the Carrier plant where he helped save 1,100 jobs . Trump then traveled to the Buckeye State to begin his official `` Thank You Tour . '' `` I love you , Ohio . This is a great place , '' Trump told the crowds . The incoming president spoke to thousands of his adoring fans in the key swing state where he made the surprise announcement about a new choice for his cabinet : retired Marine Gen. James Mattis . `` We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog ' Mattis as our secretary of defense . They say he 's the closest thing to General George Patton that we have and it 's about time , it 's about time , '' Trump proclaimed . Mattis would require a special waiver from Congress since a federal law requires a seven-year waiting period between retiring from the military and becoming secretary of defense . The law was put in place to preserve civilian control of the military . Trump also mapped out a broad agenda on the economy , repealing Obamacare , and national unity . `` We denounce all the hatred . We have to come together ; we have no choice , '' stated Trump . `` I 'm working to assemble a detailed action plan for America . My plan begins with a bold structural reform to create millions of new jobs and rapidly expand our economic growth , '' Trump explained . He also laid out his plans on immigration and changing American policies about who comes into the U.S . `` We will construct a great wall at the border , '' Trump reiterated his campaign promise . `` People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East . We have no idea who they are , where they come from , what they 're thinking . '' Meanwhile , Trump 's transition team is considering including a few democrats for his cabinet . Senator Joe Manchin , D- WV , could be tapped for the job of energy secretary . Politico reports the conservative democrat is being considered to show the coal people how serious Trump is about the coal industry . Another senator , Heidi Heitkamp , D-N.D. , is set to make a trip to Trump Towers Friday . She could also be considered for secretary of energy or interior . The president-elect ended his speech in Cincinnati by appealing to everyone in the country to take part in helping to make America great again . `` We have many challenges , but this is truly an exciting time to be alive . There 's been no time like it . The script is not yet written . We know not yet know what the next page will read , but I 'll tell you it 's going to be a great page , '' said Trump . `` But for the first time in a long time , what we do know is that the pages will be authored by each one of you . Each one of you . Americans will be the captains of their own destiny once again , '' he concluded .

President-elect Donald Trump returned to his campaign roots Thursday in his first major public appearance since Election Day. His first stop was in Indiana at the Carrier plant where he helped save 1,100 jobs. Trump then traveled to the Buckeye State to begin his official "Thank You Tour." "I love you, Ohio. This is a great place," Trump told the crowds. The incoming president spoke to thousands of his adoring fans in the key swing state where he made the surprise announcement about a new choice for his cabinet: retired Marine Gen. James Mattis. "We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog' Mattis as our secretary of defense. They say he's the closest thing to General George Patton that we have and it's about time, it's about time," Trump proclaimed. Mattis would require a special waiver from Congress since a federal law requires a seven-year waiting period between retiring from the military and becoming secretary of defense. The law was put in place to preserve civilian control of the military. Trump also mapped out a broad agenda on the economy, repealing Obamacare, and national unity. "We denounce all the hatred. We have to come together; we have no choice," stated Trump. "I'm working to assemble a detailed action plan for America. My plan begins with a bold structural reform to create millions of new jobs and rapidly expand our economic growth," Trump explained. He also laid out his plans on immigration and changing American policies about who comes into the U.S. "We will construct a great wall at the border," Trump reiterated his campaign promise. "People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they're thinking." Meanwhile, Trump's transition team is considering including a few democrats for his cabinet. Senator Joe Manchin, D- WV, could be tapped for the job of energy secretary. Politico reports the conservative democrat is being considered to show the coal people how serious Trump is about the coal industry. Another senator, Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., is set to make a trip to Trump Towers Friday. She could also be considered for secretary of energy or interior. The president-elect ended his speech in Cincinnati by appealing to everyone in the country to take part in helping to make America great again. "We have many challenges, but this is truly an exciting time to be alive. There's been no time like it . The script is not yet written. We know not yet know what the next page will read, but I'll tell you it's going to be a great page," said Trump. "But for the first time in a long time, what we do know is that the pages will be authored by each one of you. Each one of you. Americans will be the captains of their own destiny once again," he concluded.

www1.cbn.com

right

KiEUVVA38h7ImE8I

test

JVuvkxvPgP7BUXpf

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/27/trump-nomination-navy-secretary-withdraws-philip-bilden

Trump navy secretary nominee withdraws citing disruption to financial interests

2017-02-27

Philip Bilden announces his decision only days after White House said he was 100 % committed to the role Donald Trump ’ s choice to be secretary of the navy has withdrawn from consideration for the post , citing concerns about privacy and separating himself from his business interests . Trump White House scrambles to check scandal over FBI inquiry into Russia ties Read more The nominee , Philip Bilden , was an intelligence officer in the army reserve from 1986 to 1996 . He relocated to Hong Kong to set up an Asian presence for HarbourVest Partners , a global private equity management firm . He recently retired from HarbourVest Partners after 25 years . Bilden is the second Trump nominee for a post overseeing the military to withdraw before confirmation . Earlier this month , Vincent Viola , a West Point graduate and former airborne officer , withdrew from consideration to be secretary of the army . The founder of several businesses , including the electronic trading firm Virtu Financial , he also owns the National Hockey League ’ s Florida Panthers and is a past chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange . Viola cited his inability to successfully navigate the confirmation process and defense department rules concerning family businesses . The post remains unfilled . Reports of Bilden ’ s withdrawal had been circulating for days but were denied by the White House press secretary , Sean Spicer , who said he was 100 % committed to the role . In a statement on Sunday , the defense secretary , Jim Mattis , said Bilden had informed him of the decision and that he would make a recommendation for a new nominee in the coming days . “ This was a personal decision driven by privacy concerns and significant challenges he faced in separating himself from his business interests , ” Mattis said . In his own statement , Bilden said : “ I informed Secretary of Defense Mattis with regret that I respectfully withdraw from consideration as nominee for the 76th secretary of the navy . ” He had determined , he said , that he would not be able to satisfy Office of Government Ethics requirements without what he called “ undue disruption and materially adverse divestment of my family ’ s private financial interests ” .

Philip Bilden announces his decision only days after White House said he was 100% committed to the role This article is more than 2 years old This article is more than 2 years old Donald Trump’s choice to be secretary of the navy has withdrawn from consideration for the post, citing concerns about privacy and separating himself from his business interests. Trump White House scrambles to check scandal over FBI inquiry into Russia ties Read more The nominee, Philip Bilden, was an intelligence officer in the army reserve from 1986 to 1996. He relocated to Hong Kong to set up an Asian presence for HarbourVest Partners, a global private equity management firm. He recently retired from HarbourVest Partners after 25 years. Bilden is the second Trump nominee for a post overseeing the military to withdraw before confirmation. Earlier this month, Vincent Viola, a West Point graduate and former airborne officer, withdrew from consideration to be secretary of the army. The founder of several businesses, including the electronic trading firm Virtu Financial, he also owns the National Hockey League’s Florida Panthers and is a past chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange. Viola cited his inability to successfully navigate the confirmation process and defense department rules concerning family businesses. The post remains unfilled. Reports of Bilden’s withdrawal had been circulating for days but were denied by the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, who said he was 100% committed to the role. In a statement on Sunday, the defense secretary, Jim Mattis, said Bilden had informed him of the decision and that he would make a recommendation for a new nominee in the coming days. “This was a personal decision driven by privacy concerns and significant challenges he faced in separating himself from his business interests,” Mattis said. In his own statement, Bilden said: “I informed Secretary of Defense Mattis with regret that I respectfully withdraw from consideration as nominee for the 76th secretary of the navy.” He had determined, he said, that he would not be able to satisfy Office of Government Ethics requirements without what he called “undue disruption and materially adverse divestment of my family’s private financial interests”.

www.theguardian.com

left

JVuvkxvPgP7BUXpf

test

eZlOTgf1elzCs4hm

fbi

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/mccabe-criminal-charges/2019/09/12/id/932397/

Ex-FBI Director Andrew McCabe Loses Appeal to Avoid Criminal Charges

2019-09-12

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , a frequent target of President Donald Trump 's wrath , faces the prospect of an indictment after his attorneys were unable to persuade senior Justice Department officials not to pursue charges that he lied to internal investigators . Two people familiar with the matter said Thursday that the deputy attorney general declined an appeal from McCabe 's lawyers aimed at preventing a prosecution . The people were n't authorized to discuss the issue by name and spoke on condition of anonymity . Still , it was n't immediately clear when or even whether the United States Attorney 's Office in Washington , which has been leading the investigation , might announce charges . McCabe 's attorneys have argued that he should not face charges on accusations that he lied to internal investigators about whether he had authorized a news media leak in the fall of 2016 . McCabe has denied intentionally misleading anyone . An indictment of McCabe would refocus public attention on the chaotic months of 2016 when the FBI was entangled in presidential politics through investigations touching both main contenders — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump , her Republican opponent . And while prosecutors are likely to try to keep a narrow focus on whether McCabe lied to investigators on particular dates , McCabe 's attorneys are expected to argue that the prosecution is part of a political vendetta driven by the president . They are likely to highlight the personal enmity between the two men , with Trump criticizing McCabe even before he took office and McCabe describing the president as a `` deliberate liar . '' McCabe 's lawyers have said any false statements made to investigators were the product of a faulty memory , and that the interviews took place during a tumultuous time for the bureau as it investigated potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign . McCabe became acting director of the FBI after Trump fired former Director James Comey on May 9 , 2017 . McCabe has said his 2018 firing — for what the Justice Department called `` lack of candor '' — was politically motivated . He sued the Justice Department in August , saying officials had used the inspector general 's conclusions as a pretext to rid the FBI of leaders Trump perceived as biased against him . The investigation followed an October 2016 story in The Wall Street Journal that described internal debates roiling the FBI and the Justice Department weeks before the presidential election about how aggressively the Clinton Foundation should be investigated . The article recounted a particularly tense phone call between McCabe and a senior Justice Department official about the investigation . The inspector general 's report said McCabe told internal investigators that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to speak with the reporter , and he did not know who did . The report said McCabe ultimately corrected that account , and confirmed that he had encouraged the conversation with the reporter to counter a narrative that he thought was false — namely , that he had been trying to stymie investigations into Clinton and the foundation . McCabe has been a target of Trump 's attacks since news emerged in the fall of 2016 that McCabe 's wife had accepted campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with former Virginia Gov . Terry McAuliffe , a Clinton ally , during an unsuccessful run for the state Senate .

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a frequent target of President Donald Trump's wrath, faces the prospect of an indictment after his attorneys were unable to persuade senior Justice Department officials not to pursue charges that he lied to internal investigators. Two people familiar with the matter said Thursday that the deputy attorney general declined an appeal from McCabe's lawyers aimed at preventing a prosecution. The people weren't authorized to discuss the issue by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. Still, it wasn't immediately clear when or even whether the United States Attorney's Office in Washington, which has been leading the investigation , might announce charges. McCabe's attorneys have argued that he should not face charges on accusations that he lied to internal investigators about whether he had authorized a news media leak in the fall of 2016. McCabe has denied intentionally misleading anyone. An indictment of McCabe would refocus public attention on the chaotic months of 2016 when the FBI was entangled in presidential politics through investigations touching both main contenders — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, her Republican opponent. And while prosecutors are likely to try to keep a narrow focus on whether McCabe lied to investigators on particular dates, McCabe's attorneys are expected to argue that the prosecution is part of a political vendetta driven by the president. They are likely to highlight the personal enmity between the two men , with Trump criticizing McCabe even before he took office and McCabe describing the president as a "deliberate liar." McCabe's lawyers have said any false statements made to investigators were the product of a faulty memory, and that the interviews took place during a tumultuous time for the bureau as it investigated potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. McCabe became acting director of the FBI after Trump fired former Director James Comey on May 9, 2017. McCabe has said his 2018 firing — for what the Justice Department called "lack of candor" — was politically motivated. He sued the Justice Department in August, saying officials had used the inspector general's conclusions as a pretext to rid the FBI of leaders Trump perceived as biased against him. The investigation followed an October 2016 story in The Wall Street Journal that described internal debates roiling the FBI and the Justice Department weeks before the presidential election about how aggressively the Clinton Foundation should be investigated. The article recounted a particularly tense phone call between McCabe and a senior Justice Department official about the investigation. The inspector general's report said McCabe told internal investigators that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to speak with the reporter, and he did not know who did. The report said McCabe ultimately corrected that account, and confirmed that he had encouraged the conversation with the reporter to counter a narrative that he thought was false — namely, that he had been trying to stymie investigations into Clinton and the foundation. McCabe has been a target of Trump's attacks since news emerged in the fall of 2016 that McCabe's wife had accepted campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally, during an unsuccessful run for the state Senate.

www.newsmax.com

right

eZlOTgf1elzCs4hm

test

pZJ8JJPJxsAzWp6Y

national_defense

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/news/ramping-up-fight-trump-authorizes-sanctions-over-icc-war-crimes-probe/

Ramping up fight, Trump OKs sanctions over ICC war crimes probe

Washington ( AFP ) – President Donald Trump on Thursday authorized sanctions against any official at the International Criminal Court who investigates US troops , ramping up pressure to stop its case into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan . In an executive order , Trump said the United States would block US property and assets of anyone from The Hague-based tribunal involved in probing or prosecuting US troops . “ We can not — we will not — stand by as our people are threatened by a kangaroo court , ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement to reporters . “ I have a message to many close allies around the world — your people could be next , especially those from NATO countries who fought terrorism in Afghanistan right alongside of us . ” The court responded by stating that its president O-Gon Kwon “ rejects measures taken against ICC , ” calling them “ unprecedented ” and saying they “ undermine our common endeavor to fight impunity and to ensure accountability for mass atrocities . ” US Attorney General Bill Barr alleged , without giving detail , that Russia and other adversaries of the United States have been “ manipulating ” the court . Using Trump ’ s “ America First ” language , Barr said the administration was trying to bring accountability to a global body . “ This institution has become , in practice , little more than a political tool employed by unaccountable international elites , ” he said . European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell voiced “ serious concern ” and said the court “ must be respected and supported by all nations . ” Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok said he was “ very disturbed ” by the US move , and said The Netherlands supported the court on its soil . “ The ICC is crucial in the fight against impunity and upholding international rule of law , ” Blok wrote on Twitter . Human Rights Watch said Trump ’ s order “ demonstrates contempt for the global rule of law . ” “ This assault on the ICC is an effort to block victims of serious crimes whether in Afghanistan , Israel or Palestine from seeing justice , ” said the group ’ s Washington director , Andrea Prasow . But the move was hailed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , one of Trump ’ s closest allies , who has been angered by the ICC ’ s moves — strongly opposed by Washington — to probe alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories . In a reference to Israeli settlements , Netanyahu accused the court of fabricating accusations that Jews living in their historical homeland constitutes a war crime . Trump has been tearing down global institutions he sees as hindering his administration ’ s interests , recently ordering a pullout from the World Health Organization over its coronavirus response . The Trump administration has been livid over the International Criminal Court ’ s investigation into atrocities in Afghanistan , America ’ s longest-running war . The administration last year revoked the US visa of the court ’ s chief prosecutor , Gambian-born Fatou Bensouda , to demand that she end the Afghanistan probe . But judges in March said the investigation could go ahead , overturning an initial rejection of Bensouda ’ s request . Under Trump ’ s order on Thursday , visa restrictions will be expanded to any court official involved in investigations into US forces . The United States argues that it has its own procedures in place to investigate accusations against troops . “ We are committed to uncovering , and if possible holding people accountable , for their wrongdoing — any wrongdoing , ” Barr said . Trump , however , used his executive powers last year to clear three military members over war crimes , including in Afghanistan . Among them was Eddie Gallagher , who had been convicted by a military tribunal of stabbing to death with a hunting knife a prisoner of war from the Islamic State group in Iraq . Gallagher had become a cause celebre among US conservatives , although Trump ’ s action troubled some in the US military . Founded in 2002 , the International Criminal Court immediately ran into opposition from Washington , where the then administration of George W. Bush encouraged countries to shun it . Former president Barack Obama took a more cooperative approach with the court , but the United States remained outside of it .

Washington (AFP) – President Donald Trump on Thursday authorized sanctions against any official at the International Criminal Court who investigates US troops, ramping up pressure to stop its case into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. In an executive order, Trump said the United States would block US property and assets of anyone from The Hague-based tribunal involved in probing or prosecuting US troops. “We cannot — we will not — stand by as our people are threatened by a kangaroo court,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement to reporters. “I have a message to many close allies around the world — your people could be next, especially those from NATO countries who fought terrorism in Afghanistan right alongside of us.” The court responded by stating that its president O-Gon Kwon “rejects measures taken against ICC,” calling them “unprecedented” and saying they “undermine our common endeavor to fight impunity and to ensure accountability for mass atrocities.” US Attorney General Bill Barr alleged, without giving detail, that Russia and other adversaries of the United States have been “manipulating” the court. Using Trump’s “America First” language, Barr said the administration was trying to bring accountability to a global body. “This institution has become, in practice, little more than a political tool employed by unaccountable international elites,” he said. ‘Contempt’ for rule of law European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell voiced “serious concern” and said the court “must be respected and supported by all nations.” Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok said he was “very disturbed” by the US move, and said The Netherlands supported the court on its soil. “The ICC is crucial in the fight against impunity and upholding international rule of law,” Blok wrote on Twitter. Human Rights Watch said Trump’s order “demonstrates contempt for the global rule of law.” “This assault on the ICC is an effort to block victims of serious crimes whether in Afghanistan, Israel or Palestine from seeing justice,” said the group’s Washington director, Andrea Prasow. But the move was hailed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of Trump’s closest allies, who has been angered by the ICC’s moves — strongly opposed by Washington — to probe alleged war crimes in the Palestinian territories. In a reference to Israeli settlements, Netanyahu accused the court of fabricating accusations that Jews living in their historical homeland constitutes a war crime. “This is ridiculous. Shame on them,” Netanyahu told reporters. Trump has been tearing down global institutions he sees as hindering his administration’s interests, recently ordering a pullout from the World Health Organization over its coronavirus response. Long-running US anger The Trump administration has been livid over the International Criminal Court’s investigation into atrocities in Afghanistan, America’s longest-running war. The administration last year revoked the US visa of the court’s chief prosecutor, Gambian-born Fatou Bensouda, to demand that she end the Afghanistan probe. But judges in March said the investigation could go ahead, overturning an initial rejection of Bensouda’s request. Under Trump’s order on Thursday, visa restrictions will be expanded to any court official involved in investigations into US forces. The United States argues that it has its own procedures in place to investigate accusations against troops. “We are committed to uncovering, and if possible holding people accountable, for their wrongdoing — any wrongdoing,” Barr said. Trump, however, used his executive powers last year to clear three military members over war crimes, including in Afghanistan. Among them was Eddie Gallagher, who had been convicted by a military tribunal of stabbing to death with a hunting knife a prisoner of war from the Islamic State group in Iraq. Gallagher had become a cause celebre among US conservatives, although Trump’s action troubled some in the US military. Founded in 2002, the International Criminal Court immediately ran into opposition from Washington, where the then administration of George W. Bush encouraged countries to shun it. Former president Barack Obama took a more cooperative approach with the court, but the United States remained outside of it.

www.breitbart.com

right

pZJ8JJPJxsAzWp6Y

test

0yaFp9AQFss7Y5UD

justice_department

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/19/rand-paul-claims-revealing-memo-exists-in-irs-scandal/?hpt=po_t1

Rand Paul claims revealing memo exists in IRS scandal

2013-05-19

( CNN ) - While the Internal Revenue Service maintains it was not focusing on conservative groups out of political bias , Sen. Rand Paul claimed Sunday there was a `` written policy '' floating around the agency that said IRS officials were `` targeting people who were opposed to the president . '' `` And when that comes forward , we need to know who wrote the policy and who approved the policy , '' the Republican senator from Kentucky said on CNN 's `` State of the Union . '' Pressed for more precise details about the memo he was referring to , Paul said he has n't seen such a policy statement but has heard about it . `` Well , we keep hearing the reports and we have several specifically worded items saying who was being targeted . In fact , one of the bullet points says those who are critical of the president . So I do n't know if that comes from a policy , but that 's what 's being reported in the press and reported orally , '' he told CNN 's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley . `` I have n't seen a policy statement , but I think we need to see that . '' Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also said the IRS targeting was an example of the administration punishing its opponents . `` There is a culture of intimidation throughout the administration , '' he said Sunday on NBC 's `` Meet the Press . '' While he admitted that all the facts were not yet known , he argued an attitude of `` government knows best ” seems to permeate . `` The nanny state is here to tell us all what to do and if you start criticizing , you get targeted , '' he said . Appearing before a congressional committee Friday , IRS officials said a large increase in workload , rather than deliberate targeting , led to `` foolish mistakes '' and the political discrimination cited by the inspector general 's report last week . Numerous conservative groups said they faced heavy scrutiny and lengthy questionnaires in the past few years as they attempted to get tax-exempt status . The IRS admitted earlier this month it made mistakes , saying its office in Ohio that processed tax-exempt applications began singling out groups whose names included `` tea party '' and `` patriot '' for further review . The actions have spurred criticism from both parties in Congress and President Barack Obama . A new CNN/ORC International survey released Sunday indicated that 71 % of Americans find the targeting unacceptable . Two IRS officials have announced they 'll leave their posts , and more current and former IRS higher-ups are slated to appear for congressional hearings this week . But Paul argued more people needed to be let go , saying the Obama administration did n't do enough in disciplining officials after the terror attack against a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi , Libya , in September . `` Why does Benghazi go on ? No one was ever fired . So people made tragic errors - no one 's accepting responsibility and no one was fired , '' he said . Four State Department officials , however , were disciplined in December , with one resigning and three being placed on administrative leave and relieved of their duties . Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly said she accepts ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of U.S. diplomats abroad . Paul , however , stood by his charge that Clinton demonstrated a `` dereliction of duty '' by not reading diplomatic cables requesting more security at the Benghazi post . `` She should have resigned and accepted blame for it , '' he said Sunday . A potential 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination , Paul has taken his attacks against Clinton on the road in battleground states . He plans to make a trip to New Hampshire , the first-in-the-nation primary state , on Monday . Asked if he was politicizing the controversy , Paul said he brings up the topic `` in every state and every stop because I think it 's pretty important for her to accept blame for not providing security . '' Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET . For the latest from State of the Union click here .

6 years ago (CNN) - While the Internal Revenue Service maintains it was not focusing on conservative groups out of political bias, Sen. Rand Paul claimed Sunday there was a "written policy" floating around the agency that said IRS officials were "targeting people who were opposed to the president." "And when that comes forward, we need to know who wrote the policy and who approved the policy," the Republican senator from Kentucky said on CNN's "State of the Union." Follow @politicalticker Pressed for more precise details about the memo he was referring to, Paul said he hasn't seen such a policy statement but has heard about it. "Well, we keep hearing the reports and we have several specifically worded items saying who was being targeted. In fact, one of the bullet points says those who are critical of the president. So I don't know if that comes from a policy, but that's what's being reported in the press and reported orally," he told CNN's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. "I haven't seen a policy statement, but I think we need to see that." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also said the IRS targeting was an example of the administration punishing its opponents. "There is a culture of intimidation throughout the administration," he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." While he admitted that all the facts were not yet known, he argued an attitude of "government knows best” seems to permeate. "The nanny state is here to tell us all what to do and if you start criticizing, you get targeted," he said. Appearing before a congressional committee Friday, IRS officials said a large increase in workload, rather than deliberate targeting, led to "foolish mistakes" and the political discrimination cited by the inspector general's report last week. Numerous conservative groups said they faced heavy scrutiny and lengthy questionnaires in the past few years as they attempted to get tax-exempt status. The IRS admitted earlier this month it made mistakes, saying its office in Ohio that processed tax-exempt applications began singling out groups whose names included "tea party" and "patriot" for further review. The actions have spurred criticism from both parties in Congress and President Barack Obama. A new CNN/ORC International survey released Sunday indicated that 71% of Americans find the targeting unacceptable. Two IRS officials have announced they'll leave their posts, and more current and former IRS higher-ups are slated to appear for congressional hearings this week. But Paul argued more people needed to be let go, saying the Obama administration didn't do enough in disciplining officials after the terror attack against a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in September. "Why does Benghazi go on? No one was ever fired. So people made tragic errors - no one's accepting responsibility and no one was fired," he said. Four State Department officials, however, were disciplined in December, with one resigning and three being placed on administrative leave and relieved of their duties. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly said she accepts ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of U.S. diplomats abroad. Paul, however, stood by his charge that Clinton demonstrated a "dereliction of duty" by not reading diplomatic cables requesting more security at the Benghazi post. "She should have resigned and accepted blame for it," he said Sunday. A potential 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, Paul has taken his attacks against Clinton on the road in battleground states. He plans to make a trip to New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation primary state, on Monday. Asked if he was politicizing the controversy, Paul said he brings up the topic "in every state and every stop because I think it's pretty important for her to accept blame for not providing security." Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

0yaFp9AQFss7Y5UD

test

7rpkvYNnQQL2ekxd

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2019/04/11/julian-assange-and-wikileaks-deserve-our

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks Deserve Our Thanks for Making Governments More Transparent

2019-04-11

Nick Gillespie, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

A lot of people are dunking on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange now that he 's been arrested by British law enforcement and will likely face extradition hearings to the United States on charges that he conspired with Chelsea Manning to `` commit computer intrusion '' on a U.S. government machine . Assuming the British authorities do go forward with extradition , it will almost certainly be years before the matter is settled ( and there 's a strong argument that Assange might walk in British courts ) . In the meantime , Assange has effectively traded exile in Ecuador 's embassy in London for a jail cell in the same city . As Robby Soave notes , prosecuting Assange for publishing leaked documents—something that media outlets do on a regular basis—would be very bad for press freedom . Regardless of how you feel about Assange as a person , there 's no question that WikiLeaks , founded in 2006 , has been central to starting a salutary era of forced transparency , a time when state and corporate actors have much more trouble keeping secrets . Forced transparency is bigger than WikiLeaks , of course . It 's one of the defining dynamics of our time , riding the same technological wave that gave us Napster and other innovations that disperse power and information in all sorts of unauthorized ways . But let 's give credit and praise where it 's due . The world is better for the fact that it 's harder than ever for governments to keep their own secrets . Early exposés by the organization included documents from the Church of Scientology and East Anglia University 's Climate Research Unit . In 2010 , the organization came into its own by publishing a trove of documents given to it by Chelsea Manning , then an Army intelligence analyst . Among the things that came to light : graphic video of a U.S. Apache helicopter killing Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists ; 90,000-plus pages of military memos , now known as the Afghan War Diaries , that showed that the Taliban and the Pakistani government were in regular contact and that civilian casualties were far greater than the U.S. officially acknowledged ; 400,000 pages of documents about the war in Iraq , including revelation of 15,000 unreported civilian deaths and brutal reprisals by Iraqi forces ; diplomatic cables that showed a wide gulf between the U.S. 's public positions and private analysis . In 2016 , of course , WikiLeaks also released hacked emails from John Podesta , Hillary Clinton 's campaign chairman , which unmasked various bad-faith dealings within the Democratic Party establishment . There are legitimate questions about WikiLeaks ' relationship with the Russian government , but it 's the worst sort of whataboutism to argue that WikiLeaks ' revelatons about the United States government should not be taken seriously until it releases equally damaging material about , say , the Putin regime . The information it has shared about the United States is widely understood to be accurate ; calls for some sort of geopolitical balance does n't make the group 's revelations about our leaders any less true . In 2017 , FBI Director James Comey said that WikiLeaks trafficked in `` public intelligence porn . '' Mike Pompeo , then CIA director and now secretary of state , went so far as to condemn Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the state . `` We can no longer allow [ Julian ] Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us , '' Pompeo declared at the Center for Strategic and International Studies . `` To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for . '' Such talk was reminiscent of The Wall Street Journal calling Assange an `` enemy of the U.S. '' who should face the death penalty . Such backward thinking is absurd . We wo n't be `` crushed '' if our actions are defensible . Assume the worst about Assange , who was first taken into custody in relation to sexual assault charges in Sweden that have since been dropped . We do n't need to praise the man to recognize that governments ' radical loss of control of secret knowledge is ultimately a very good thing—and one that is n't going away anytime soon . From 2010 , here 's a ███ video in which four experts grapple with the question , `` Is WikiLeaks a Force for Good ? ''

A lot of people are dunking on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange now that he's been arrested by British law enforcement and will likely face extradition hearings to the United States on charges that he conspired with Chelsea Manning to "commit computer intrusion" on a U.S. government machine. Assuming the British authorities do go forward with extradition, it will almost certainly be years before the matter is settled (and there's a strong argument that Assange might walk in British courts). In the meantime, Assange has effectively traded exile in Ecuador's embassy in London for a jail cell in the same city. As Robby Soave notes, prosecuting Assange for publishing leaked documents—something that media outlets do on a regular basis—would be very bad for press freedom. Regardless of how you feel about Assange as a person, there's no question that WikiLeaks, founded in 2006, has been central to starting a salutary era of forced transparency, a time when state and corporate actors have much more trouble keeping secrets. Forced transparency is bigger than WikiLeaks, of course. It's one of the defining dynamics of our time, riding the same technological wave that gave us Napster and other innovations that disperse power and information in all sorts of unauthorized ways. But let's give credit and praise where it's due. The world is better for the fact that it's harder than ever for governments to keep their own secrets. Early exposés by the organization included documents from the Church of Scientology and East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit. In 2010, the organization came into its own by publishing a trove of documents given to it by Chelsea Manning, then an Army intelligence analyst. Among the things that came to light: graphic video of a U.S. Apache helicopter killing Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists; 90,000-plus pages of military memos, now known as the Afghan War Diaries, that showed that the Taliban and the Pakistani government were in regular contact and that civilian casualties were far greater than the U.S. officially acknowledged; 400,000 pages of documents about the war in Iraq, including revelation of 15,000 unreported civilian deaths and brutal reprisals by Iraqi forces; diplomatic cables that showed a wide gulf between the U.S.'s public positions and private analysis. In 2016, of course, WikiLeaks also released hacked emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, which unmasked various bad-faith dealings within the Democratic Party establishment. There are legitimate questions about WikiLeaks' relationship with the Russian government, but it's the worst sort of whataboutism to argue that WikiLeaks' revelatons about the United States government should not be taken seriously until it releases equally damaging material about, say, the Putin regime. The information it has shared about the United States is widely understood to be accurate; calls for some sort of geopolitical balance doesn't make the group's revelations about our leaders any less true. In 2017, FBI Director James Comey said that WikiLeaks trafficked in "public intelligence porn." Mike Pompeo, then CIA director and now secretary of state, went so far as to condemn Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the state. "We can no longer allow [Julian] Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us," Pompeo declared at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for." Such talk was reminiscent of The Wall Street Journal calling Assange an "enemy of the U.S." who should face the death penalty. Such backward thinking is absurd. We won't be "crushed" if our actions are defensible. Assume the worst about Assange, who was first taken into custody in relation to sexual assault charges in Sweden that have since been dropped. We don't need to praise the man to recognize that governments' radical loss of control of secret knowledge is ultimately a very good thing—and one that isn't going away anytime soon. From 2010, here's a Reason video in which four experts grapple with the question, "Is WikiLeaks a Force for Good?"

www.reason.com

right

7rpkvYNnQQL2ekxd

test

BOvbU4q5zKoYhX4I

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/08/tucker-gets-the-inside-scoop-from-donna-brazile-on-hillarys-health-video/

Tucker Gets The Inside Scoop From Donna Brazile On Hillary’s Health

2017-11-08

Former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile ’ s relayed her recollection of Hillary Clinton fainting on the 9/11 anniversary before the 2016 election to Fox News host Tucker Carlson Wednesday . Carlson asked , “ So you have this scene in the book that ’ s been much remarked upon , where Hillary ’ s really sick , you say she ’ s overworked , and she ’ s got a bronchial infection , maybe pneumonia , and she ’ s so sick , that you have this moment where you think maybe we need to replace her , maybe she won ’ t be able to continue , and that ’ s the point at which you said , ‘ Maybe the Vice President would be a good replacement… ' ” ███ co-founder continued , “ That ’ s such a big deal , that it was striking when I read that , I thought here there are a thousand reporters covering this campaign , and not one of them picked up anything like that , that the candidate ’ s health was that bad ? That she was being considered maybe not able to finish ? Do you think reporters knew that ? How could they not know that ? ” Brazile said , “ Well let me just tell you , I had a lot of reporters were calling my office , calling my home , texting me , sending me emails . In fact , there was a reporter that I mentioned that broke the story to me that she had fainted . And I immediately called up to Brooklyn and I tried to reach people on the road with her to find out if this was a rumor , as you well know , with the Russian meddling in our campaign , and yes , it happened , there were so many rumors that you had to debunk , and so by the time I saw the video , when the video went viral–you can imagine what was happening within the Democratic Party , what was happening inside of the inner circles… ” “ Oh , I remember , and everything was fine . ‘ Everything ’ s fine ! ' ” Tucker said . Brazile added , “ Every five to seven minutes…Hillary is a friend . I cared about her health . I cared about her campaign but the last thing I want , I wanted to know how she was doing . I wanted to know if she was okay… ”

Former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile’s relayed her recollection of Hillary Clinton fainting on the 9/11 anniversary before the 2016 election to Fox News host Tucker Carlson Wednesday. WATCH: Carlson asked, “So you have this scene in the book that’s been much remarked upon, where Hillary’s really sick, you say she’s overworked, and she’s got a bronchial infection, maybe pneumonia, and she’s so sick, that you have this moment where you think maybe we need to replace her, maybe she won’t be able to continue, and that’s the point at which you said, ‘Maybe the Vice President would be a good replacement…'” The Daily Caller co-founder continued, “That’s such a big deal, that it was striking when I read that, I thought here there are a thousand reporters covering this campaign, and not one of them picked up anything like that, that the candidate’s health was that bad? That she was being considered maybe not able to finish? Do you think reporters knew that? How could they not know that?” Brazile said, “Well let me just tell you, I had a lot of reporters were calling my office, calling my home, texting me, sending me emails. In fact, there was a reporter that I mentioned that broke the story to me that she had fainted. And I immediately called up to Brooklyn and I tried to reach people on the road with her to find out if this was a rumor, as you well know, with the Russian meddling in our campaign, and yes, it happened, there were so many rumors that you had to debunk, and so by the time I saw the video, when the video went viral–you can imagine what was happening within the Democratic Party, what was happening inside of the inner circles…” “Oh, I remember, and everything was fine. ‘Everything’s fine!'” Tucker said. Brazile added, “Every five to seven minutes…Hillary is a friend. I cared about her health. I cared about her campaign but the last thing I want, I wanted to know how she was doing. I wanted to know if she was okay…” Follow Justin on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

BOvbU4q5zKoYhX4I

test

l11VxKbzzv5YaBla

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/30/paul-manafort-robert-mueller-donald-trump-russia-inquiry

Paul Manafort turns himself in as Trump-Russia inquiry heats up

2017-10-30

Julian Borger, Ben Jacobs, Lauren Gambino, Shaun Walker, Jill Abramson, Simon Tisdall

The special investigation into Russian election meddling has closed in dramatically on Donald Trump after news broke on Monday that a former foreign policy adviser pleaded guilty to perjury over his contacts with Russians linked to the Kremlin , and the president ’ s former campaign manager and another aide faced charges of money laundering . In a day of rapid and surprising developments in Washington , George Papadopolous , the former foreign policy adviser , was revealed to have pleaded guilty earlier this month to lying to FBI investigators over his contacts last year with two people with apparently close ties to the Russian government . One was an unnamed professor – identified by the Washington Post as Joseph Mifsud – who offered “ dirt ” on Hillary Clinton . Another was a woman who portrayed herself as “ Putin ’ s niece ” . Quick guide What you need to know about the Trump-Russia inquiry Show Hide How serious are the allegations ? The story of Donald Trump and Russia comes down to this : a sitting president or his campaign is suspected of having coordinated with a foreign country to manipulate a US election . The story could not be bigger , and the stakes for Trump – and the country – could not be higher . What are the key questions ? Investigators are asking two basic questions : did Trump ’ s presidential campaign collude at any level with Russian operatives to sway the 2016 US presidential election ? And did Trump or others break the law to throw investigators off the trail ? What does the country think ? While a majority of the American public now believes that Russia tried to disrupt the US election , opinions about Trump campaign involvement tend to split along partisan lines : 73 % of Republicans , but only 13 % of Democrats , believe Trump did “ nothing wrong ” in his dealings with Russia and its president , Vladimir Putin . What are the implications for Trump ? The affair has the potential to eject Trump from office . Experienced legal observers believe that prosecutors are investigating whether Trump committed an obstruction of justice . Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton – the only presidents to face impeachment proceedings in the last century – were accused of obstruction of justice . But Trump ’ s fate is probably up to the voters . Even if strong evidence of wrongdoing by him or his cohort emerged , a Republican congressional majority would probably block any action to remove him from office . ( Such an action would be a historical rarity . ) What has happened so far ? Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopolous pleaded guilty to perjury over his contacts with Russians linked to the Kremlin , and the president ’ s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and another aide face charges of money laundering . When will the inquiry come to an end ? The investigations have an open timeline . Meanwhile , in a federal courthouse in central Washington , Trump ’ s former campaign manager , Paul Manafort , and a business associate , Rick Gates , pleaded not guilty to an indictment for money laundering , tax evasion , failure to register as agents for foreign interests and conspiracy to defraud the US government . A federal judge ordered Manafort and Gates to be confined at home and set bail at $ 10m for Manafort and $ 5m for Gates . The indictments were the first issued by Robert Mueller since he was appointed special counsel in May , with broad powers to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by members of the Trump campaign . After the indictment of Manafort and Gates was revealed on Monday morning , Trump tweeted : “ Sorry , but this is years ago , before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign . But why aren ’ t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus ? ? ? ? ? ” Later , the White House press secretary , Sarah Huckabee Sanders , played down the connection between the three men and the Trump campaign . She said of Manafort and Gates ’ s indictment : “ Today ’ s announcement has nothing to do with the president , presidential campaigns or any campaign activity . ” Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 as convention manager , focusing on winning delegates at the 2016 Republican convention , and was promoted to campaign manager in June 2016 before resigning in August over his links to Ukraine . Sanders said : “ Paul Manafort was brought in to lead the delegate process , which he did , and was dismissed not too long after that . ” She also insisted Papadopoulos ’ s lies to the FBI about his contacts with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign had “ nothing to do with the activities of the campaign ” , and repeatedly dismissed Papadopoulos as “ a volunteer member on an advisory council ” . Play Video 0:44 White House : No sign of collusion in campaign aides ' indictments – video However , Trump himself had announced Papadopoulos ’ s appointment as a foreign policy adviser in March 2016 , describing him as “ an excellent guy ” . The charges , which Papadopoulos accepted as accurate as part of a guilty plea on 5 October , said Trump was present at a meeting of national security advisers where Papadopoulos boasted of his Russian connections and said he could help organise a meeting with Putin . The charges state that the unnamed woman he was in contact with was not related to the Russian president . But Papadopoulos ’ s links with her and the professor led to extensive contacts with Russian officials regarding a Putin-Trump meeting and other high-level exchanges . The professor referred to in the charges against Papadopoulos is said to have told him that the Russians had “ dirt ” on Clinton in the form of “ thousands of emails ” at a meeting around 26 April 2016 , months before the Russian hack of Democratic party emails became publicly known . A prosecutor representing Mueller ’ s office , Aaron Zelinsky , said at the October hearing that the Papadopoulos case was just a “ small part ” of “ a large scale ongoing investigation ” , according to a transcript of the court session , adding weight to anticipation that Monday ’ s charges are the tip of an iceberg . Collusion itself is not a crime , unless it rises to the level of espionage or treason . Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about the extent and timing of his contacts with Russians , and about his awareness of their links to the Kremlin . Papadopoulos was arrested in July at Dulles airport when he returned from a trip abroad . The court papers note that he subsequently “ met with the government on numerous occasions to provide information and answer questions ” . He was charged more than two months later . Summarising the day ’ s developments , Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes , editors of the Lawfare blog , wrote : “ President Trump , in short , had on his campaign at least one person , and allegedly two people , who actively worked with adversarial foreign governments in a fashion they sought to criminally conceal from investigators . ” Ultimately , the question over whether Trump committed “ high crimes and misdemeanours ” through his camp ’ s contacts with Moscow during the election will be decided by Congress , where Republicans control both chambers . Mark Warner , the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee , said after the charges were made public : “ This is just the latest in a series of undisclosed contacts , misleading public statements , potentially compromising information and highly questionable actions from the time of the Trump campaign that together remain a cause for deep concern and continued investigation . ” Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to 12 charges . The first was “ conspiracy against the United States ” , an overall charge that refers specifically to the failure to inform the government of foreign income and foreign bank accounts , and failing to register lobbying work for foreign interests . Manafort 's 'lavish lifestyle ' laundered illicit cash through property loans – and Airbnb Read more The indictment focuses on the business activities of the two men before Manafort joined Trump ’ s campaign , in March 2016 , and Gates became a senior fundraiser . The charges allege the two men worked extensively for political figures and parties in Ukraine and laundered millions of dollars in payment for that work by channelling it through a web of companies , mostly in the US and Cyprus . They are accused of constructing elaborate schemes to hide their earnings from the US government , and failing to register the foreign interests for which they were lobbying . The indictment alleges $ 75m in payments flowed through offshore accounts , of which Manafort laundered more than $ 18m to buy property , goods and services in the US , hiding the income from the government . It says Gates transferred $ 3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he controlled . “ In order to hide Ukraine payments from United States authorities , from approximately 2006 to at least 2016 , Manafort and Gates laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations , partnerships and bank accounts , ” the indictment claims . It notes that Manafort used “ his hidden overseas wealth to fund a lavish lifestyle , without paying taxes on that income ” . The charges were approved by a grand jury on Friday . Although the indictment says the two men ’ s moneymaking activities lasted until at least 2016 , the charges do not mention the role of the two men in the Trump campaign . An attorney for Manafort , Kevin Downing , said there was no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government . “ Mr Manafort represented pro-European Union campaigns for the Ukrainians and in the course of that representation he was seeking to further democracy and to help the Ukrainians come closer to the United States and to the EU , ” Downing said in a statement . “ Those activities ended in 2014 , two years before Mr Manafort served in the Trump Campaign . ” Trump ’ s lawyer , Ty Cobb , told ███ there was “ no angst at the White House ” . Manafort had been warned to expect an indictment and Cobb recently told the New York Times he was confident the former Trump campaign chair had no damaging information on the president to offer in exchange for leniency . However , the Mueller investigation is widely expected to produce further indictments and many legal observers had predicted it would start with charges related to financial crimes as a way of pressuring defendants to provide more information on the Trump team ’ s relationship with Moscow . Russia inquiry charges : how close does this get to Trump ? Read more “ The amount of money that Manafort received is staggering , ” said Scott Horton , a US expert on international law with extensive experience of financial cases and eastern Europe . “ The Russian/Ukrainian side is complicit in its routing and obscuring the fact of payment . “ That ’ s significant because it means they had knowledge of serious criminal acts by Manafort which they could hold over his head and use to force him to do their bidding . The suspicion would naturally be that they were a driving force behind his volunteering to serve the Trump campaign for free . ”

The special investigation into Russian election meddling has closed in dramatically on Donald Trump after news broke on Monday that a former foreign policy adviser pleaded guilty to perjury over his contacts with Russians linked to the Kremlin, and the president’s former campaign manager and another aide faced charges of money laundering. In a day of rapid and surprising developments in Washington, George Papadopolous, the former foreign policy adviser, was revealed to have pleaded guilty earlier this month to lying to FBI investigators over his contacts last year with two people with apparently close ties to the Russian government. One was an unnamed professor – identified by the Washington Post as Joseph Mifsud – who offered “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Another was a woman who portrayed herself as “Putin’s niece”. Quick guide What you need to know about the Trump-Russia inquiry Show Hide How serious are the allegations? The story of Donald Trump and Russia comes down to this: a sitting president or his campaign is suspected of having coordinated with a foreign country to manipulate a US election. The story could not be bigger, and the stakes for Trump – and the country – could not be higher. What are the key questions? Investigators are asking two basic questions: did Trump’s presidential campaign collude at any level with Russian operatives to sway the 2016 US presidential election? And did Trump or others break the law to throw investigators off the trail? What does the country think? While a majority of the American public now believes that Russia tried to disrupt the US election, opinions about Trump campaign involvement tend to split along partisan lines: 73% of Republicans, but only 13% of Democrats, believe Trump did “nothing wrong” in his dealings with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. What are the implications for Trump? The affair has the potential to eject Trump from office. Experienced legal observers believe that prosecutors are investigating whether Trump committed an obstruction of justice. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton – the only presidents to face impeachment proceedings in the last century – were accused of obstruction of justice. But Trump’s fate is probably up to the voters. Even if strong evidence of wrongdoing by him or his cohort emerged, a Republican congressional majority would probably block any action to remove him from office. (Such an action would be a historical rarity.) What has happened so far? Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopolous pleaded guilty to perjury over his contacts with Russians linked to the Kremlin, and the president’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and another aide face charges of money laundering. When will the inquiry come to an end? The investigations have an open timeline. Meanwhile, in a federal courthouse in central Washington, Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and a business associate, Rick Gates, pleaded not guilty to an indictment for money laundering, tax evasion, failure to register as agents for foreign interests and conspiracy to defraud the US government. A federal judge ordered Manafort and Gates to be confined at home and set bail at $10m for Manafort and $5m for Gates. The indictments were the first issued by Robert Mueller since he was appointed special counsel in May, with broad powers to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by members of the Trump campaign. After the indictment of Manafort and Gates was revealed on Monday morning, Trump tweeted: “Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????” The president added: “...Also, there is NO COLLUSION!” Later, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, played down the connection between the three men and the Trump campaign. She said of Manafort and Gates’s indictment: “Today’s announcement has nothing to do with the president, presidential campaigns or any campaign activity.” Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 as convention manager, focusing on winning delegates at the 2016 Republican convention, and was promoted to campaign manager in June 2016 before resigning in August over his links to Ukraine. Sanders said: “Paul Manafort was brought in to lead the delegate process, which he did, and was dismissed not too long after that.” She also insisted Papadopoulos’s lies to the FBI about his contacts with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign had “nothing to do with the activities of the campaign”, and repeatedly dismissed Papadopoulos as “a volunteer member on an advisory council”. Play Video 0:44 White House: No sign of collusion in campaign aides' indictments – video However, Trump himself had announced Papadopoulos’s appointment as a foreign policy adviser in March 2016, describing him as “an excellent guy”. The charges, which Papadopoulos accepted as accurate as part of a guilty plea on 5 October, said Trump was present at a meeting of national security advisers where Papadopoulos boasted of his Russian connections and said he could help organise a meeting with Putin. The charges state that the unnamed woman he was in contact with was not related to the Russian president. But Papadopoulos’s links with her and the professor led to extensive contacts with Russian officials regarding a Putin-Trump meeting and other high-level exchanges. The professor referred to in the charges against Papadopoulos is said to have told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails” at a meeting around 26 April 2016, months before the Russian hack of Democratic party emails became publicly known. A prosecutor representing Mueller’s office, Aaron Zelinsky, said at the October hearing that the Papadopoulos case was just a “small part” of “a large scale ongoing investigation”, according to a transcript of the court session, adding weight to anticipation that Monday’s charges are the tip of an iceberg. Collusion itself is not a crime, unless it rises to the level of espionage or treason. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about the extent and timing of his contacts with Russians, and about his awareness of their links to the Kremlin. Papadopoulos was arrested in July at Dulles airport when he returned from a trip abroad. The court papers note that he subsequently “met with the government on numerous occasions to provide information and answer questions”. He was charged more than two months later. ‘A cause for deep concern’ Facebook Twitter Pinterest Paul Manafort listens during a round table discussion on security at Trump Tower in New York on 17 August 2016. Photograph: Carlo Allegri/Reuters Summarising the day’s developments, Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes, editors of the Lawfare blog, wrote: “President Trump, in short, had on his campaign at least one person, and allegedly two people, who actively worked with adversarial foreign governments in a fashion they sought to criminally conceal from investigators.” Ultimately, the question over whether Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanours” through his camp’s contacts with Moscow during the election will be decided by Congress, where Republicans control both chambers. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said after the charges were made public: “This is just the latest in a series of undisclosed contacts, misleading public statements, potentially compromising information and highly questionable actions from the time of the Trump campaign that together remain a cause for deep concern and continued investigation.” Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to 12 charges. The first was “conspiracy against the United States”, an overall charge that refers specifically to the failure to inform the government of foreign income and foreign bank accounts, and failing to register lobbying work for foreign interests. Manafort's 'lavish lifestyle' laundered illicit cash through property loans – and Airbnb Read more The indictment focuses on the business activities of the two men before Manafort joined Trump’s campaign, in March 2016, and Gates became a senior fundraiser. The charges allege the two men worked extensively for political figures and parties in Ukraine and laundered millions of dollars in payment for that work by channelling it through a web of companies, mostly in the US and Cyprus. They are accused of constructing elaborate schemes to hide their earnings from the US government, and failing to register the foreign interests for which they were lobbying. The indictment alleges $75m in payments flowed through offshore accounts, of which Manafort laundered more than $18m to buy property, goods and services in the US, hiding the income from the government. It says Gates transferred $3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he controlled. “In order to hide Ukraine payments from United States authorities, from approximately 2006 to at least 2016, Manafort and Gates laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships and bank accounts,” the indictment claims. It notes that Manafort used “his hidden overseas wealth to fund a lavish lifestyle, without paying taxes on that income”. The charges were approved by a grand jury on Friday. Although the indictment says the two men’s moneymaking activities lasted until at least 2016, the charges do not mention the role of the two men in the Trump campaign. An attorney for Manafort, Kevin Downing, said there was no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. “Mr Manafort represented pro-European Union campaigns for the Ukrainians and in the course of that representation he was seeking to further democracy and to help the Ukrainians come closer to the United States and to the EU,” Downing said in a statement. “Those activities ended in 2014, two years before Mr Manafort served in the Trump Campaign.” Trump’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, told the Guardian there was “no angst at the White House”. Manafort had been warned to expect an indictment and Cobb recently told the New York Times he was confident the former Trump campaign chair had no damaging information on the president to offer in exchange for leniency. However, the Mueller investigation is widely expected to produce further indictments and many legal observers had predicted it would start with charges related to financial crimes as a way of pressuring defendants to provide more information on the Trump team’s relationship with Moscow. Russia inquiry charges: how close does this get to Trump? Read more “The amount of money that Manafort received is staggering,” said Scott Horton, a US expert on international law with extensive experience of financial cases and eastern Europe. “The Russian/Ukrainian side is complicit in its routing and obscuring the fact of payment. “That’s significant because it means they had knowledge of serious criminal acts by Manafort which they could hold over his head and use to force him to do their bidding. The suspicion would naturally be that they were a driving force behind his volunteering to serve the Trump campaign for free.”

www.theguardian.com

left

l11VxKbzzv5YaBla

test

cssuPo5rClJIhvff

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-challenge/u-s-states-sue-trump-administration-in-showdown-over-border-wall-funds-idUSKCN1Q8022

U.S. states sue Trump administration in showdown over border wall funds

2019-02-19

Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration on Monday to block his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border . The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California came after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise . Trump ’ s order would allow him to spend on the wall money that Congress appropriated for other purposes . Congress declined to fulfill his request for $ 5.7 billion to help build the wall this year .. “ Today , on Presidents Day , we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power , ” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement . “ We ’ re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states . For most of us , the office of the presidency is not a place for theater , ” added Becerra , a Democrat . In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown , nearly $ 1.4 billion was allocated toward border fencing . Trump ’ s emergency order would give him an additional $ 6.7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized . Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump ’ s move on Friday , saying it violated the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights . The legal challenges could slow Trump ’ s efforts to build the wall , which he says is needed to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking . The lawsuits could end up at the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court . Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Hawaii , Illinois , Maine , Maryland , Minnesota , Nevada , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , Oregon , Virginia , and Michigan joined California in the lawsuit . The states said Trump ’ s order would cause them to lose millions of dollars in federal funding for national guard units dealing with counter-drug activities and redirection of funds from authorized military construction projects would damage their economies . A view shows a new section of the border fence in El Paso , Texas , U.S. , as seen from Ciudad Juarez , Mexico February 15 , 2019 . ███/Jose Luis Gonzalez In television interviews on Sunday and Monday , Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trump ’ s own words against him as evidence that there was no national emergency to declare . Trump said on Friday he did not need to make the emergency declaration but wanted to speed the process of building the wall . That comment could undercut the government ’ s legal argument . “ By the president ’ s own admission , an emergency declaration is not necessary , ” the states said in the lawsuit . “ The federal government ’ s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A coalition of 16 U.S. states led by California sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration on Monday to block his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California came after Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise. Trump’s order would allow him to spend on the wall money that Congress appropriated for other purposes. Congress declined to fulfill his request for $5.7 billion to help build the wall this year.. “Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “We’re suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the office of the presidency is not a place for theater,” added Becerra, a Democrat. The White House declined to comment on the filing. In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly $1.4 billion was allocated toward border fencing. Trump’s emergency order would give him an additional $6.7 billion beyond what lawmakers authorized. Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Trump’s move on Friday, saying it violated the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights. The legal challenges could slow Trump’s efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The lawsuits could end up at the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Michigan joined California in the lawsuit. The states said Trump’s order would cause them to lose millions of dollars in federal funding for national guard units dealing with counter-drug activities and redirection of funds from authorized military construction projects would damage their economies. A view shows a new section of the border fence in El Paso, Texas, U.S., as seen from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico February 15, 2019. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Becerra said the lawsuit would use Trump’s own words against him as evidence that there was no national emergency to declare. Trump said on Friday he did not need to make the emergency declaration but wanted to speed the process of building the wall. That comment could undercut the government’s legal argument. “By the president’s own admission, an emergency declaration is not necessary,” the states said in the lawsuit. “The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall.”

www.reuters.com

center

cssuPo5rClJIhvff

test

SAOhOnRFIyje8ATe

treasury

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/09/democrats-say-conservative-irs-employee-refutes-charges-of-white-house-meddling/?hpt=po_c2

Democrats say "conservative" IRS employee refutes charges of White House meddling

2013-06-09

( CNN ) – A “ conservative Republican ” manager of Cincinnati-based IRS screeners told congressional investigators there was no evidence the White House was involved in the agency ’ s targeting of conservative groups , according to the Democratic leader of a committee probing the scandal . This refutes claims by some Republicans that the groups were targeted at the direction of political operatives working to get President Barack Obama re-elected , said Rep. Elijah Cummings , D-Maryland , on CNN 's `` State of the Union '' on Sunday . “ He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS . I think this interview and these statements go a long way to showing that the White House was not involved in this , ” he said . Further , Cummings said the interviews conducted by the House Oversight Committee were conclusive enough for the investigation to be considered complete . “ Based upon everything I ’ ve seen , the case is solved , ” he said . “ If it were me , I would wrap this case up and move on . ” Rep. Darrell Issa , the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee , told CNN ’ s “ State of the Union ” last Sunday that interviews with workers in the Cincinnati IRS office indicated the targeting of conservative groups was `` a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters - and we 're getting to proving it . '' “ My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election , and at least by some sort of convenient , benign neglect , allowed it to go on through the election , ” Issa said . “ I ’ m not making any allegations as to motive , that they set out to do it , but certainly people knew it was happening . ” But in the interview excerpts released by Cummings , the charge of political motivation is refuted by the Cincinnati manager , who described himself to investigators as a “ conservative Republican . ” “ I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development , ” the manager said , according to the document released by the Democratic staff of the Oversight Committee . The excerpts indicate the manager was later asked whether he had “ any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases . ” The manager replied “ I have no reason to believe that . ” Like Issa , Cummings released only portions of the investigators ’ interview with the manager , despite CNN ’ s request for the full transcript . On “ State of the Union , ” Cummings said he has repeatedly called for Issa to release the full interview transcripts , and if Issa chooses not to by the end of the week , he would release the full interviews himself . In the excerpts Cummings did release , the manager tells interviewers that it was his decision to send one particular application in 2010 to the Washington tax-exempt office – not for political reasons , but rather so a precedent could be set for later cases where screeners suspected a group of conducting political activity . “ In his interview he said over and over again , ‘ I want it to be consistent. ’ So that 's how all of this got started . Period , ” Cummings said . Responding later Sunday , Issa said Cummings ' assertion the investigation was solved was `` extreme and reckless . '' `` The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed today did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts , '' Issa said . `` The only thing Ranking Member Cummings left clear in his comments today is that if it were up to him the investigation would be closed . Fortunately , the decision to close the investigation is not his to make . '' Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET . For the latest from State of the Union click here .

6 years ago (CNN) – A “conservative Republican” manager of Cincinnati-based IRS screeners told congressional investigators there was no evidence the White House was involved in the agency’s targeting of conservative groups, according to the Democratic leader of a committee probing the scandal. This refutes claims by some Republicans that the groups were targeted at the direction of political operatives working to get President Barack Obama re-elected, said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday. “He is a conservative Republican working for the IRS. I think this interview and these statements go a long way to showing that the White House was not involved in this,” he said. Further, Cummings said the interviews conducted by the House Oversight Committee were conclusive enough for the investigation to be considered complete. “Based upon everything I’ve seen, the case is solved,” he said. “If it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on.” Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told CNN’s “State of the Union” last Sunday that interviews with workers in the Cincinnati IRS office indicated the targeting of conservative groups was "a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters - and we're getting to proving it." “My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election, and at least by some sort of convenient, benign neglect, allowed it to go on through the election,” Issa said. “I’m not making any allegations as to motive, that they set out to do it, but certainly people knew it was happening.” But in the interview excerpts released by Cummings, the charge of political motivation is refuted by the Cincinnati manager, who described himself to investigators as a “conservative Republican.” “I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development,” the manager said, according to the document released by the Democratic staff of the Oversight Committee. The excerpts indicate the manager was later asked whether he had “any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decision to screen Tea Party cases.” The manager replied “I have no reason to believe that.” Like Issa, Cummings released only portions of the investigators’ interview with the manager, despite CNN’s request for the full transcript. On “State of the Union,” Cummings said he has repeatedly called for Issa to release the full interview transcripts, and if Issa chooses not to by the end of the week, he would release the full interviews himself. In the excerpts Cummings did release, the manager tells interviewers that it was his decision to send one particular application in 2010 to the Washington tax-exempt office – not for political reasons, but rather so a precedent could be set for later cases where screeners suspected a group of conducting political activity. “In his interview he said over and over again, ‘I want it to be consistent.’ So that's how all of this got started. Period,” Cummings said. Responding later Sunday, Issa said Cummings' assertion the investigation was solved was "extreme and reckless." "The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed today did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts," Issa said. "The only thing Ranking Member Cummings left clear in his comments today is that if it were up to him the investigation would be closed. Fortunately, the decision to close the investigation is not his to make." Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

SAOhOnRFIyje8ATe

test

6ArIGh2ZlcbB56wx

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pardon/trump-says-will-pardon-conservative-commentator-dsouza-idUSKCN1IW1TO

Trump says will pardon conservative commentator D'Souza

2018-06-01

Doina Chiacu

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned a conservative commentator and said he was considering pardoning lifestyle maven Martha Stewart and commuting a former Illinois governor ’ s prison sentence , prompting critics to accuse him of subverting the rule of law . Trump announced on Twitter his decision to pardon pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D ’ Souza , who pleaded guilty in 2014 to U.S. campaign finance law violations and was an outspoken critic of Democratic former President Barack Obama , saying he had been “ treated very unfairly by our government ! ” The Republican president then told reporters on a flight to Houston he was also considering a pardon for Stewart , who was convicted in 2004 on charges of conspiracy , obstruction of justice and making false statements in an insider-trading probe . James Comey , whom Trump fired as FBI director last year and has repeatedly assailed , was the lead federal prosecutor in Stewart ’ s case and played a role in the prosecution of Lewis “ Scooter ” Libby , the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney . Trump pardoned Libby in April . Trump also said he might commute the 14-year prison sentence of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich , a Democrat convicted of corruption charges , and was considering pardoning a woman convicted of a drug-related charge after reality TV star Kim Kardashian discussed the case with him on Wednesday . White House spokesman Hogan Gidley , briefing reporters on Air Force One as Trump later flew to Dallas for Republican fundraising events , denied that celebrity was a consideration in whom the president decides to pardon . “ Look , there are plenty of people the president is looking at right now under the pardon process , ” he said . The U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to issue pardons , and Trump sometimes has used that authority to benefit convicted figures revered by some on the political right such as former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and Libby . After D ’ Souza ’ s pardon , some constitutional scholars , legal analysts and Democratic lawmakers accused Trump of undermining the rule of law with pardons based on political considerations . Critics said the president was sending a message to people caught up in Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into whether Trump ’ s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia , including his longtime private lawyer Michael Cohen , whose business dealings are separately under scrutiny in New York . “ Trump ’ s Dinesh D ’ Souza pardon today , on top of his pardons of Scooter Libby and Joe Arpaio , make sense only as an elephant-whistle to Michael Cohen & all who know damning things about Trump : protect me & I ’ ll have your back . Turn on me & your goose is cooked . More obstruction ! ” Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter . “ As with the pardon of Joe Arpaio , Trump is sending a message that he will reward political allies for loyalty with get-out-of-jail-free cards , ” Democratic U.S. Representative Don Beyer said on Twitter . “ He doesn ’ t care about the rule of law . ” Trump denies any collusion with Russia and has called Mueller ’ s probe a “ witch hunt . ” D ’ Souza , 53 , admitted in 2014 he illegally reimbursed two “ straw donors ” who donated $ 10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long , a Republican he had known since attending Dartmouth College in the 1980s . He was sentenced to five years of probation after telling the judge he was ashamed of his actions and contrite . “ I can not believe how stupid I was , how careless , and how irresponsible , ” D ’ Souza wrote in a statement to the judge . Some conservatives complained of selective prosecution of D ’ Souza . The prosecutor , Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara , was an Obama appointee later fired by Trump . On Thursday , D ’ Souza thanked Trump in Twitter posts that also slammed Bharara . “ KARMA IS A BITCH DEPT : @ PreetBharara wanted to destroy a fellow Indian American to advance his career . Then he got fired & I got pardoned , ” D ’ Souza wrote . Bharara earlier said on Twitter : “ The President has the right to pardon but the facts are these : D ’ Souza intentionally broke the law , voluntarily pled guilty , apologized for his conduct & the judge found no unfairness . The career prosecutors and agents did their job . ” Stewart and Blagojevich both were involved with Trump ’ s “ Apprentice ” reality TV television show . Blagojevich was convicted of corruption offenses including soliciting bribes for appointment to the U.S. Senate seat Obama vacated after being elected president in 2008 . Last August , Trump pardoned Arpaio less than a month after his conviction for criminal contempt in a case involving racial profiling of Hispanics . Arpaio was known for his crackdown on illegal immigrants in Arizona ’ s Maricopa County . Libby was convicted in 2007 of lying in an investigation into the unmasking of a CIA agent . Trump last week posthumously pardoned boxer Jack Johnson , the first black world heavyweight champion , who was jailed a century ago because of his relationship with a white woman .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Thursday pardoned a conservative commentator and said he was considering pardoning lifestyle maven Martha Stewart and commuting a former Illinois governor’s prison sentence, prompting critics to accuse him of subverting the rule of law. Trump announced on Twitter his decision to pardon pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, who pleaded guilty in 2014 to U.S. campaign finance law violations and was an outspoken critic of Democratic former President Barack Obama, saying he had been “treated very unfairly by our government!” The Republican president then told reporters on a flight to Houston he was also considering a pardon for Stewart, who was convicted in 2004 on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements in an insider-trading probe. James Comey, whom Trump fired as FBI director last year and has repeatedly assailed, was the lead federal prosecutor in Stewart’s case and played a role in the prosecution of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney. Trump pardoned Libby in April. Trump also said he might commute the 14-year prison sentence of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat convicted of corruption charges, and was considering pardoning a woman convicted of a drug-related charge after reality TV star Kim Kardashian discussed the case with him on Wednesday. White House spokesman Hogan Gidley, briefing reporters on Air Force One as Trump later flew to Dallas for Republican fundraising events, denied that celebrity was a consideration in whom the president decides to pardon. “Look, there are plenty of people the president is looking at right now under the pardon process,” he said. The U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to issue pardons, and Trump sometimes has used that authority to benefit convicted figures revered by some on the political right such as former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and Libby. After D’Souza’s pardon, some constitutional scholars, legal analysts and Democratic lawmakers accused Trump of undermining the rule of law with pardons based on political considerations. ‘SENDING A MESSAGE’ Critics said the president was sending a message to people caught up in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia, including his longtime private lawyer Michael Cohen, whose business dealings are separately under scrutiny in New York. FILE PHOTO: Conservative commentator and best-selling author, Dinesh D'Souza exits the Manhattan Federal Courthouse after pleading guilty in New York, May 20, 2014. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson “Trump’s Dinesh D’Souza pardon today, on top of his pardons of Scooter Libby and Joe Arpaio, make sense only as an elephant-whistle to Michael Cohen & all who know damning things about Trump: protect me & I’ll have your back. Turn on me & your goose is cooked. More obstruction!” Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter. “As with the pardon of Joe Arpaio, Trump is sending a message that he will reward political allies for loyalty with get-out-of-jail-free cards,” Democratic U.S. Representative Don Beyer said on Twitter. “He doesn’t care about the rule of law.” Trump denies any collusion with Russia and has called Mueller’s probe a “witch hunt.” D’Souza, 53, admitted in 2014 he illegally reimbursed two “straw donors” who donated $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a Republican he had known since attending Dartmouth College in the 1980s. He was sentenced to five years of probation after telling the judge he was ashamed of his actions and contrite. “I cannot believe how stupid I was, how careless, and how irresponsible,” D’Souza wrote in a statement to the judge. Some conservatives complained of selective prosecution of D’Souza. The prosecutor, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, was an Obama appointee later fired by Trump. On Thursday, D’Souza thanked Trump in Twitter posts that also slammed Bharara. “KARMA IS A BITCH DEPT: @PreetBharara wanted to destroy a fellow Indian American to advance his career. Then he got fired & I got pardoned,” D’Souza wrote. Bharara earlier said on Twitter: “The President has the right to pardon but the facts are these: D’Souza intentionally broke the law, voluntarily pled guilty, apologized for his conduct & the judge found no unfairness. The career prosecutors and agents did their job.” Stewart and Blagojevich both were involved with Trump’s “Apprentice” reality TV television show. Blagojevich was convicted of corruption offenses including soliciting bribes for appointment to the U.S. Senate seat Obama vacated after being elected president in 2008. Last August, Trump pardoned Arpaio less than a month after his conviction for criminal contempt in a case involving racial profiling of Hispanics. Arpaio was known for his crackdown on illegal immigrants in Arizona’s Maricopa County. Slideshow (2 Images) Libby was convicted in 2007 of lying in an investigation into the unmasking of a CIA agent. Trump last week posthumously pardoned boxer Jack Johnson, the first black world heavyweight champion, who was jailed a century ago because of his relationship with a white woman.

www.reuters.com

center

6ArIGh2ZlcbB56wx

test

AImJF1pLap960y64

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench

2020-06-30

Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets . The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide . Marquita Johnson , who was locked up in April 2012 , says the impact of her time in jail endures today . Johnson ’ s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated . One daughter was molested , state records show . Another was physically abused . “ Judge Hayes took away my life and didn ’ t care how my children suffered , ” said Johnson , now 36 . “ My girls will never be the same . ” Fellow inmates found her sentence hard to believe . “ They had a nickname for me : The Woman with All the Days , ” Johnson said . “ That ’ s what they called me : The Woman with All the Days . There were people who had committed real crimes who got out before me . ” In 2016 , the state agency that oversees judges charged Hayes with violating Alabama ’ s code of judicial conduct . According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission , Hayes broke state and federal laws by jailing Johnson and hundreds of other Montgomery residents too poor to pay fines . Among those jailed : a plumber struggling to make rent , a mother who skipped meals to cover the medical bills of her disabled son , and a hotel housekeeper working her way through college . Hayes , a judge since 2000 , admitted in court documents to violating 10 different parts of the state ’ s judicial conduct code . One of the counts was a breach of a judge ’ s most essential duty : failing to “ respect and comply with the law . ” Despite the severity of the ruling , Hayes wasn ’ t barred from serving as a judge . Instead , the judicial commission and Hayes reached a deal . The former Eagle Scout would serve an 11-month unpaid suspension . Then he could return to the bench . Until he was disciplined , Hayes said in an interview with ███ , “ I never thought I was doing something wrong . ” This week , Hayes is set to retire after 20 years as a judge . In a statement to ███ , Hayes said he was “ very remorseful ” for his misdeeds . Community activists say his departure is long overdue . Yet the decision to leave , they say , should never have been his to make , given his record of misconduct . “ He should have been fired years ago , ” said Willie Knight , pastor of North Montgomery Baptist Church . “ He broke the law and wanted to get away with it . His sudden retirement is years too late . ” Hayes is among thousands of state and local judges across America who were allowed to keep positions of extraordinary power and prestige after violating judicial ethics rules or breaking laws they pledged to uphold , a ███ investigation found . Judges have made racist statements , lied to state officials and forced defendants to languish in jail without a lawyer – and then returned to the bench , sometimes with little more than a rebuke from the state agencies overseeing their conduct . Recent media reports have documented failures in judicial oversight in South Carolina , Louisiana and Illinois . ███ went further . In the first comprehensive accounting of judicial misconduct nationally , ███ reviewed 1,509 cases from the last dozen years – 2008 through 2019 – in which judges resigned , retired or were publicly disciplined following accusations of misconduct . In addition , reporters identified another 3,613 cases from 2008 through 2018 in which states disciplined wayward judges but kept hidden from the public key details of their offenses – including the identities of the judges themselves . All told , 9 of every 10 judges were allowed to return to the bench after they were sanctioned for misconduct , ███ determined . They included a California judge who had sex in his courthouse chambers , once with his former law intern and separately with an attorney ; a New York judge who berated domestic violence victims ; and a Maryland judge who , after his arrest for driving drunk , was allowed to return to the bench provided he took a Breathalyzer test before each appearance . The news agency ’ s findings reveal an “ excessively ” forgiving judicial disciplinary system , said Stephen Gillers , a law professor at New York University who writes about judicial ethics . Although punishment short of removal from the bench is appropriate for most misconduct cases , Gillers said , the public “ would be appalled at some of the lenient treatment judges get ” for substantial transgressions . In Utah , a judge texted a video of a man ’ s scrotum to court clerks . He was reprimanded but remains on the bench . In Indiana , three judges attending a conference last spring got drunk and sparked a 3 a.m. brawl outside a White Castle fast-food restaurant that ended with two of the judges shot . Although the state supreme court found the three judges had “ discredited the entire Indiana judiciary , ” each returned to the bench after a suspension . In Texas , a judge burst in on jurors deliberating the case of a woman charged with sex trafficking and declared that God told him the defendant was innocent . The offending judge received a warning and returned to the bench . The defendant was convicted after a new judge took over the case . “ There are certain things where there should be a level of zero tolerance , ” the jury foreman , Mark House , told ███ . The judge should have been fined , House said , and kicked off the bench . “ There is no justice , because he is still doing his job . ” Judicial misconduct specialists say such behavior has the potential to erode trust in America ’ s courts and , absent tough consequences , could give judges license to behave with impunity . “ When you see cases like that , the public starts to wonder about the integrity and honesty of the system , ” said Steve Scheckman , a lawyer who directed Louisiana ’ s oversight agency and served as deputy director of New York ’ s . “ It looks like a good ol ’ boys club . ” That ’ s how local lawyers viewed the case of a longtime Alabama judge who concurrently served on the state ’ s judicial oversight commission . The judge , Cullman District Court ’ s Kim Chaney , remained on the bench for three years after being accused of violating the same nepotism rules he was tasked with enforcing on the oversight commission . In at least 200 cases , court records show , Judge Chaney chose his own son to serve as a court-appointed defense lawyer for the indigent , enabling the younger Chaney to earn at least $ 105,000 in fees over two years . In February , months after ███ repeatedly asked Chaney and the state judicial commission about those cases , he retired from the bench as part of a deal with state authorities to end the investigation . Tommy Drake , the lawyer who first filed a complaint against Chaney in 2016 , said he doubts the judge would have been forced from the bench if ███ hadn ’ t examined the case . “ You know the only reason they did anything about Chaney is because you guys started asking questions , ” Drake said . “ Otherwise , he ’ d still be there . ” State and local judges draw little scrutiny even though their courtrooms are the bedrock of the American criminal justice system , touching the lives of millions of people every year . The country ’ s approximately 1,700 federal judges hear 400,000 cases annually . The nearly 30,000 state , county and municipal court judges handle a far bigger docket : more than 100 million new cases each year , from traffic to divorce to murder . Their titles range from justice of the peace to state supreme court justice . Their powers are vast and varied – from determining whether a defendant should be jailed to deciding who deserves custody of a child . Each U.S. state has an oversight agency that investigates misconduct complaints against judges . The authority of the oversight agencies is distinct from the power held by appellate courts , which can reverse a judge ’ s legal ruling and order a new trial . Judicial commissions can not change verdicts . Rather , they can investigate complaints about the behavior of judges and pursue discipline ranging from reprimand to removal . Few experts dispute that the great majority of judges behave responsibly , respecting the law and those who appear before them . And some contend that , when judges do falter , oversight agencies are effective in identifying and addressing the behavior . “ With a few notable exceptions , the commissions generally get it right , ” said Keith Swisher , a University of Arizona law professor who specializes in judicial ethics . Others disagree . They note that the clout of these commissions is limited , and their authority differs from state to state . To remove a judge , all but a handful of states require approval of a panel that includes other judges . And most states seldom exercise the full extent of those disciplinary powers . As a result , the system tends to err on the side of protecting the rights and reputations of judges while overlooking the impact courtroom wrongdoing has on those most affected by it : people like Marquita Johnson . ███ scoured thousands of state investigative files , disciplinary proceedings and court records from the past dozen years to quantify the personal toll of judicial misconduct . The examination found at least 5,206 people who were directly affected by a judge ’ s misconduct . The victims cited in disciplinary documents ranged from people who were illegally jailed to those subjected to racist , sexist and other abusive comments from judges in ways that tainted the cases . The number is a conservative estimate . The tally doesn ’ t include two previously reported incidents that affected thousands of defendants and prompted sweeping reviews of judicial conduct . “ If we have a system that holds a wrongdoer accountable but we fail to address the victims , then we are really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about . ” In Pennsylvania , the state examined the convictions of more than 3,500 teenagers sentenced by two judges . The judges were convicted of taking kickbacks as part of a scheme to fill a private juvenile detention center . In 2009 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed senior judge Arthur Grim to lead a victim review , and the state later expunged criminal records for 2,251 juveniles . Grim told ███ that every state should adopt a way to compensate victims of judicial misconduct . “ If we have a system that holds a wrongdoer accountable but we fail to address the victims , then we are really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about , ” Grim said . In another review underway in Ohio , state public defender Tim Young is scrutinizing 2,707 cases handled by a judge who retired in 2018 after being hospitalized for alcoholism . Mike Benza , a law professor at Case Western Reserve University whose students are helping identify victims , compared the work to current investigations into police abuse of power . “ You see one case and then you look to see if it 's systemic , ” he said . The review , which has been limited during the coronavirus pandemic , may take a year . But Young said the time-consuming task is essential because “ a fundamental injustice may have been levied against hundreds or thousands of people . ” Most states afford judges accused of misconduct a gentle kind of justice . Perhaps no state better illustrates the shortcomings of America ’ s system for overseeing judges than Alabama . As in most states , Alabama ’ s nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission is a mix of lawyers , judges and laypeople . All are appointed . Their deliberations are secret and they operate under some of the most judge-friendly rules in the nation . Alabama ’ s rules make even filing a complaint against a judge difficult . The complaint must be notarized , which means that in theory , anyone who makes misstatements about the judge can be prosecuted for perjury . Complaints about wrongdoing must be made in writing ; those that arrive by phone , email or without a notary stamp are not investigated , although senders are notified why their complaints have been summarily rejected . Anonymous written complaints are shredded . These rules can leave lawyers and litigants fearing retaliation , commission director Jenny Garrett noted in response to written questions . “ It ’ s a ridiculous system that protects judges and makes it easy for them to intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint , ” said Sue Bell Cobb , chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court from 2007 to 2011 . In 2009 , she unsuccessfully championed changes to the process and commissioned an American Bar Association report that offered a scathing review of Alabama 's rules . In most other states , commission staff members can start investigating a judge upon receiving a phone call or email , even anonymous ones , or after learning of questionable conduct from a news report or court filing . In Alabama , staff will not begin an investigation without approval from the commission itself , which convenes about every seven weeks . By rule , the commission also must keep a judge who is under scrutiny fully informed throughout an investigation . If a subpoena is issued , the judge receives a simultaneous copy , raising fears about witness intimidation . If a witness gives investigators a statement , the judge receives a transcript . In the U.S. justice system , such deference to individuals under investigation is extremely rare . “ It ’ s a ridiculous system that protects judges and makes it easy for them to intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint . ” “ Why the need for special rules for judges ? ” said Michael Levy , a Washington lawyer who has represented clients in high-profile criminal , corporate , congressional and securities investigations . “ If judges think it ’ s fair and appropriate to investigate others for crimes or misconduct without providing those subjects or targets with copies of witness statements and subpoenas , why don ’ t judges think it ’ s fair to investigate judges in the same way ? ” Alabama judges also are given an opportunity to resolve investigations confidentially . ███ interviews and a review of Alabama commission records show the commission has met with judges informally at least 19 times since 2011 to offer corrective “ guidance. ” The identities of those judges remain confidential , as does the conduct that prompted the meetings . “ Not every violation warrants discipline , ” commission director Garrett said . Since 2008 , the commission has brought 21 public cases against judges , including Hayes , charging two this year . Two of the best-known cases brought by the commission involved Roy Moore , who was twice forced out as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for defying federal court orders . Another Alabama justice fared better in challenging a misconduct complaint , however . Tom Parker , first elected to the state ’ s high court in 2004 , pushed back when the commission investigated him in 2015 for comments he made on the radio criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court 's decision legalizing gay marriage . Parker sued the commission in federal court , arguing the agency was infringing on his First Amendment rights . He won . Although the commission had dropped its investigation before the ruling , it was ordered to cover Parker ’ s legal fees : $ 100,000 , or about a fifth of the agency ’ s total annual budget . In 2018 , the people of Alabama elected Parker chief justice . These days , Parker told ███ , Alabama judges and the agency that oversees them enjoy “ a much better relationship ” that ’ s less politically tinged . “ How can I say it ? It ’ s much more respectful between the commission and the judges now . ” Montgomery , Alabama has a deep history of racial conflict , as reflected in the clashing concepts emblazoned on the city ’ s great seal : “ Cradle of the Confederacy ” and “ Birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement . ” Jefferson Davis was inaugurated here as Confederate president after the South seceded from the Union in 1861 , and his birthday is a state holiday . As was common throughout the South , the city was the site of the lynchings of Black men , crimes now commemorated at a national memorial based here . Police arrested civil rights icon Rosa Parks here in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus to a white passenger . Today , about 60 % of Montgomery ’ s 198,000 residents are Black , U.S. census records show . Even so , Black motorists account for about 90 % of those charged with unpaid traffic tickets , a ███ examination of court records found . Much of Judge Hayes ’ work in municipal court involved traffic cases and the collection of fines . Hayes , who is white , told ███ that “ the majority of people who come before the court are Black . ” City officials have said that neither race nor economics have played a role in police efforts to enforce outstanding warrants , no matter how minor the offense . In April 2012 , Marquita Johnson was among them . Appearing before Hayes on a Wednesday morning , the 28-year-old single mother pleaded for a break . Johnson had struggled for eight years to pay dozens of tickets that began with a citation for failing to show proof of insurance . She had insurance , she said . But when she was pulled over , she couldn ’ t find the card to prove it . Even a single ticket was a knockout blow on her minimum-wage waitress salary . In addition to fines , the court assessed a $ 155 fee to every ticket . Court records show that police often issued her multiple tickets for other infractions during every stop – a practice some residents call “ stacking . ” Under state law , failing to pay even one ticket can result in the suspension of a driver ’ s license . Johnson ’ s decision to keep driving nonetheless – taking her children to school or to doctor visits , getting groceries , going to work – led to more tickets and deeper debt . “ I told Judge Hayes that I had lost my job and needed more time to pay , ” she recounted . By Hayes ’ calculation , Johnson owed more than $ 12,000 in fines . He sentenced Johnson to 496 days in jail . Hayes arrived at that sentence by counting each day in jail as $ 25 toward the outstanding debt . A different judge later determined that Johnson actually owed half the amount calculated by Hayes , and that Hayes had incorrectly penalized her over fines she had already paid . To shave time off her sentence , Johnson washed police cars and performed other menial labor while jailed . Hayes told ███ that he generally found pleas of poverty hard to believe . “ With my years of experience , I can tell when someone is being truthful with me , ” Hayes said . He called it “ gut instinct ” -- though he added , in a statement this week , that he also consulted “ each defendant 's criminal and traffic history as well as their history of warrants and failures to appear in court . ” Of course , the law demands more of a judge than a gut call . In a 1983 landmark decision , Bearden v. Georgia , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state judges are obligated to hold a hearing to determine whether a defendant has “ willfully ” chosen not to pay a fine . According to the state ’ s judicial oversight commission , “ Judge Hayes did not make any inquiry into Ms. Johnson ’ s ability to pay , whether her non-payment was willful . ” From jail , “ I prayed to return to my daughters , ” Johnson said . “ I was sure that someone would realize that Hayes had made a mistake . ” She said her worst day in jail was her youngest daughter ’ s 3rd birthday . From a jail telephone , she tried to sing “ Happy Birthday ” but slumped to the floor in grief . “ She was choking up and crying , ” said Johnson ’ s mother , Blanche , who was on the call . “ She was devastated to be away from her children so long . ” When Johnson was freed after 10 months in jail , she learned that strangers had abused her two older children . One is now a teenager ; the other is in middle school . “ My kids will pay a lifetime for what the court system did to me , ” Johnson said . “ My daughters get frantic when I leave the house . I know they ’ ve had nightmares that I ’ m going to disappear again . ” Six months after Johnson ’ s release , Hayes jailed another single Black mother . Angela McCullough , then 40 , had been pulled over driving home from Faulkner University , a local community college where she carried a 3.87 grade point average . As a mother of four children , including a disabled adult son , she had returned to college to pursue her dream of becoming a mental health counselor . Police ticketed her for failing to turn on her headlights . After a background check , the officer arrested McCullough on a warrant for outstanding traffic tickets . She was later brought before Hayes . “ I can ’ t go to jail , ” McCullough recalled pleading with the judge . “ I ’ m a mother . I have a disabled son who needs me . ” Hayes sentenced McCullough to 100 days in jail to pay off a court debt of $ 1,350 , court records show . Her adult son , diagnosed with schizophrenia , was held in an institution until her release . McCullough said she cleaned jail cells in return for time off her sentence . One day , she recalled , she had to clean a blood-soaked cell where a female inmate had slit her wrists . She was freed after 20 days , using the money she saved for tuition to pay off her tickets , she said . Jail was the darkest chapter of her life , McCullough said , a place where “ the devil was trying to take my mind. ” Today , she has abandoned her pursuit of a degree . “ I don ’ t think I ’ ll ever be able to afford to go back . ” A clear sign that something was amiss in Montgomery courts came in November 2013 , when a federal lawsuit was filed alleging that city judges were unlawfully jailing the poor . A similar suit was filed in 2014 , and two more civil rights cases were filed in 2015 . Johnson and McCullough were plaintiffs . The lawsuits detailed practices similar to those that helped fuel protests in Ferguson , Missouri , after a white police officer killed a Black teenager in 2014 . In a scathing report on the origins of the unrest , the U.S. Department of Justice exposed how Ferguson had systematically used traffic enforcement to raise revenue through excessive fines , a practice that fell disproportionately hard on Black residents . “ Montgomery is just like Ferguson , ” said Karen Jones , a community activist and founder of a local educational nonprofit . Jones has led recent protests in Montgomery in the wake of the killing of George Floyd , the Black man whose death under the knee of a cop in Minneapolis set off worldwide calls for racial justice . In Montgomery , “ everybody knew that the police targeted Black residents . And I sat in Hayes ’ court and watched him squeeze poor people for more money , then toss them in jail where they had to work off debts with free labor to the city . ” It was years before the flurry of civil rights lawsuits against Hayes and his fellow judges had much impact on the commission . The oversight agency opened its Hayes case in summer 2015 , nearly two years after plaintiffs ’ lawyers in the civil rights cases filed a complaint with the body . Hayes spent another year and a half on the bench before accepting the suspension . Under its own rules , the commission could have filed a complaint and told its staff to investigate Hayes at any time . Commission director Garrett said she is prohibited by law from explaining why the commission didn ’ t investigate sooner . The investigation went slowly , Garrett said , because it involved reviewing thousands of pages of court records . The commission also was busy with other cases from 2015 to early 2017 , Garrett said , issuing charges against five judges , including Moore . A few months after Judge Hayes ’ suspension ended , his term as a municipal judge was set to expire . So , the Montgomery City Council took up the question of the judge ’ s future on March 6 , 2018 . On the agenda of its meeting : whether to reappoint Hayes to another four-year term . Hayes wasn ’ t in the audience that night , but powerful supporters were . The city ’ s chief judge , Milton Westry , told the council that Hayes and his colleagues have changed how they handled cases involving indigent defendants , “ since we learned a better way of doing things. ” In the wake of the suits , Westry said , Hayes and his peers complied with reforms that required judges to make audio recordings of court hearings and notify lawyers when clients are jailed for failing to pay fines . As part of a settlement in the civil case , the city judges agreed to implement changes for at least two years . Those reforms have since been abandoned , ███ found . Both measures were deemed too expensive , Hayes and city officials confirmed . Residents who addressed the council were incredulous that the city would consider reappointing Hayes . Jones , the community activist , reminded council members that Hayes had “ pleaded guilty to violating the very laws he was sworn to uphold . ” The city council voted to rehire Hayes to a fifth consecutive term . Marquita Johnson said she can ’ t understand why a judge whose unlawful rulings changed the lives of hundreds has himself emerged virtually unscathed . “ Hiring Hayes back to the bench was a slap in the face to everyone , ” Johnson said . “ It was a message that we do n't matter . ” On Thursday , Hayes will retire from the bench . In an earlier interview with ███ , he declined to discuss the Johnson case . Asked whether he regrets any of the sentences he has handed out , he paused . “ I think , maybe , I could have been more sympathetic at times , ” Hayes said . “ Sometimes you miss a few . ” Additional reporting by Isabella Jibilian , Andrea Januta and Blake Morrison . Edited by Morrison .

Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide. Marquita Johnson, who was locked up in April 2012, says the impact of her time in jail endures today. Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused. “Judge Hayes took away my life and didn’t care how my children suffered,” said Johnson, now 36. “My girls will never be the same.” Fellow inmates found her sentence hard to believe. “They had a nickname for me: The Woman with All the Days,” Johnson said. “That’s what they called me: The Woman with All the Days. There were people who had committed real crimes who got out before me.” In 2016, the state agency that oversees judges charged Hayes with violating Alabama’s code of judicial conduct. According to the Judicial Inquiry Commission, Hayes broke state and federal laws by jailing Johnson and hundreds of other Montgomery residents too poor to pay fines. Among those jailed: a plumber struggling to make rent, a mother who skipped meals to cover the medical bills of her disabled son, and a hotel housekeeper working her way through college. Hayes, a judge since 2000, admitted in court documents to violating 10 different parts of the state’s judicial conduct code. One of the counts was a breach of a judge’s most essential duty: failing to “respect and comply with the law.” Despite the severity of the ruling, Hayes wasn’t barred from serving as a judge. Instead, the judicial commission and Hayes reached a deal. The former Eagle Scout would serve an 11-month unpaid suspension. Then he could return to the bench. Until he was disciplined, Hayes said in an interview with Reuters, “I never thought I was doing something wrong.” This week, Hayes is set to retire after 20 years as a judge. In a statement to Reuters, Hayes said he was “very remorseful” for his misdeeds. Community activists say his departure is long overdue. Yet the decision to leave, they say, should never have been his to make, given his record of misconduct. “He should have been fired years ago,” said Willie Knight, pastor of North Montgomery Baptist Church. “He broke the law and wanted to get away with it. His sudden retirement is years too late.” Hayes is among thousands of state and local judges across America who were allowed to keep positions of extraordinary power and prestige after violating judicial ethics rules or breaking laws they pledged to uphold, a Reuters investigation found. Related content Methodology and Q&A: How we examined misconduct Judges have made racist statements, lied to state officials and forced defendants to languish in jail without a lawyer – and then returned to the bench, sometimes with little more than a rebuke from the state agencies overseeing their conduct. Recent media reports have documented failures in judicial oversight in South Carolina, Louisiana and Illinois. Reuters went further. In the first comprehensive accounting of judicial misconduct nationally, Reuters reviewed 1,509 cases from the last dozen years – 2008 through 2019 – in which judges resigned, retired or were publicly disciplined following accusations of misconduct. In addition, reporters identified another 3,613 cases from 2008 through 2018 in which states disciplined wayward judges but kept hidden from the public key details of their offenses – including the identities of the judges themselves. All told, 9 of every 10 judges were allowed to return to the bench after they were sanctioned for misconduct, Reuters determined. They included a California judge who had sex in his courthouse chambers, once with his former law intern and separately with an attorney; a New York judge who berated domestic violence victims; and a Maryland judge who, after his arrest for driving drunk, was allowed to return to the bench provided he took a Breathalyzer test before each appearance. The news agency’s findings reveal an “excessively” forgiving judicial disciplinary system, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who writes about judicial ethics. Although punishment short of removal from the bench is appropriate for most misconduct cases, Gillers said, the public “would be appalled at some of the lenient treatment judges get” for substantial transgressions. Among the cases from the past year alone: In Utah, a judge texted a video of a man’s scrotum to court clerks. He was reprimanded but remains on the bench. In Indiana, three judges attending a conference last spring got drunk and sparked a 3 a.m. brawl outside a White Castle fast-food restaurant that ended with two of the judges shot. Although the state supreme court found the three judges had “discredited the entire Indiana judiciary,” each returned to the bench after a suspension. In Texas, a judge burst in on jurors deliberating the case of a woman charged with sex trafficking and declared that God told him the defendant was innocent. The offending judge received a warning and returned to the bench. The defendant was convicted after a new judge took over the case. “There are certain things where there should be a level of zero tolerance,” the jury foreman, Mark House, told Reuters. The judge should have been fined, House said, and kicked off the bench. “There is no justice, because he is still doing his job.” Judicial misconduct specialists say such behavior has the potential to erode trust in America’s courts and, absent tough consequences, could give judges license to behave with impunity. “When you see cases like that, the public starts to wonder about the integrity and honesty of the system,” said Steve Scheckman, a lawyer who directed Louisiana’s oversight agency and served as deputy director of New York’s. “It looks like a good ol’ boys club.” That’s how local lawyers viewed the case of a longtime Alabama judge who concurrently served on the state’s judicial oversight commission. The judge, Cullman District Court’s Kim Chaney, remained on the bench for three years after being accused of violating the same nepotism rules he was tasked with enforcing on the oversight commission. In at least 200 cases, court records show, Judge Chaney chose his own son to serve as a court-appointed defense lawyer for the indigent, enabling the younger Chaney to earn at least $105,000 in fees over two years. In February, months after Reuters repeatedly asked Chaney and the state judicial commission about those cases, he retired from the bench as part of a deal with state authorities to end the investigation. Tommy Drake, the lawyer who first filed a complaint against Chaney in 2016, said he doubts the judge would have been forced from the bench if Reuters hadn’t examined the case. “You know the only reason they did anything about Chaney is because you guys started asking questions,” Drake said. “Otherwise, he’d still be there.” Bedrock of American justice State and local judges draw little scrutiny even though their courtrooms are the bedrock of the American criminal justice system, touching the lives of millions of people every year. The country’s approximately 1,700 federal judges hear 400,000 cases annually. The nearly 30,000 state, county and municipal court judges handle a far bigger docket: more than 100 million new cases each year, from traffic to divorce to murder. Their titles range from justice of the peace to state supreme court justice. Their powers are vast and varied – from determining whether a defendant should be jailed to deciding who deserves custody of a child. Each U.S. state has an oversight agency that investigates misconduct complaints against judges. The authority of the oversight agencies is distinct from the power held by appellate courts, which can reverse a judge’s legal ruling and order a new trial. Judicial commissions cannot change verdicts. Rather, they can investigate complaints about the behavior of judges and pursue discipline ranging from reprimand to removal. Few experts dispute that the great majority of judges behave responsibly, respecting the law and those who appear before them. And some contend that, when judges do falter, oversight agencies are effective in identifying and addressing the behavior. “With a few notable exceptions, the commissions generally get it right,” said Keith Swisher, a University of Arizona law professor who specializes in judicial ethics. Others disagree. They note that the clout of these commissions is limited, and their authority differs from state to state. To remove a judge, all but a handful of states require approval of a panel that includes other judges. And most states seldom exercise the full extent of those disciplinary powers. As a result, the system tends to err on the side of protecting the rights and reputations of judges while overlooking the impact courtroom wrongdoing has on those most affected by it: people like Marquita Johnson. Reuters scoured thousands of state investigative files, disciplinary proceedings and court records from the past dozen years to quantify the personal toll of judicial misconduct. The examination found at least 5,206 people who were directly affected by a judge’s misconduct. The victims cited in disciplinary documents ranged from people who were illegally jailed to those subjected to racist, sexist and other abusive comments from judges in ways that tainted the cases. The number is a conservative estimate. The tally doesn’t include two previously reported incidents that affected thousands of defendants and prompted sweeping reviews of judicial conduct. “If we have a system that holds a wrongdoer accountable but we fail to address the victims, then we are really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about.” In Pennsylvania, the state examined the convictions of more than 3,500 teenagers sentenced by two judges. The judges were convicted of taking kickbacks as part of a scheme to fill a private juvenile detention center. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appointed senior judge Arthur Grim to lead a victim review, and the state later expunged criminal records for 2,251 juveniles. Grim told Reuters that every state should adopt a way to compensate victims of judicial misconduct. “If we have a system that holds a wrongdoer accountable but we fail to address the victims, then we are really losing sight of what a justice system should be all about,” Grim said. In another review underway in Ohio, state public defender Tim Young is scrutinizing 2,707 cases handled by a judge who retired in 2018 after being hospitalized for alcoholism. Mike Benza, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University whose students are helping identify victims, compared the work to current investigations into police abuse of power. “You see one case and then you look to see if it's systemic,” he said. The review, which has been limited during the coronavirus pandemic, may take a year. But Young said the time-consuming task is essential because “a fundamental injustice may have been levied against hundreds or thousands of people.” ‘Special rules for judges’ Most states afford judges accused of misconduct a gentle kind of justice. Perhaps no state better illustrates the shortcomings of America’s system for overseeing judges than Alabama. As in most states, Alabama’s nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission is a mix of lawyers, judges and laypeople. All are appointed. Their deliberations are secret and they operate under some of the most judge-friendly rules in the nation. Alabama’s rules make even filing a complaint against a judge difficult. The complaint must be notarized, which means that in theory, anyone who makes misstatements about the judge can be prosecuted for perjury. Complaints about wrongdoing must be made in writing; those that arrive by phone, email or without a notary stamp are not investigated, although senders are notified why their complaints have been summarily rejected. Anonymous written complaints are shredded. These rules can leave lawyers and litigants fearing retaliation, commission director Jenny Garrett noted in response to written questions. “It’s a ridiculous system that protects judges and makes it easy for them to intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint,” said Sue Bell Cobb, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court from 2007 to 2011. In 2009, she unsuccessfully championed changes to the process and commissioned an American Bar Association report that offered a scathing review of Alabama's rules. In most other states, commission staff members can start investigating a judge upon receiving a phone call or email, even anonymous ones, or after learning of questionable conduct from a news report or court filing. In Alabama, staff will not begin an investigation without approval from the commission itself, which convenes about every seven weeks. By rule, the commission also must keep a judge who is under scrutiny fully informed throughout an investigation. If a subpoena is issued, the judge receives a simultaneous copy, raising fears about witness intimidation. If a witness gives investigators a statement, the judge receives a transcript. In the U.S. justice system, such deference to individuals under investigation is extremely rare. “It’s a ridiculous system that protects judges and makes it easy for them to intimidate anyone with a legitimate complaint.” “Why the need for special rules for judges?” said Michael Levy, a Washington lawyer who has represented clients in high-profile criminal, corporate, congressional and securities investigations. “If judges think it’s fair and appropriate to investigate others for crimes or misconduct without providing those subjects or targets with copies of witness statements and subpoenas, why don’t judges think it’s fair to investigate judges in the same way?” Alabama judges also are given an opportunity to resolve investigations confidentially. Reuters interviews and a review of Alabama commission records show the commission has met with judges informally at least 19 times since 2011 to offer corrective “guidance.” The identities of those judges remain confidential, as does the conduct that prompted the meetings. “Not every violation warrants discipline,” commission director Garrett said. Since 2008, the commission has brought 21 public cases against judges, including Hayes, charging two this year. Two of the best-known cases brought by the commission involved Roy Moore, who was twice forced out as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for defying federal court orders. Another Alabama justice fared better in challenging a misconduct complaint, however. Tom Parker, first elected to the state’s high court in 2004, pushed back when the commission investigated him in 2015 for comments he made on the radio criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing gay marriage. Parker sued the commission in federal court, arguing the agency was infringing on his First Amendment rights. He won. Although the commission had dropped its investigation before the ruling, it was ordered to cover Parker’s legal fees: $100,000, or about a fifth of the agency’s total annual budget. In 2018, the people of Alabama elected Parker chief justice. These days, Parker told Reuters, Alabama judges and the agency that oversees them enjoy “a much better relationship” that’s less politically tinged. “How can I say it? It’s much more respectful between the commission and the judges now.” “Gut instinct” Montgomery, Alabama has a deep history of racial conflict, as reflected in the clashing concepts emblazoned on the city’s great seal: “Cradle of the Confederacy” and “Birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement.” Jefferson Davis was inaugurated here as Confederate president after the South seceded from the Union in 1861, and his birthday is a state holiday. As was common throughout the South, the city was the site of the lynchings of Black men, crimes now commemorated at a national memorial based here. Police arrested civil rights icon Rosa Parks here in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus to a white passenger. Today, about 60% of Montgomery’s 198,000 residents are Black, U.S. census records show. Even so, Black motorists account for about 90% of those charged with unpaid traffic tickets, a Reuters examination of court records found. Much of Judge Hayes’ work in municipal court involved traffic cases and the collection of fines. Hayes, who is white, told Reuters that “the majority of people who come before the court are Black.” City officials have said that neither race nor economics have played a role in police efforts to enforce outstanding warrants, no matter how minor the offense. In April 2012, Marquita Johnson was among them. Appearing before Hayes on a Wednesday morning, the 28-year-old single mother pleaded for a break. Johnson had struggled for eight years to pay dozens of tickets that began with a citation for failing to show proof of insurance. She had insurance, she said. But when she was pulled over, she couldn’t find the card to prove it. Even a single ticket was a knockout blow on her minimum-wage waitress salary. In addition to fines, the court assessed a $155 fee to every ticket. Court records show that police often issued her multiple tickets for other infractions during every stop – a practice some residents call “stacking.” Under state law, failing to pay even one ticket can result in the suspension of a driver’s license. Johnson’s decision to keep driving nonetheless – taking her children to school or to doctor visits, getting groceries, going to work – led to more tickets and deeper debt. “I told Judge Hayes that I had lost my job and needed more time to pay,” she recounted. By Hayes’ calculation, Johnson owed more than $12,000 in fines. He sentenced Johnson to 496 days in jail. Hayes arrived at that sentence by counting each day in jail as $25 toward the outstanding debt. A different judge later determined that Johnson actually owed half the amount calculated by Hayes, and that Hayes had incorrectly penalized her over fines she had already paid. To shave time off her sentence, Johnson washed police cars and performed other menial labor while jailed. Hayes told Reuters that he generally found pleas of poverty hard to believe. “With my years of experience, I can tell when someone is being truthful with me,” Hayes said. He called it “gut instinct” -- though he added, in a statement this week, that he also consulted “each defendant's criminal and traffic history as well as their history of warrants and failures to appear in court.” Of course, the law demands more of a judge than a gut call. In a 1983 landmark decision, Bearden v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state judges are obligated to hold a hearing to determine whether a defendant has “willfully” chosen not to pay a fine. According to the state’s judicial oversight commission, “Judge Hayes did not make any inquiry into Ms. Johnson’s ability to pay, whether her non-payment was willful.” From jail, “I prayed to return to my daughters,” Johnson said. “I was sure that someone would realize that Hayes had made a mistake.” She said her worst day in jail was her youngest daughter’s 3rd birthday. From a jail telephone, she tried to sing “Happy Birthday” but slumped to the floor in grief. “She was choking up and crying,” said Johnson’s mother, Blanche, who was on the call. “She was devastated to be away from her children so long.” When Johnson was freed after 10 months in jail, she learned that strangers had abused her two older children. One is now a teenager; the other is in middle school. “My kids will pay a lifetime for what the court system did to me,” Johnson said. “My daughters get frantic when I leave the house. I know they’ve had nightmares that I’m going to disappear again.” Six months after Johnson’s release, Hayes jailed another single Black mother. Angela McCullough, then 40, had been pulled over driving home from Faulkner University, a local community college where she carried a 3.87 grade point average. As a mother of four children, including a disabled adult son, she had returned to college to pursue her dream of becoming a mental health counselor. Police ticketed her for failing to turn on her headlights. After a background check, the officer arrested McCullough on a warrant for outstanding traffic tickets. She was later brought before Hayes. “I can’t go to jail,” McCullough recalled pleading with the judge. “I’m a mother. I have a disabled son who needs me.” Hayes sentenced McCullough to 100 days in jail to pay off a court debt of $1,350, court records show. Her adult son, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was held in an institution until her release. McCullough said she cleaned jail cells in return for time off her sentence. One day, she recalled, she had to clean a blood-soaked cell where a female inmate had slit her wrists. She was freed after 20 days, using the money she saved for tuition to pay off her tickets, she said. Jail was the darkest chapter of her life, McCullough said, a place where “the devil was trying to take my mind.” Today, she has abandoned her pursuit of a degree. “I don’t think I’ll ever be able to afford to go back.” A clear sign that something was amiss in Montgomery courts came in November 2013, when a federal lawsuit was filed alleging that city judges were unlawfully jailing the poor. A similar suit was filed in 2014, and two more civil rights cases were filed in 2015. Johnson and McCullough were plaintiffs. The lawsuits detailed practices similar to those that helped fuel protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after a white police officer killed a Black teenager in 2014. In a scathing report on the origins of the unrest, the U.S. Department of Justice exposed how Ferguson had systematically used traffic enforcement to raise revenue through excessive fines, a practice that fell disproportionately hard on Black residents. “Montgomery is just like Ferguson,” said Karen Jones, a community activist and founder of a local educational nonprofit. Jones has led recent protests in Montgomery in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, the Black man whose death under the knee of a cop in Minneapolis set off worldwide calls for racial justice. In Montgomery, “everybody knew that the police targeted Black residents. And I sat in Hayes’ court and watched him squeeze poor people for more money, then toss them in jail where they had to work off debts with free labor to the city.” It was years before the flurry of civil rights lawsuits against Hayes and his fellow judges had much impact on the commission. The oversight agency opened its Hayes case in summer 2015, nearly two years after plaintiffs’ lawyers in the civil rights cases filed a complaint with the body. Hayes spent another year and a half on the bench before accepting the suspension. Under its own rules, the commission could have filed a complaint and told its staff to investigate Hayes at any time. Commission director Garrett said she is prohibited by law from explaining why the commission didn’t investigate sooner. The investigation went slowly, Garrett said, because it involved reviewing thousands of pages of court records. The commission also was busy with other cases from 2015 to early 2017, Garrett said, issuing charges against five judges, including Moore. “Slap in the face” A few months after Judge Hayes’ suspension ended, his term as a municipal judge was set to expire. So, the Montgomery City Council took up the question of the judge’s future on March 6, 2018. On the agenda of its meeting: whether to reappoint Hayes to another four-year term. Hayes wasn’t in the audience that night, but powerful supporters were. The city’s chief judge, Milton Westry, told the council that Hayes and his colleagues have changed how they handled cases involving indigent defendants, “since we learned a better way of doing things.” In the wake of the suits, Westry said, Hayes and his peers complied with reforms that required judges to make audio recordings of court hearings and notify lawyers when clients are jailed for failing to pay fines. As part of a settlement in the civil case, the city judges agreed to implement changes for at least two years. Those reforms have since been abandoned, Reuters found. Both measures were deemed too expensive, Hayes and city officials confirmed. Residents who addressed the council were incredulous that the city would consider reappointing Hayes. Jones, the community activist, reminded council members that Hayes had “pleaded guilty to violating the very laws he was sworn to uphold.” The city council voted to rehire Hayes to a fifth consecutive term. Marquita Johnson said she can’t understand why a judge whose unlawful rulings changed the lives of hundreds has himself emerged virtually unscathed. “Hiring Hayes back to the bench was a slap in the face to everyone,” Johnson said. “It was a message that we don't matter.” On Thursday, Hayes will retire from the bench. In an earlier interview with Reuters, he declined to discuss the Johnson case. Asked whether he regrets any of the sentences he has handed out, he paused. “I think, maybe, I could have been more sympathetic at times,” Hayes said. “Sometimes you miss a few.” Additional reporting by Isabella Jibilian, Andrea Januta and Blake Morrison. Edited by Morrison. A watchdog accused, a pattern of rulings delayed, a repeat offender Three recent cases illustrate how Alabama judges who were cited for wrongdoing were able to remain on the bench for years. Judge Chaney: Enforced, broke rules What happened when a trial judge who also served on the state’s judicial oversight board was accused of misbehavior. Alex Chaney was just a year out of law school in 2015 when he started receiving lucrative appointments at taxpayer expense. A district judge began assigning him to represent people too poor to afford a lawyer. That judge was his dad, Kim Chaney. Judge Chaney is a powerful figure in rural Cullman County, where he was first elected to the bench in 1992. Chaney serves on a local bank board and has led several statewide justice associations. In 2012, the governor honored Chaney by selecting him to also serve on Alabama’s nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission, which investigates misconduct by judges. While on the commission, Chaney broke its ethics laws in his own courtroom. In 2016, local attorney Tommy Drake filed a complaint against Chaney, alleging that the judge was appointing his son to represent indigent defendants, violating ethics rules that prohibit nepotism. Alex Chaney was paid $105,000 from 2015 to 2017 by the state for such court-appointed work, accounting records show. Because Judge Chaney served on the judicial commission, Drake sent his complaint to a different state watchdog agency, the Alabama Ethics Commission. On October 4, 2017, the Ethics Commission found that Judge Chaney violated ethics rules and referred the case to the state attorney general. The following day, records show, Judge Chaney resigned from the Judicial Inquiry Commission. But he remained a trial judge in Cullman. Eighteen months passed. Last summer, a Reuters reporter began asking state officials about the status of the case. The officials declined to comment. In November, Reuters sent Judge Chaney and his son queries. They did not respond. The judge’s lawyer, John Henig Jr, wrote to Reuters: “Judge Chaney is a person of remarkably good character and would never knowingly do anything unethical or wrong.” Henig said that Judge Chaney appointed his son from a rotating list of lawyers to represent indigent defendants. Henig called the appointments “ministerial” in nature. “If Judge Chaney’s son’s name was the next name on the list for appointments, Judge Chaney would call out his son’s name and thereafter immediately recuse himself from the case,” Henig wrote. A Reuters review of court records showed otherwise: Judge Chaney participated in several cases after appointing his son and issued substantive decisions. For example, records show that the judge reduced bond for one of his son’s clients, and approved another’s motion to plead guilty. Henig did not respond to questions about these records. This February 7 – eight months after Reuters began inquiring about Chaney – the commission charged the judge with appointing his son to more than 200 cases and making rulings in some of them. Chaney struck a deal with the commission and retired from the bench, avoiding a trial. During a hearing to approve the deal, commission lawyer Elizabeth Bern said Chaney should have known better than to appoint his son, especially given that he did so while a member of the oversight agency. During Chaney’s tenure, the commission had disciplined two judges who abused their office to benefit a relative. “The nepotism provision is clear and unequivocal without exception,” she said. Chaney did not speak during the hearing. Drake, the lawyer who filed the complaint in 2016, said that absent the Reuters inquiries, he doubts Chaney would have retired from the bench because he is so politically powerful. Indeed, shortly after the judge stepped down in disgrace for steering work to his son, the local bar association issued a resolution praising him. Of Chaney, the local lawyers said, “He has always maintained the highest ethical and moral standards of the office and has been an example to all, what a judge should represent.” Judge Kelly: “Callous indifference” How a judge left children in limbo by repeatedly failing to perform her most basic duty: ruling on cases. Montgomery Circuit Court Judge Anita Kelly hears time-sensitive family matters such as child custody, adoption and divorce – cases in which a child remains in limbo until she rules. Starting in 2014, court and judicial commission records show, word of years-long delays in her cases began to emerge from foster parents, lawyers, social workers and appeals court judges. Commission officials are barred by law from discussing the case, but Reuters pieced together the scope of the investigation through juvenile court records, public documents and interviews with people involved. In May 2014, foster parents Cheri and Travis Norwood filed a complaint about Kelly with the judicial commission. They alleged the judge’s incompetence led to a traumatic, years-long delay in which a foster child who began living with the Norwoods as an infant was taken away from them at age 3 ½ and returned to live with her teenage biological mother. “If Judge Kelly thought they should have been together, fine,” Travis Norwood said in an interview. “Why didn’t this happen sooner? Because children can’t wait. You can’t freeze a child, hold her in suspended animation until her mother is ready.” Social workers who heard about the Norwood complaint forwarded their own concerns about Kelly’s conduct in several other cases. Nonetheless, the commission dismissed the Norwood complaint in early 2015, finding “no reasonable basis to charge the judge.” Over the next year, more red flags emerged. State appeals court judges raised concerns about Kelly’s “continued neglect of her duty,” citing at least five cases that had untenable delays. In November 2015, a supreme court justice criticized the nearly three years it took to determine one child’s fate. “I refuse to be another adult who has totally failed this child,” Justice Tommy Bryan wrote. Another 20 months passed before the judicial commission took action. In August 2017, it charged Kelly with delays that “manifest a callous indifference or lack of comprehension” to children’s well-being. One child’s case, it noted, had dragged on for five years. Kelly took her case to trial before the Court of the Judiciary, the special tribunal that weighs charges against judges. Her attorney argued that the judge worked hard and had shown no ill intent. In 2018, the tribunal found Kelly failed to “maintain professional competence.” Kelly was suspended for 90 days. Still, she kept her job. The court said it likely would have removed Kelly from the bench if not for two factors: Voters re-elected her in 2016, and she exhibited “good character and the lack of evidence of scandal or corruption on her part.” Her lawyer, Henry Lewis Gillis, applauded her reinstatement and said the delays never affected the quality of her decisions. “Judge Kelly cannot change yesterday,” Gillis said. “Rather, she chooses to learn from her past experiences as she continues to handle the many, many, many cases that come before her today.” Judge Wiggins: Give blood or go to jail A judge who is a repeat offender – four times over – remains on the bench. Circuit Judge Marvin Wiggins has been hit with misconduct charges by Alabama’s judicial conduct commission four times over the past decade. In 2009, he was reprimanded and suspended for 90 days for failing to recuse himself from a voter fraud investigation involving his relatives. “The public must be able to trust that our judges will dispense justice fairly and impartially,” the Court of the Judiciary concluded. “Judge Wiggins, by his actions, disregarded that trust.” In 2016 – in a case that made global headlines – Wiggins was censured for offering defendants the option of giving blood instead of going to jail for failing to pay fines. A local blood drive happened to be taking place at the courthouse that day. “If you do not have any money and you don’t want to go to jail, as an option to pay it, you can give blood today,” Wiggins told dozens of defendants, according to a recording. “Consider that as a discount rather than putting you in jail, if you do not have any money.” Forty-one defendants gave blood that day, and the commission called Wiggins’ conduct “reprehensible and inexcusable.” Wiggins acknowledged that his comments were inappropriate, but noted he did not send anyone to jail that day for failure to pay fines. ALERT US TO WRONGDOING Not all judges who have violated their oaths of office, broken the law or misbehaved on the bench have been brought before their states’ oversight commission. If you know of a judge who may have committed misconduct, please send us details at [email protected]. Include the name of the judge, the state, details of what the judge may have done wrong, and a way for us to contact you. Reuters investigates such tips and will contact you before publishing. Wiggins’ lawyer, Joe Espy III, said that the judge “has always tried to cooperate” with authorities. Espy noted that Wiggins is a community leader, an ordained pastor and has been repeatedly re-elected to the bench for more than 20 years. “He is not only a good judge but a good person,” Espy said. Last year, Wiggins was reprimanded for directly calling the father in a custody dispute – a conversation that violated a rule prohibiting a judge from discussing a case without both sides present. A recording of the call became a key piece of evidence against Wiggins. In preparation for trial in that case, the commission said it found a “pattern and practice” of similar one-sided calls. The commission also said it found evidence that Wiggins was meeting with divorce litigants in his chambers without lawyers present. In November, this prompted a new commission case against Wiggins – his fourth in 10 years. “At a very minimum,” the commission alleged, his track record indicates a “pattern of carelessness or indifferent disregard or lack of respect for the high standards imposed on the judiciary.” But at a pretrial hearing in January, and in a subsequent order, Wiggins scored a victory before the Alabama tribunal that issues final judgment on such cases, the Court of the Judiciary. The presiding judge raised questions about whether proper procedures had been followed in the case against Wiggins. Three weeks later, the commission dropped the case. And Wiggins returned to the bench. The Teflon Robe By Michael Berens and John Shiffman Contributing reporting: Andrea Januta and Caroline Monahan Data: Michael Berens, John Shiffman and Isabella Jibilian Photo editing: Corinne Perkins Video: Craig Hettich Art direction: Troy Dunkley and Pete Hausler Edited by Blake Morrison

www.reuters.com

center

AImJF1pLap960y64

test

UYABjO1BQLqe0FrI

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/24/fox_news_worst_cliven_bundy_lies_22_right_wing_delusions_about_the_absurd_standoff/

Fox News' worst Cliven Bundy lies: 22 right-wing delusions about the absurd standoff

2014-04-24

Eric Stern

The Cliven Bundy standoff , involving an angry rancher who refuses to pay federal grazing fees , took a new , ugly turn Wednesday night when the New York Times reported horrifying comments he made about `` the Negro '' and slavery . Meanwhile , Bundy 's quest continues to grip Fox News audiences . This is largely because his story is more reasonable if you watch Fox 's creative , often fictionalized version of it . Here , then , are nearly two dozen claims that have been uttered in defense of Bundy by Fox personalities , other right-wing pundits and Bundy himself . ( A good deal of them , alas , come from Sean Hannity . ) For each claim , we ’ ve offered a bit of a fact-check or truthful context afterward . 1 . “ The BLM ’ s actions lacked proportionality. ” ( Sean Hannity ) The Bureau of Land Management simply arrived to take cattle , per a court order . They didn ’ t show up with guns drawn and they never even entered Bundy ’ s property . They did , however , carry arms for a good reason : They had received intelligence that Bundy and his crew might cause trouble . There is nothing “ disproportionate ” about being prepared . 2 . “ The BLM pointed guns at children. ” The Republican Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore has been saying this during her 15 minutes of fame , including on “ All In With Chris Hayes ” on MSNBC last week . There has been no evidence offered that the BLM “ pointed guns at children. ” Bundy ’ s teenage son attempted to assault officers and kicked a police dog and resisted arrest , and so they used a taser on him , as well they should have . 3 . “ The Feds are going to ‘ cause another Waco ’ . ” ( Cliven Bundy , et al . ) The feds are trying to avoid another Waco . The U.S. government did not “ cause Waco ” but rather botched the response ; they could have waited it out more patiently to avoid the loss of life of innocent children . And this is exactly why the feds have not pressed the issue ( yet ) with Bundy , and why the BLM stood down . 4 . “ Since when does the government send armed officers to collect a debt ? ” ( Hannity ) Many repossession and foreclosure actions often involve a sheriff or other armed officials , and confiscation of property is an ordinary means by which a government resolves a debt . For example , if you accumulate 20 years of unpaid parking tickets , a court will order that your car be booted and towed until you pay . And if you point a rifle at the cop or otherwise assault him , you might get shot ( or tased ) . 5 . “ Nobody has seen any bill for $ 1.1 million . It doesn ’ t exist. ” ( Michelle Fiore , R-Nevada Assembly , on MSNBC ) Bundy says he has “ never been sent a bill ” but also says he never opens mail from the U.S. government because he does not recognize the U.S. government ’ s existence . A court has ordered him to pay a debt of $ 1.1 million in accumulated fines and fees for having put greater than his allowed quota of cattle on federally protected tortoise habitat . 6 . “ The BLM provoked , escalated this controversy. ” Rep. Steve Stockman , R-Texas , made this accusation , as have numerous others . If an armed resistance is put up against an asset seizure by law enforcement officials who are acting under a court order , the provocation is exclusively the work of those who have chosen to threaten the lawmen with violence . 7 . “ The land is not being used -- it ’ s not like they want to build a school , road or hospital on it. ” ( Hannity ) How federal land is used is determined by federal law . A citizen does not get to decide for himself whether the land should remain vacant or grazed , or whether something should be built on it . 8 . “ Harry Reid and his son have a financial motive to remove Bundy ’ s cows. ” ( Bob Massi , Fox News legal correspondent ) There is no evidence at all that Harry Reid or his son have any financial or political interest in what is going on . Don ’ t believe everything you hear on Fox News , especially when the reporter qualifies it , as Massi did here , by saying , “ We don ’ t really know if it ’ s true . ” 9 . “ The BLM killed cattle and put the corpses in a mass grave. ” There is no evidence that the BLM euthanized Bundy ’ s cattle except some photos and footage of dubious pedigree being aired nightly on Fox News . That said , it is possible that a cow or two could have died during the roundup . Cattle are occasionally killed in large roundups . Now , if there was a mass euthanizing of cattle , the BLM should be forced to explain that . 10 . “ The sheriff is the only man with arresting power in Clark county. ” Bundy has made this claim in his nightly appearance on the Sean Hannity show , and it has long been a favorite talking point of Tea Partyers , especially in the West . But it is false . Federal officers have arresting power where federal land is trespassed or where federal law has otherwise been broken . The BLM does have an obligation under federal regulations to seek the cooperation of local law enforcement to resolve certain disputes . But in this case , the sheriff refused to help out . 11 . “ People should not die over a few cows eating free government grass. ” ( Hannity ) That ’ s true , which is why Bundy and his militia members should not have chosen to point guns at federal officials and escalate the situation . Now , those militia members could find themselves getting shot or even killed . Such is the consequence of pointing rifles at lawmen trying to do their job . 12 . “ How could a cow possibly eat $ 1.1 million of grass ? ” ( Bundy ’ s daughter , Stetsy Bundy ) Cows can easily eat a million bucks worth of grass but that ’ s neither here nor there . Grazing fees are not assessed by weighing the amount of tonnage that a cow eats . It is a per-animal-unit , per-month fee , and it adds up over 20 years . Furthermore , Bundy ’ s liability is as much for fines for illegal trespass as it is for fees . 13 . “ What ’ s wrong with Bundy ’ s cows simply cutting the grass for free ? ” ( Hannity ) A trespass is not forgiven simply because the trespasser believes he is performing a service for the owner . Furthermore , “ cutting grass ” is not depriving the owner of a nuisance but rather taking a valuable resource ( edible grass ) from the owner . 14 . “ Bundy has rights to the land because his ancestors worked the land prior to formation of BLM. ” Bundy has made this argument himself and others have echoed it , but even if Bundy ’ s ancestors did work the land ( and we only have his word that they did , and he is notoriously dishonest ) , as of the passage of the Taylor Act in 1934 they would have had to pay grazing fees . And it was never private land . The parcel that Bundy is trespassing has been owned by the U.S. government ever since it was purchased and/or won from Mexico or Spain . 15 . “ This is all predicated on a tortoise that is not even endangered. ” ( Hannity ) The decision as to whether the tortoise is endangered and whether it can withstand grazing , and how much , is one for biologists to make and can be challenged in court by anyone that disagrees with it , in which case the government must show that it is using valid science . 16 . “ Grazing more cattle on federal land will keep beef prices down. ” Sean Hannity made this idiotic remark two nights ago . If the government wants to centrally control the market for beef ( as it sometimes does with other commodities ) it is a policy decision to be made by Congress and the Department of Agriculture , not Mr. Bundy or Sean Hannity . 17 . “ We have rapists , pedophiles and murderers . Why is government focusing on this piece of land ? ” ( Hannity ) The government ’ s decision to seize the assets of a scofflaw will not cause rapes , murders or acts of pedophilia to be neglected . Law enforcement is capable of multitasking . 18 . “ The feds should simply put a lien on Bundy ’ s property. ” ( Fiore , Hannity et al ) Yes , they can and they should ( and likely have already , since it ’ s been going on 20 years ) , and this would mean that when his cows arrive at market , the proceeds would go directly to the government . But realized that the collection of the past due amount is only one issue -- the other is that Bundy continues to run his cows on land that is closed to grazing , and a lien won ’ t accomplish that . 19 . “ If you owed money , would you like it if the government came to your house and pointed guns at you and your wife and family ? ” ( Fiore ) The BLM did not “ point guns ” at the Bundys until the Bundys assaulted them . The BLM was doing its job , and Bundy ’ s armed supporters threatened them with force and the son assaulted one of the officers and his dog . 20 . “ Peaceful protesters were relocated miles away from entrance to the Bundy ranch , and denied their First Amendment Rights. ” ( Brian Sandoval , GOP governor of Nevada ) When law enforcement needs to operate in a tense situation , they are within their rights to move protesters to an area safely away from the action . This is for their own protection , and it is especially appropriate where some of the protesters bring weapons . 21 . “ Bundy has already paid fees to Nevada County. ” Dana Loesch , a frequent guest on Fox , has repeatedly made this peculiar argument . Whatever Bundy might have paid to Nevada County is of no consequence to his federal tax bill . You can not avoid a federal tax bill by paying fees and taxes to the county . 22 . “ If the cattle were illegal immigrants , the Justice Department would be running guns to them and Homeland Security would be giving them free phones. ” ( Dana Loesch ) Even if this were true ( and it isn ’ t ) , cattle are not illegal immigrants . Nor does this silly hypothetical scenario bear in any way on the fact that Bundy and his thugs have broken the law by ignoring several court orders , and interfering with law enforcement in many ways .

The Cliven Bundy standoff, involving an angry rancher who refuses to pay federal grazing fees, took a new, ugly turn Wednesday night when the New York Times reported horrifying comments he made about "the Negro" and slavery. Meanwhile, Bundy's quest continues to grip Fox News audiences. This is largely because his story is more reasonable if you watch Fox's creative, often fictionalized version of it. Here, then, are nearly two dozen claims that have been uttered in defense of Bundy by Fox personalities, other right-wing pundits and Bundy himself. (A good deal of them, alas, come from Sean Hannity.) Advertisement: For each claim, we’ve offered a bit of a fact-check or truthful context afterward. 1. “The BLM’s actions lacked proportionality.” (Sean Hannity) The Bureau of Land Management simply arrived to take cattle, per a court order. They didn’t show up with guns drawn and they never even entered Bundy’s property. They did, however, carry arms for a good reason: They had received intelligence that Bundy and his crew might cause trouble. There is nothing “disproportionate” about being prepared. 2. “The BLM pointed guns at children.” The Republican Nevada Assemblywoman Michelle Fiore has been saying this during her 15 minutes of fame, including on “All In With Chris Hayes” on MSNBC last week. There has been no evidence offered that the BLM “pointed guns at children.” Bundy’s teenage son attempted to assault officers and kicked a police dog and resisted arrest, and so they used a taser on him, as well they should have. Advertisement: 3. “The Feds are going to ‘cause another Waco’.” (Cliven Bundy, et al.) The feds are trying to avoid another Waco. The U.S. government did not “cause Waco” but rather botched the response; they could have waited it out more patiently to avoid the loss of life of innocent children. And this is exactly why the feds have not pressed the issue (yet) with Bundy, and why the BLM stood down. 4. “Since when does the government send armed officers to collect a debt?” (Hannity) Many repossession and foreclosure actions often involve a sheriff or other armed officials, and confiscation of property is an ordinary means by which a government resolves a debt. For example, if you accumulate 20 years of unpaid parking tickets, a court will order that your car be booted and towed until you pay. And if you point a rifle at the cop or otherwise assault him, you might get shot (or tased). 5. “Nobody has seen any bill for $1.1 million. It doesn’t exist.” (Michelle Fiore, R-Nevada Assembly, on MSNBC) Bundy says he has “never been sent a bill” but also says he never opens mail from the U.S. government because he does not recognize the U.S. government’s existence. A court has ordered him to pay a debt of $1.1 million in accumulated fines and fees for having put greater than his allowed quota of cattle on federally protected tortoise habitat. Advertisement: 6. “The BLM provoked, escalated this controversy.” Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, made this accusation, as have numerous others. If an armed resistance is put up against an asset seizure by law enforcement officials who are acting under a court order, the provocation is exclusively the work of those who have chosen to threaten the lawmen with violence. 7. “The land is not being used -- it’s not like they want to build a school, road or hospital on it.” (Hannity) How federal land is used is determined by federal law. A citizen does not get to decide for himself whether the land should remain vacant or grazed, or whether something should be built on it. Advertisement: 8. “Harry Reid and his son have a financial motive to remove Bundy’s cows.” (Bob Massi, Fox News legal correspondent) There is no evidence at all that Harry Reid or his son have any financial or political interest in what is going on. Don’t believe everything you hear on Fox News, especially when the reporter qualifies it, as Massi did here, by saying, “We don’t really know if it’s true.” 9. “The BLM killed cattle and put the corpses in a mass grave.” There is no evidence that the BLM euthanized Bundy’s cattle except some photos and footage of dubious pedigree being aired nightly on Fox News. That said, it is possible that a cow or two could have died during the roundup. Cattle are occasionally killed in large roundups. Now, if there was a mass euthanizing of cattle, the BLM should be forced to explain that. 10. “The sheriff is the only man with arresting power in Clark county.” Bundy has made this claim in his nightly appearance on the Sean Hannity show, and it has long been a favorite talking point of Tea Partyers, especially in the West. But it is false. Federal officers have arresting power where federal land is trespassed or where federal law has otherwise been broken. The BLM does have an obligation under federal regulations to seek the cooperation of local law enforcement to resolve certain disputes. But in this case, the sheriff refused to help out. Advertisement: 11. “People should not die over a few cows eating free government grass.” (Hannity) That’s true, which is why Bundy and his militia members should not have chosen to point guns at federal officials and escalate the situation. Now, those militia members could find themselves getting shot or even killed. Such is the consequence of pointing rifles at lawmen trying to do their job. 12. “How could a cow possibly eat $1.1 million of grass?” (Bundy’s daughter, Stetsy Bundy) Cows can easily eat a million bucks worth of grass but that’s neither here nor there. Grazing fees are not assessed by weighing the amount of tonnage that a cow eats. It is a per-animal-unit, per-month fee, and it adds up over 20 years. Furthermore, Bundy’s liability is as much for fines for illegal trespass as it is for fees. 13. “What’s wrong with Bundy’s cows simply cutting the grass for free?” (Hannity) A trespass is not forgiven simply because the trespasser believes he is performing a service for the owner. Furthermore, “cutting grass” is not depriving the owner of a nuisance but rather taking a valuable resource (edible grass) from the owner. Advertisement: 14. “Bundy has rights to the land because his ancestors worked the land prior to formation of BLM.” Bundy has made this argument himself and others have echoed it, but even if Bundy’s ancestors did work the land (and we only have his word that they did, and he is notoriously dishonest), as of the passage of the Taylor Act in 1934 they would have had to pay grazing fees. And it was never private land. The parcel that Bundy is trespassing has been owned by the U.S. government ever since it was purchased and/or won from Mexico or Spain. 15. “This is all predicated on a tortoise that is not even endangered.” (Hannity) The decision as to whether the tortoise is endangered and whether it can withstand grazing, and how much, is one for biologists to make and can be challenged in court by anyone that disagrees with it, in which case the government must show that it is using valid science. 16. “Grazing more cattle on federal land will keep beef prices down.” Sean Hannity made this idiotic remark two nights ago. If the government wants to centrally control the market for beef (as it sometimes does with other commodities) it is a policy decision to be made by Congress and the Department of Agriculture, not Mr. Bundy or Sean Hannity. 17. “We have rapists, pedophiles and murderers. Why is government focusing on this piece of land?” (Hannity) The government’s decision to seize the assets of a scofflaw will not cause rapes, murders or acts of pedophilia to be neglected. Law enforcement is capable of multitasking. Advertisement: 18. “The feds should simply put a lien on Bundy’s property.” (Fiore, Hannity et al) Yes, they can and they should (and likely have already, since it’s been going on 20 years), and this would mean that when his cows arrive at market, the proceeds would go directly to the government. But realized that the collection of the past due amount is only one issue -- the other is that Bundy continues to run his cows on land that is closed to grazing, and a lien won’t accomplish that. 19. “If you owed money, would you like it if the government came to your house and pointed guns at you and your wife and family?” (Fiore) The BLM did not “point guns” at the Bundys until the Bundys assaulted them. The BLM was doing its job, and Bundy’s armed supporters threatened them with force and the son assaulted one of the officers and his dog. 20. “Peaceful protesters were relocated miles away from entrance to the Bundy ranch, and denied their First Amendment Rights.” (Brian Sandoval, GOP governor of Nevada) When law enforcement needs to operate in a tense situation, they are within their rights to move protesters to an area safely away from the action. This is for their own protection, and it is especially appropriate where some of the protesters bring weapons. 21. “Bundy has already paid fees to Nevada County.” Dana Loesch, a frequent guest on Fox, has repeatedly made this peculiar argument. Whatever Bundy might have paid to Nevada County is of no consequence to his federal tax bill. You cannot avoid a federal tax bill by paying fees and taxes to the county. Advertisement: 22. “If the cattle were illegal immigrants, the Justice Department would be running guns to them and Homeland Security would be giving them free phones.” (Dana Loesch) Even if this were true (and it isn’t), cattle are not illegal immigrants. Nor does this silly hypothetical scenario bear in any way on the fact that Bundy and his thugs have broken the law by ignoring several court orders, and interfering with law enforcement in many ways.

www.salon.com

left

UYABjO1BQLqe0FrI

test

nlOE1uW6ymggHFux

politics

Salon

https://www.salon.com/2018/10/08/colin-powell-warns-donald-trump-is-ruining-what-will-kept-us-alive/

Colin Powell warns Donald Trump is trying to destroy “what’s kept us alive”

2018-10-08

Joseph Neese

In a blistering rebuke , a former secretary of state from a Republican administration admitted that he does not know if President Donald Trump could be a moral leader for the world , because `` right now that is not the way he is acting . '' “ Let me give you an example , '' Colin Powell said on CNN 's `` Fareed Zakaria GPS '' on Sunday . `` My favorite three words in our Constitution [ are ] the first three words : ‘ We the People . ' '' “ 'We the People , ” the first secretary of state to serve in the George W. Bush administration again said , repeating the prior phrase for emphasis . `` But recently , it ’ s become ‘ Me the President ’ as opposed to ‘ We the People. ’ And you see things that should not be happening . ” What should be happening ? Echoing an Obamaesque message of hope , Powell suggested that , from an early age , Americans should grow up learning that `` it is not right to hate in this country . '' Instead , they are watching a bully in chief . `` This is a country of love . This is a country of kindness . This is a country that we reach out to each other , and we reach out to the rest of the world , '' the former secretary of state said . `` And the rest of the world is expecting that of us , and they 're seeing less and less of it . '' One of the things that the rest of the world is seeing in place of said outreach is Trump attacking the media , whom he has dubbed as `` the enemy of the people . '' “ How can a president of the United States get up and say that the media is the enemy of Americans ? Hasn ’ t he read the First Amendment ? '' Powell asked . `` You ’ re not supposed to like everything the press says or what anyone says in the First Amendment , that ’ s why we have a First Amendment , to protect that kind of speech . '' The world is also witnessing the president constantly insulting people , and Powell said he hopes that Trump would come to the realization that he needs to stop mocking African-Americans , woman , immigrants , our allies around the globe and even fellow candidates on stage during presidential debates . `` The world is watching , and they can not believe we 're doing things like separating mothers and children who are trying to get across the border from south of our border , immigrants , '' he said . “ They can ’ t believe that we ’ re making such an effort to cease immigration coming into the country — it ’ s what ’ s kept us alive . ''

In a blistering rebuke, a former secretary of state from a Republican administration admitted that he does not know if President Donald Trump could be a moral leader for the world, because "right now that is not the way he is acting." “Let me give you an example," Colin Powell said on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. "My favorite three words in our Constitution [are] the first three words: ‘We the People.'" “'We the People,” the first secretary of state to serve in the George W. Bush administration again said, repeating the prior phrase for emphasis. "But recently, it’s become ‘Me the President’ as opposed to ‘We the People.’ And you see things that should not be happening.” Advertisement: What should be happening? Echoing an Obamaesque message of hope, Powell suggested that, from an early age, Americans should grow up learning that "it is not right to hate in this country." Instead, they are watching a bully in chief. "This is a country of love. This is a country of kindness. This is a country that we reach out to each other, and we reach out to the rest of the world," the former secretary of state said. "And the rest of the world is expecting that of us, and they're seeing less and less of it." One of the things that the rest of the world is seeing in place of said outreach is Trump attacking the media, whom he has dubbed as "the enemy of the people." “How can a president of the United States get up and say that the media is the enemy of Americans? Hasn’t he read the First Amendment?" Powell asked. "You’re not supposed to like everything the press says or what anyone says in the First Amendment, that’s why we have a First Amendment, to protect that kind of speech." The world is also witnessing the president constantly insulting people, and Powell said he hopes that Trump would come to the realization that he needs to stop mocking African-Americans, woman, immigrants, our allies around the globe and even fellow candidates on stage during presidential debates. "The world is watching, and they cannot believe we're doing things like separating mothers and children who are trying to get across the border from south of our border, immigrants," he said. “They can’t believe that we’re making such an effort to cease immigration coming into the country — it’s what’s kept us alive."

www.salon.com

left

nlOE1uW6ymggHFux

test

CB6mWqfETlUBEUZ4

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/17/sanders-if-trump-has-guts-to-stand-up-to-corporate-america-he-will-have-an-ally-with-me/

Sanders: If Trump Has ‘Guts’ to Stand Up to Corporate America ‘He Will Have an Ally With Me’

2016-11-17

Jeff Poor

Thursday at the Christian Monitor Science breakfast in Washington , D.C. , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) explained the one area where he could find some agreement with President-elect Donald Trump , which is in the area of how to handle corporate America . Sanders criticized corporations exporting jobs overseas to lower costs to the detriment of the middle class and the working class in the United States and said if Trump indeed has the “ guts ” to take on those corporations , he would have an ally with Sanders . “ [ T ] hey think they can save some money in Indiana by moving to Mexico and hiring people there for $ 3 a hour , ” Sanders said . “ I will do everything I can to stop those types of transactions . And in that area , I look forward to working with Mr. Trump to tell corporate America you know what ? You can not keep running all over the world whether it is China or Vietnam or God knows where searching for the cheapest possible labor where you destroy the middle class or the working class of this country . So I do look forward to coming up with ideas to tell corporate America this and the tariff may well be one of them – may well be one of those options . ” “ But I think corporate America , which is doing phenomenally well by and large , large corporations are making huge profits , ” he continued . “ They ’ re stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands . In a given year the corporations like General Electric and others will not pay a nickel in the federal corporate tax . That it is absurd . And if Mr. Trump has the guts to stand up to those corporations , demand that they start paying their fair share of taxes , demanded that they create jobs and protect jobs in America and protect jobs in America , he will have an ally with me . ”

Thursday at the Christian Monitor Science breakfast in Washington, D.C., Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) explained the one area where he could find some agreement with President-elect Donald Trump, which is in the area of how to handle corporate America. Sanders criticized corporations exporting jobs overseas to lower costs to the detriment of the middle class and the working class in the United States and said if Trump indeed has the “guts” to take on those corporations, he would have an ally with Sanders. “[T]hey think they can save some money in Indiana by moving to Mexico and hiring people there for $3 a hour,” Sanders said. “I will do everything I can to stop those types of transactions. And in that area, I look forward to working with Mr. Trump to tell corporate America you know what? You cannot keep running all over the world whether it is China or Vietnam or God knows where searching for the cheapest possible labor where you destroy the middle class or the working class of this country. So I do look forward to coming up with ideas to tell corporate America this and the tariff may well be one of them – may well be one of those options.” “But I think corporate America, which is doing phenomenally well by and large, large corporations are making huge profits,” he continued. “They’re stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands. In a given year the corporations like General Electric and others will not pay a nickel in the federal corporate tax. That it is absurd. And if Mr. Trump has the guts to stand up to those corporations, demand that they start paying their fair share of taxes, demanded that they create jobs and protect jobs in America and protect jobs in America, he will have an ally with me.” Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

www.breitbart.com

right

CB6mWqfETlUBEUZ4

test

0z1eghHeTnsRzko9

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/11/cnn-walks-back-jeff-sessions-russia-bombshell/

Collapsing News Network: Another Day, Another CNN 'Bombshell' Is Proven To Be A Nothing-Burger

2017-12-11

CNN has quietly walked back more of their “ bombshell ” reporting on the Trump-Russia collusion narrative , and this time it ’ s a story relating to Attorney General Jeff Sessions ’ security clearance forms . In May , CNN reported that Sessions had failed to disclose meetings he had with the Russian ambassador when he was a senator . Justice Department officials told CNN that Sessions had not listed those meetings on a security clearance form , even though the form says to list “ any contact ” with the “ foreign government ” or its “ representatives ” in the past seven years . CNN framed the non-disclosures as more evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump team , writing , “ He has come under withering criticism from Democrats following revelations that he did not disclose the same contacts with Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this year . ” At the time , Sessions said he was told by the FBI not to list meetings “ connected with his Senate activities , ” but CNN ’ s legal expert denied those claims . “ A legal expert who regularly assists officials in filling out the form disagrees with the Justice Department ’ s explanation , suggesting that Sessions should have disclosed the meetings , ” CNN asserted . The CNN report led to breathless coverage by the rest of the legacy media , who painted the non-disclosures as a Trump official trying to hide problematic meetings with the Russians . However , CNN admitted early Monday that FBI emails prove that Sessions ’ explanation for the non-disclosures is accurate . “ A newly released document shows that the FBI told an aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Sessions wasn ’ t required to disclose foreign contacts that occurred in the course of carrying out his government duties when he was a senator , ” CNN ’ s Evan Perez wrote in the new piece . Monday ’ s article indicates that Sessions was following what the FBI told him and was not intentionally trying to mislead the DOJ about his meetings with Russians . Just this past Friday , CNN had to correct another “ bombshell ” report that claimed Donald Trump Jr. had advance access to Wikileaks documents stolen from the Democrats . ( RELATED : CNN Doesn ’ t Want To Talk About Its Colossal Don Jr. Screwup )

CNN has quietly walked back more of their “bombshell” reporting on the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, and this time it’s a story relating to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ security clearance forms. In May, CNN reported that Sessions had failed to disclose meetings he had with the Russian ambassador when he was a senator. Justice Department officials told CNN that Sessions had not listed those meetings on a security clearance form, even though the form says to list “any contact” with the “foreign government” or its “representatives” in the past seven years. CNN framed the non-disclosures as more evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump team, writing, “He has come under withering criticism from Democrats following revelations that he did not disclose the same contacts with Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this year.” At the time, Sessions said he was told by the FBI not to list meetings “connected with his Senate activities,” but CNN’s legal expert denied those claims. “A legal expert who regularly assists officials in filling out the form disagrees with the Justice Department’s explanation, suggesting that Sessions should have disclosed the meetings,” CNN asserted. The CNN report led to breathless coverage by the rest of the legacy media, who painted the non-disclosures as a Trump official trying to hide problematic meetings with the Russians. However, CNN admitted early Monday that FBI emails prove that Sessions’ explanation for the non-disclosures is accurate. WATCH: “A newly released document shows that the FBI told an aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Sessions wasn’t required to disclose foreign contacts that occurred in the course of carrying out his government duties when he was a senator,” CNN’s Evan Perez wrote in the new piece. Monday’s article indicates that Sessions was following what the FBI told him and was not intentionally trying to mislead the DOJ about his meetings with Russians. Just this past Friday, CNN had to correct another “bombshell” report that claimed Donald Trump Jr. had advance access to Wikileaks documents stolen from the Democrats. (RELATED: CNN Doesn’t Want To Talk About Its Colossal Don Jr. Screwup) Follow Amber on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

0z1eghHeTnsRzko9

test

PWYu0gkL7IDeJE1K

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/12/20/tnr-media-matters-seeks-new-identity-in-post-clinton-world/

Media Matters Seeks New Identity in Post-Clinton World

2016-12-20

The allegiance to the Clintons has always sat uncomfortably beside Media Matters ’ s ostensible goal of holding media accountable . Any journalist on Twitter knows that even mild criticisms of Clinton would almost instantaneously raise the hackles of some Media Matters staffer , giving the distinct impression that the whole project was about protecting Clinton from unflattering press rather than ensuring journalistic integrity . But Media Matters depended heavily on its association with the Clintons . Brock , a formerly conservative journalist who wrote a biography of Clinton that portrayed her as a hardcore leftist Lady Macbeth , has always been an object of suspicion among liberals , his conversion reeking of snake oil . His elevated stature in the world of Democratic politics comes not from any deep roots in liberalism , but the fact that the Clintons blessed his enterprise . That Media Matters both checks conservative media and protects the Clintons has been instrumental in Brock ’ s ability to raise money for his nonprofit empire , which also includes the website Shareblue ( formerly Blue Nation Review ) and the super PACs Correct the Record and American Bridge . ( Brock did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story . ) In our numerous conversations with past Media Matters staff , there was a consensus that in the lead-up to Clinton ’ s announcement of her candidacy in 2015 , the organization ’ s priority shifted away from the mission stated on its website— “ comprehensively monitoring , analyzing , and correcting conservative misinformation ” —and towards running defense for Clinton . The former staffers we spoke to largely felt that this damaged Media Matters ’ s credibility and hurt the work it did in other areas . “ The closer we got to the 2016 election the less it became about actually debunking conservative misinformation and more it became about just defending Hillary Clinton from every blogger in their mother ’ s basement , ” one former staffer told us . This was , moreover , a repeat of what Media Matters did in 2008 , when there was a rift between staffers and management over the favoring of Clinton in her race against then-Senator Barack Obama . In March of 2015 , The New York Times broke the news about Clinton ’ s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state , which in retrospect turned out to be the most damaging story of the entire campaign . In response , Media Matters flooded its site with posts attempting to counter the narrative that was quickly forming—that Clinton had broken the rules and had something to hide . “ It was all hands on deck , ” one former staffer said . “ Everyone was just supposed to be looking out for Clinton stuff all the time. ” Left unaddressed was whether the story itself was guilty of conservative misinformation . Employees were asked to stay late or work on the weekends specifically to cover Clinton , which many felt came at the expense of other stories and the organization ’ s mission . Nearly every former staffer we spoke to felt that researchers , in particular , were underpaid and overworked , and that these problems often surfaced when they were forced to work on stories they felt were dubious . As one former staffer described it , “ They were paying me $ 35,000 a year to watch Fox all the time and to do rotating shifts where I ’ d have to change from a day shift to a night shift every two weeks . It was just a miserable job . ”

From The New Republic: The allegiance to the Clintons has always sat uncomfortably beside Media Matters’s ostensible goal of holding media accountable. Any journalist on Twitter knows that even mild criticisms of Clinton would almost instantaneously raise the hackles of some Media Matters staffer, giving the distinct impression that the whole project was about protecting Clinton from unflattering press rather than ensuring journalistic integrity. But Media Matters depended heavily on its association with the Clintons. Brock, a formerly conservative journalist who wrote a biography of Clinton that portrayed her as a hardcore leftist Lady Macbeth, has always been an object of suspicion among liberals, his conversion reeking of snake oil. His elevated stature in the world of Democratic politics comes not from any deep roots in liberalism, but the fact that the Clintons blessed his enterprise. That Media Matters both checks conservative media and protects the Clintons has been instrumental in Brock’s ability to raise money for his nonprofit empire, which also includes the website Shareblue (formerly Blue Nation Review) and the super PACs Correct the Record and American Bridge. (Brock did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.) … In our numerous conversations with past Media Matters staff, there was a consensus that in the lead-up to Clinton’s announcement of her candidacy in 2015, the organization’s priority shifted away from the mission stated on its website—“comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation”—and towards running defense for Clinton. The former staffers we spoke to largely felt that this damaged Media Matters’s credibility and hurt the work it did in other areas. “The closer we got to the 2016 election the less it became about actually debunking conservative misinformation and more it became about just defending Hillary Clinton from every blogger in their mother’s basement,” one former staffer told us. This was, moreover, a repeat of what Media Matters did in 2008, when there was a rift between staffers and management over the favoring of Clinton in her race against then-Senator Barack Obama. … In March of 2015, The New York Times broke the news about Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state, which in retrospect turned out to be the most damaging story of the entire campaign. In response, Media Matters flooded its site with posts attempting to counter the narrative that was quickly forming—that Clinton had broken the rules and had something to hide. “It was all hands on deck,” one former staffer said. “Everyone was just supposed to be looking out for Clinton stuff all the time.” Left unaddressed was whether the story itself was guilty of conservative misinformation. Employees were asked to stay late or work on the weekends specifically to cover Clinton, which many felt came at the expense of other stories and the organization’s mission. Nearly every former staffer we spoke to felt that researchers, in particular, were underpaid and overworked, and that these problems often surfaced when they were forced to work on stories they felt were dubious. As one former staffer described it, “They were paying me $35,000 a year to watch Fox all the time and to do rotating shifts where I’d have to change from a day shift to a night shift every two weeks. It was just a miserable job.”

www.breitbart.com

right

PWYu0gkL7IDeJE1K

test

x7tYbL3vLw8N6l0D

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/19/trump-russia-the-promise-scandal-proof

Trump diehards dismiss Russia scandal: 'Show me the proof – or get off his case'

2017-05-19

Tom Mccarthy

Nobody really knows what Donald Trump ’ s supporters would do if the president really did stand in the middle of New York ’ s Fifth Avenue and shoot someone . For now , the president has merely fired the director of the FBI and been saddled with a special counsel investigating possible links between his 2016 campaign and an alleged Russian effort to interfere in the election . And it ’ s very clear what most Trump supporters in one county in Pennsylvania think of that . “ It ’ s all bullshit , ” said Joe Conicelli , a merchant selling artisanal peanut butter at the weekly farmers ’ market in Bethlehem . Conicelli grew up in the area and said he had been with Trump “ all the way ” . “ Let the guy do his thing , then judge him , ” Conicelli said . “ The Democrats wanted him out three months ago , so what ’ s the difference ? It ’ s just bullshit . ” Over five months for our series The Promise , ███ has been interviewing Trump supporters in Northampton County , Pennsylvania , a former manufacturing giant and Democratic stronghold that voted twice for Barack Obama before falling for Trump . No previous setback in the Trump presidency – not the fumbled travel ban , the stumble on health care reform or the fall of national security adviser Michael Flynn – had seemed to shake Trump support here , where many Democrats switched parties to back the only candidate that excited them . But what about the avalanche of dire headlines that began with the firing of James Comey ? Trump may have famously claimed he could shoot someone and still not lose voters , but have the woes which beset him on all sides begun to challenge his most extravagant declaration ? It ’ s plain sabotage , Trump backers said on Thursday , echoing a line put out by the president ’ s campaign machine earlier this week . “ They ’ re gon na pick on him because he won , ” said Sandy Emrich , manager of the Trolley Shop restaurant in East Bangor . “ The Democrats are making it that way . He didn ’ t do anything any other president didn ’ t do . ” Emrich was slinging plates around a table of regulars who could not have agreed more . “ Let the man do his job , ” said Jeffrey Manzi , a retiree . “ If there ’ s something wrong , bring it out . Bring it out . Otherwise let the man alone . It ’ s , like , non-stop . It ’ s crazy . ” “ As far as impeachment , I don ’ t believe it , ” said John Picard , a carpenter . “ No one has shown me any evidence at all . Nothing . Show me something . Show me the proof . Or get off his case . ” “ This Russian thing , I think that ’ s stupid , ” said Joan Hallett , who owns the place with her husband . “ We didn ’ t vote because the Russians tried to change our opinions . They don ’ t realize that the people were tired of Obama . And they wanted a change . ” “ If they ’ d leave him alone and quit contriving stuff against him , he ’ d do a hell of a job , ” said John Griffin , a retired elevator technician . “ If they get rid of this contrived stuff , he ’ d be a hell of a president . ” “ I mean if he goes to the bathroom , he did it the wrong way , ” said Anthony DeFranco , a general contractor . “ If he has two scoops of ice cream , they say he ’ s a pig . ” It was above 90F and a day to look for shade . Russell Frantz , who said he was tired of politics , cooled his heels on a friend ’ s porch in Ackermanville . At at an estate auction in Bethlehem , about 40 people congregated under ash and fruit trees to bid a dollar or two apiece on old furniture , tools , baskets and scrap metal . “ I predict that Trump will be going down , ” said Sam Richie , 69 , a retired government worker , carrying a carton of motor oil back to his truck . “ He will be leaving office , literally in probably weeks or months . ” Northampton voted for Trump by four points despite decades of voting for Democrats at every level of the ballot , thanks to the powerful steel union and the predominance of blue-collar industry . Those who went for Trump may be staunch , but this area has a tradition of Democratic support . In his “ young and foolish ” days , Richie said , he had been a Republican , but his opinion of his neighbors who voted for Trump was low . “ Now they got what they bought , ” Richie said . “ The guy ’ s been nothing but a disaster from day one . He ’ s done everything that is repulsive in our society , and people are standing by him . “ He ’ s nothing but an orangutan . He has the mind of a four-year-old . ” The crowd perked up when the auctioneer announced that the family of the deceased had authorized him on the spot to sell the three-bedroom brick and stucco farmhouse . “ Remember , homes are flying off the shelf in the Lehigh Valley , ” he said . The house sold in five minutes for $ 125,000 , after an initial bid of $ 106,000 . Breaking off from the surprisingly high-stakes bidding , Gene DeLong , an auction company employee , said of Trump supporters : “ They ’ re diehards . They ’ re diehards . ” DeLong described the political mood in the area before the election as “ violent ” . “ I went to the chiropractor one day , and he said , you know , yesterday a patient came in , a heavy man , a big man , he was crying , ” DeLong said . “ He said , ‘ I had a physical fight with my brother-in-law over the election . We fought ! ’ And he screwed his back up and he had to go to the chiropractor . “ This is my opinion . The faster they do away with the separate parties , the better off we will be . ” Here was a point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans . Suggestions to discard the two-party system sprang spontaneously from both sides . “ I think you need one party , ” said Picard , back at the diner . “ Just one , that ’ s it . You vote for who you want , and they do their job , or they get out . ” Larry Hallett , Joan ’ s husband , used to teach prophecy classes , in addition to many other pursuits . “ I ’ d like to see it work out to where he had some support from both sides , and everybody begin to come together , ” Hallett said . “ If that happened , Biblically , that would hold back antichrist for awhile . It ’ s as simple as that . ” In Washington on Thursday , Trump called the investigation of his presidential campaign a “ witch hunt ” and said the appointment of a special counsel was a “ very negative thing ” that “ hurts our country terribly because it shows we ’ re a divided , mixed-up , not unified country . ” But Trump supporters in Northampton County saw the special counsel as possibly a positive development , if the process served to lay the larger controversy to rest . “ I don ’ t think he was needed , but if it ’ s going to settle the issue once and for all , it might be worth it , ” DeFranco , the contractor who is also a township supervisor , said of a special counsel . “ But if they ’ re going to spend $ 40m or $ 50m on it like they did with Ken Starr back in the day , it ’ s just a waste of time . ” “ I hope he gets a lot of help from the Democrats someday , ” Picard , the contractor , said . “ We need this country to get back together . And it ’ s so far down a hole , we need for it to be taken out . And that man , I believe , can do it . ” Asked to mention any setback which they would count as a strike against the president , Trump supporters offered positive reviews , particularly on news this week that immigration and customs enforcement had apparently stepped up arrests . The guy ’ s been nothing but a disaster from day one . He ’ s done everything that is repulsive in our society Sam Richie , retired “ I want – in all honesty I want all the illegals out , ” said Emrich , the manager . “ I want what ’ s given , my right to be an American – my right . I want to be first in line . If I need help , I want to be first , not somebody who doesn ’ t belong here . ” “ Why do people think that they are entitled to healthcare free ? ” said Griffin . “ Somebody ’ s got to go to work . ” Picard said the sudden support among Republicans in Congress for the appointment of special counsel to take charge of the Russian investigations was evidence of their weakness in the face of bad media coverage . “ They have to listen to their constituents , and their constituents are afraid , ” Picard said . “ The news is bad all the time , the guy ’ s never doing nothing right according to the news . ” But as Trump sets out for his first global tour as president , leaving behind a sea of troubles , his supporters remain ready to defend and excuse him . “ He ’ s a human being . Little mistakes are made , different words are used – and everybody does it . As far as I can see , he ’ s trying the dickens to do a good job . ”

Nobody really knows what Donald Trump’s supporters would do if the president really did stand in the middle of New York’s Fifth Avenue and shoot someone. For now, the president has merely fired the director of the FBI and been saddled with a special counsel investigating possible links between his 2016 campaign and an alleged Russian effort to interfere in the election. And it’s very clear what most Trump supporters in one county in Pennsylvania think of that. “It’s all bullshit,” said Joe Conicelli, a merchant selling artisanal peanut butter at the weekly farmers’ market in Bethlehem. Conicelli grew up in the area and said he had been with Trump “all the way”. “Let the guy do his thing, then judge him,” Conicelli said. “The Democrats wanted him out three months ago, so what’s the difference? It’s just bullshit.” Over five months for our series The Promise, the Guardian has been interviewing Trump supporters in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, a former manufacturing giant and Democratic stronghold that voted twice for Barack Obama before falling for Trump. No previous setback in the Trump presidency – not the fumbled travel ban, the stumble on health care reform or the fall of national security adviser Michael Flynn – had seemed to shake Trump support here, where many Democrats switched parties to back the only candidate that excited them. But what about the avalanche of dire headlines that began with the firing of James Comey? Trump may have famously claimed he could shoot someone and still not lose voters, but have the woes which beset him on all sides begun to challenge his most extravagant declaration? It’s plain sabotage, Trump backers said on Thursday, echoing a line put out by the president’s campaign machine earlier this week. “They’re gonna pick on him because he won,” said Sandy Emrich, manager of the Trolley Shop restaurant in East Bangor. “The Democrats are making it that way. He didn’t do anything any other president didn’t do.” Emrich was slinging plates around a table of regulars who could not have agreed more. “Let the man do his job,” said Jeffrey Manzi, a retiree. “If there’s something wrong, bring it out. Bring it out. Otherwise let the man alone. It’s, like, non-stop. It’s crazy.” “As far as impeachment, I don’t believe it,” said John Picard, a carpenter. “No one has shown me any evidence at all. Nothing. Show me something. Show me the proof. Or get off his case.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Northampton County resident Russell Frantz cools off on the porch. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian “This Russian thing, I think that’s stupid,” said Joan Hallett, who owns the place with her husband. “We didn’t vote because the Russians tried to change our opinions. They don’t realize that the people were tired of Obama. And they wanted a change.” “If they’d leave him alone and quit contriving stuff against him, he’d do a hell of a job,” said John Griffin, a retired elevator technician. “If they get rid of this contrived stuff, he’d be a hell of a president.” “I mean if he goes to the bathroom, he did it the wrong way,” said Anthony DeFranco, a general contractor. “If he has two scoops of ice cream, they say he’s a pig.” ‘Now they got what they bought’ It was above 90F and a day to look for shade. Russell Frantz, who said he was tired of politics, cooled his heels on a friend’s porch in Ackermanville. At at an estate auction in Bethlehem, about 40 people congregated under ash and fruit trees to bid a dollar or two apiece on old furniture, tools, baskets and scrap metal. “I predict that Trump will be going down,” said Sam Richie, 69, a retired government worker, carrying a carton of motor oil back to his truck. “He will be leaving office, literally in probably weeks or months.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Sam Richie, 69, retired, after an estate sale in Bethlehem. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian Northampton voted for Trump by four points despite decades of voting for Democrats at every level of the ballot, thanks to the powerful steel union and the predominance of blue-collar industry. Those who went for Trump may be staunch, but this area has a tradition of Democratic support. In his “young and foolish” days, Richie said, he had been a Republican, but his opinion of his neighbors who voted for Trump was low. “Now they got what they bought,” Richie said. “The guy’s been nothing but a disaster from day one. He’s done everything that is repulsive in our society, and people are standing by him. “He’s nothing but an orangutan. He has the mind of a four-year-old.” The crowd perked up when the auctioneer announced that the family of the deceased had authorized him on the spot to sell the three-bedroom brick and stucco farmhouse. “Remember, homes are flying off the shelf in the Lehigh Valley,” he said. The house sold in five minutes for $125,000, after an initial bid of $106,000. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A wooden sign of praying hands for the military in Ackermanville. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian Breaking off from the surprisingly high-stakes bidding, Gene DeLong, an auction company employee, said of Trump supporters: “They’re diehards. They’re diehards.” DeLong described the political mood in the area before the election as “violent”. “I went to the chiropractor one day, and he said, you know, yesterday a patient came in, a heavy man, a big man, he was crying,” DeLong said. “He said, ‘I had a physical fight with my brother-in-law over the election. We fought!’ And he screwed his back up and he had to go to the chiropractor. “This is my opinion. The faster they do away with the separate parties, the better off we will be.” Here was a point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans. Suggestions to discard the two-party system sprang spontaneously from both sides. “I think you need one party,” said Picard, back at the diner. “Just one, that’s it. You vote for who you want, and they do their job, or they get out.” Larry Hallett, Joan’s husband, used to teach prophecy classes, in addition to many other pursuits. “I’d like to see it work out to where he had some support from both sides, and everybody begin to come together,” Hallett said. “If that happened, Biblically, that would hold back antichrist for awhile. It’s as simple as that.” ‘We need this country to get back together’ In Washington on Thursday, Trump called the investigation of his presidential campaign a “witch hunt” and said the appointment of a special counsel was a “very negative thing” that “hurts our country terribly because it shows we’re a divided, mixed-up, not unified country.” But Trump supporters in Northampton County saw the special counsel as possibly a positive development, if the process served to lay the larger controversy to rest. “I don’t think he was needed, but if it’s going to settle the issue once and for all, it might be worth it,” DeFranco, the contractor who is also a township supervisor, said of a special counsel. “But if they’re going to spend $40m or $50m on it like they did with Ken Starr back in the day, it’s just a waste of time.” “I hope he gets a lot of help from the Democrats someday,” Picard, the contractor, said. “We need this country to get back together. And it’s so far down a hole, we need for it to be taken out. And that man, I believe, can do it.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest A man carries a chair purchased from an estate sale in Bethlehem. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian Asked to mention any setback which they would count as a strike against the president, Trump supporters offered positive reviews, particularly on news this week that immigration and customs enforcement had apparently stepped up arrests. The guy’s been nothing but a disaster from day one. He’s done everything that is repulsive in our society Sam Richie, retired “I want – in all honesty I want all the illegals out,” said Emrich, the manager. “I want what’s given, my right to be an American – my right. I want to be first in line. If I need help, I want to be first, not somebody who doesn’t belong here.” “Why do people think that they are entitled to healthcare free?” said Griffin. “Somebody’s got to go to work.” Picard said the sudden support among Republicans in Congress for the appointment of special counsel to take charge of the Russian investigations was evidence of their weakness in the face of bad media coverage. “They have to listen to their constituents, and their constituents are afraid,” Picard said. “The news is bad all the time, the guy’s never doing nothing right according to the news.” But as Trump sets out for his first global tour as president, leaving behind a sea of troubles, his supporters remain ready to defend and excuse him. “He’s a human being. Little mistakes are made, different words are used – and everybody does it. As far as I can see, he’s trying the dickens to do a good job.” Sign up for regular email dispatches throughout the year to hear from Tom and the people of Northampton County

www.theguardian.com

left

x7tYbL3vLw8N6l0D

test

GhsrXFWqczHdfLEz

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/17/gop-senator-sequester-is-going-to-happen/?hpt=po_c1

GOP senator: Sequester is going to happen

2013-02-17

( CNN ) – Republican Sen. John Barrasso said Sunday the country should be prepared for the sequester and its massive spending cuts to kick in next month , despite Democrats ' proposal last week to avert it . `` Let me be very clear - and I 'd say this to the president as I say it to you - these spending cuts are going to go through on March 1 , '' the senator from Wyoming said on CNN 's `` State of the Union . '' The across-the-board cuts aimed to reduce the deficit by $ 1.2 trillion over the next decade were supposed to be triggered at the beginning of the year . In the scaled-back fiscal cliff bill , however , Congress managed to postpone the cuts by two months . With less than two weeks to go , lawmakers face another countdown before the largely dreaded cuts are scheduled to begin . Senate Democrats on Thursday proposed a $ 110 billion measure to once again delay the cuts . Democrats want to replace the budget cuts , which Pentagon officials say will have drastic effects on the military , with a combination of increased tax revenue from millionaires through the closing of loopholes , ending agriculture subsidies , and reducing defense spending after the war in Afghanistan ends . But Barrasso , along with other Republicans in the Senate , was not so pleased with the proposal , especially the provision dealing with tax revenue . `` Taxes are off the table , '' he told CNN 's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley . `` The American people need to know tax cuts are off the table and the Republican Party is not in any way going to trade spending cuts for a tax increase . '' The senator said there are `` much better ways to do these budget cuts , '' though he did not mention specific proposals . President Barack Obama vowed during his re-election campaign that the sequester will not happen , and he called on Congress earlier this month to pass a short-term measure to put off the cuts . But when his chief of staff , Denis McDonough , was questioned about it Sunday morning , McDonough sounded less certain the sequester would be prevented . `` I sure hope it does n't ( happen ) , '' he said on NBC 's `` Meet the Press . '' To `` ensure '' the cuts do n't take place , McDonough said , the president `` will continue to make very reasonable and balanced proposals , as he has time and time again . '' Meanwhile , Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York sounded optimistic about the issue . `` I think that Democrats have the high ground both substantively and politically and we will win on this issue , '' he said on `` State of the Union . '' He argued Republicans have no choice but to `` come on board . '' `` Their arguments are untenable and do n't meet the favor of hardly anyone other than themselves and the few whose special interests they 're protecting , '' he added . Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET . For the latest from State of the Union click here .

7 years ago (CNN) – Republican Sen. John Barrasso said Sunday the country should be prepared for the sequester and its massive spending cuts to kick in next month, despite Democrats' proposal last week to avert it. "Let me be very clear - and I'd say this to the president as I say it to you - these spending cuts are going to go through on March 1," the senator from Wyoming said on CNN's "State of the Union." Follow @politicalticker The across-the-board cuts aimed to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next decade were supposed to be triggered at the beginning of the year. In the scaled-back fiscal cliff bill, however, Congress managed to postpone the cuts by two months. With less than two weeks to go, lawmakers face another countdown before the largely dreaded cuts are scheduled to begin. Senate Democrats on Thursday proposed a $110 billion measure to once again delay the cuts. Democrats want to replace the budget cuts, which Pentagon officials say will have drastic effects on the military, with a combination of increased tax revenue from millionaires through the closing of loopholes, ending agriculture subsidies, and reducing defense spending after the war in Afghanistan ends. But Barrasso, along with other Republicans in the Senate, was not so pleased with the proposal, especially the provision dealing with tax revenue. "Taxes are off the table," he told CNN's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. "The American people need to know tax cuts are off the table and the Republican Party is not in any way going to trade spending cuts for a tax increase." The senator said there are "much better ways to do these budget cuts," though he did not mention specific proposals. President Barack Obama vowed during his re-election campaign that the sequester will not happen, and he called on Congress earlier this month to pass a short-term measure to put off the cuts. But when his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, was questioned about it Sunday morning, McDonough sounded less certain the sequester would be prevented. "I sure hope it doesn't (happen)," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." To "ensure" the cuts don't take place, McDonough said, the president "will continue to make very reasonable and balanced proposals, as he has time and time again." Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York sounded optimistic about the issue. "I think that Democrats have the high ground both substantively and politically and we will win on this issue," he said on "State of the Union." He argued Republicans have no choice but to "come on board." "Their arguments are untenable and don't meet the favor of hardly anyone other than themselves and the few whose special interests they're protecting," he added. - CNN's Ted Barrett and Tom Cohen contributed to this report. Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

GhsrXFWqczHdfLEz

test

FaRyZmpvXBPb8zfo

race_and_racism

ABC News (Online)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-redskins-change-years-backlash/story?id=71744369&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed

NFL's Washington Redskins to change name following years of backlash

Abc News, Rosa Sanchez

NFL 's Washington Redskins to change name following years of backlash The team has not released what the new name will be . The NFL 's Washington Redskins have decided to change their team name . `` On July 3rd we announced the commencement of a thorough review of the team 's name ... Today , we are announcing we will be retiring the Redskins name and logo upon completion of this review , '' the team said in a statement on Monday . The team has not released what the name is being changed to -- the team said owner Dan Synder and coach Ron Rivera will `` develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud , tradition rich franchise and inspire our sponsors , fans and community for the next 100 years . '' The decision comes amid the Black Lives Matter movement -- which has sparked a cultural awakening -- and after decades of debate over its name and logo , which many say are offensive towards Native Americans . `` July 13 , 2020 is now a historic day for all Indigenous peoples around the world as the NFL Washington-based team officially announced the retirement of the racist and disparaging 'Redskins ' team name and logo , '' the Navajo Nation said in a statement after the decision was announced . `` For generations , this team name and logo has misrepresented the true history and events that define the term 'redskins . ' '' Snyder , who bought the team in 1999 , previously said the team would `` never '' change its name , and argued that it actually honored Native Americans . But in a statement last week , he announced they would consider changing their name `` in light of recent events around our country and feedback from our community . '' `` This process allows the team to take into account not only the proud tradition and history of the franchise but also input from our alumni , the organization , sponsors , the and the local community it is proud to represent on and off the field , '' he added after receiving pressure from FedEx , which owns the naming rights to the stadium where the team plays in Landover , Maryland . But FedEx was n't the only corporate sponsor who supported the change . Nike and PepsiCo also followed suit , with Nike allegedly removing all of the Washington team 's merchandise from their online store . According to Adweek , 87 investment firms and shareholders asked the three companies to terminate their relationship with the organization unless it changed their name . Washington is not the only sports team that considered a name change following complaints about cultural appropriation . The Cleveland Indians baseball team is also conducting a review about whether to change its name -- the team removed their former mascot , `` Chief Wahoo , '' two years ago amid criticism .. The Atlanta Braves and NHL 's Chicago Blackhawks announced they would not change their team names . President Donald Trump has made it clear he is not behind the name changes . Last week , he tweeted it was a shame that `` two fabled sports franchises , '' were being forced to change their names `` in order to be politically correct . ''

NFL's Washington Redskins to change name following years of backlash The team has not released what the new name will be. The NFL's Washington Redskins have decided to change their team name. "On July 3rd we announced the commencement of a thorough review of the team's name... Today, we are announcing we will be retiring the Redskins name and logo upon completion of this review," the team said in a statement on Monday. The team has not released what the name is being changed to -- the team said owner Dan Synder and coach Ron Rivera will "develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud, tradition rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years." The decision comes amid the Black Lives Matter movement -- which has sparked a cultural awakening -- and after decades of debate over its name and logo, which many say are offensive towards Native Americans. "July 13, 2020 is now a historic day for all Indigenous peoples around the world as the NFL Washington-based team officially announced the retirement of the racist and disparaging 'Redskins' team name and logo," the Navajo Nation said in a statement after the decision was announced. "For generations, this team name and logo has misrepresented the true history and events that define the term 'redskins.'" Snyder, who bought the team in 1999, previously said the team would "never" change its name, and argued that it actually honored Native Americans. But in a statement last week, he announced they would consider changing their name "in light of recent events around our country and feedback from our community." Washington Redskins logo at center field at FedExField in Landover, Md. Patrick Mcdermott/Getty Images, File "This process allows the team to take into account not only the proud tradition and history of the franchise but also input from our alumni, the organization, sponsors, the and the local community it is proud to represent on and off the field," he added after receiving pressure from FedEx, which owns the naming rights to the stadium where the team plays in Landover, Maryland. But FedEx wasn't the only corporate sponsor who supported the change. Nike and PepsiCo also followed suit, with Nike allegedly removing all of the Washington team's merchandise from their online store. According to Adweek, 87 investment firms and shareholders asked the three companies to terminate their relationship with the organization unless it changed their name. Washington is not the only sports team that considered a name change following complaints about cultural appropriation. The Cleveland Indians baseball team is also conducting a review about whether to change its name -- the team removed their former mascot, "Chief Wahoo," two years ago amid criticism.. Fans sit in the stands at FedExField on Nov. 24, 2019 in Landover, Md. Patrick Mcdermott/Getty Images, FILE The Atlanta Braves and NHL's Chicago Blackhawks announced they would not change their team names. President Donald Trump has made it clear he is not behind the name changes. Last week, he tweeted it was a shame that "two fabled sports franchises," were being forced to change their names "in order to be politically correct." ABC News' Victoria Moll Ramirez contributed to this report.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

FaRyZmpvXBPb8zfo

test

i3AYcJxiKdU7pqJ2

nuclear_weapons

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44439700

US: North Korea talks moving 'more quickly than expected'

The US says its discussions with North Korea are moving `` more quickly than expected '' ahead of the summit in Singapore on Tuesday . The preliminary talks between officials have been taking place ahead of the unprecedented first meeting . The White House also confirms that President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un will hold a one-to-one meeting , with only translators present . The outcome may determine the fate of North Korea 's nuclear programme . The US insists it will accept nothing less than complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula . North Korea has said it is willing to commit to denuclearisation , but that term is open to interpretation . It is also unclear what concessions Pyongyang could demand in return - which makes the summit very hard to predict , according to analysts . As night closed in , Mr Kim made a tour of some city sights . He waved at spectators who cheered as he arrived to visit a high-end hotel . Singapore 's Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan also tweeted a picture of them going `` jalan-jalan '' , a local term meaning to go out for a walk , in the Gardens by the Bay park . Mr Kim and Mr Trump are staying in separate hotels , not far from each other . Security is high across the area . For decades , North Korea has been a pariah state , and now its latest hereditary leader is being treated as a world statesman . Last year , it would have been a rare sight to see a North Korean flag flying anywhere in Asia . Now , Mr Kim - who runs a totalitarian regime with extreme censorship and forced-labour camps - is meeting and greeting dignitaries . `` The circus-like atmosphere might be amusing if the stakes were n't so high , '' wrote US campaigning group Human Rights Watch . Mr Balakrishnan , who met Mr Trump and Mr Kim separately on Sunday evening , told the BBC that both leaders were feeling `` supremely confident '' . Mr Trump has said he has a `` good feeling '' about Tuesday 's much-anticipated summit . Earlier in the day , he had lunch with Singapore 's President Lee Hsien Loong and was presented with a cake ahead of his birthday on Thursday . The two leaders will meet on Tuesday at a hotel on Sentosa , a popular tourist island a few hundred metres off the main island of Singapore . According to the White House , this is the plan for the summit : Mr Trump and Mr Kim initial greetings ( 09:00 local time ; 01:00 GMT ) There was speculation that the summit might continue into a second day , however Mr Trump is now scheduled to leave Singapore on Tuesday evening . Mr Kim is reported to be flying out even earlier , at 14:00 local time . Highly unusually , North Korea 's state-run media are already reporting on Mr Kim 's trip to Singapore to meet Mr Trump . As a rule , they would only report on the leader 's movements after the event . An editorial in the Rodong Sinmun news outlet also talked about a `` new relationship '' with the US . US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the president was fully prepared for the meeting . He said the US would be satisfied with nothing less than the complete , verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula - with verification the key part of any deal . The US was prepared to offer certainty to North Korea so it could be `` comfortable that denuclearisation is n't something that ends badly for them '' . He would not be drawn on what might be on offer . The two leaders have had an extraordinary up-and-down relationship over the past 18 months . Mr Trump 's first year in office was marked by bitter exchanges between himself and Mr Kim - as North Korea conducted several ballistic missile tests in defiance of the international community . The US president successfully sought to tighten UN sanctions on the North , and to get its traditional ally , China , to go along . He also famously vowed to unleash `` fire and fury '' if Pyongyang kept threatening the US . Mr Kim has called him `` mentally deranged '' and a `` dotard '' . A defiant North Korea carried out its sixth nuclear test in September 2017 . Soon after , Mr Kim declared that his country had achieved its mission of becoming a nuclear state , with missiles that could reach the US . In early 2018 , a remarkable turnaround in the relationship occurred . It started with significant diplomatic overtures from North Korea towards South Korea during the Winter Olympics . In March , Mr Trump shocked the world by accepting an invitation from Mr Kim to meet in person .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Kim Jong-un toured the Marina Bay Sands hotel in Singapore The US says its discussions with North Korea are moving "more quickly than expected" ahead of the summit in Singapore on Tuesday. The preliminary talks between officials have been taking place ahead of the unprecedented first meeting. The White House also confirms that President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un will hold a one-to-one meeting, with only translators present. The outcome may determine the fate of North Korea's nuclear programme. The US insists it will accept nothing less than complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. North Korea has said it is willing to commit to denuclearisation, but that term is open to interpretation. It is also unclear what concessions Pyongyang could demand in return - which makes the summit very hard to predict, according to analysts. The night before the big day As night closed in, Mr Kim made a tour of some city sights. He waved at spectators who cheered as he arrived to visit a high-end hotel. Singapore's Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan also tweeted a picture of them going "jalan-jalan", a local term meaning to go out for a walk, in the Gardens by the Bay park. Mr Kim and Mr Trump are staying in separate hotels, not far from each other. Security is high across the area. Why is this remarkable? For decades, North Korea has been a pariah state, and now its latest hereditary leader is being treated as a world statesman. Last year, it would have been a rare sight to see a North Korean flag flying anywhere in Asia. Now, Mr Kim - who runs a totalitarian regime with extreme censorship and forced-labour camps - is meeting and greeting dignitaries. "The circus-like atmosphere might be amusing if the stakes weren't so high," wrote US campaigning group Human Rights Watch. 'Supremely confident' Mr Balakrishnan, who met Mr Trump and Mr Kim separately on Sunday evening, told the BBC that both leaders were feeling "supremely confident". Mr Trump has said he has a "good feeling" about Tuesday's much-anticipated summit. Earlier in the day, he had lunch with Singapore's President Lee Hsien Loong and was presented with a cake ahead of his birthday on Thursday. Image copyright EPA Image caption Mr Trump blowing out the candle on his birthday cake What is the agenda? The two leaders will meet on Tuesday at a hotel on Sentosa, a popular tourist island a few hundred metres off the main island of Singapore. According to the White House, this is the plan for the summit: Mr Trump and Mr Kim initial greetings (09:00 local time; 01:00 GMT) One-to-one meeting Expanded meeting with other representatives Working lunch There was speculation that the summit might continue into a second day, however Mr Trump is now scheduled to leave Singapore on Tuesday evening. Mr Kim is reported to be flying out even earlier, at 14:00 local time. What has North Korea said? Highly unusually, North Korea's state-run media are already reporting on Mr Kim's trip to Singapore to meet Mr Trump. As a rule, they would only report on the leader's movements after the event. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption North Korea's state broadcaster has begun reporting news of the impending Trump Kim summit An editorial in the Rodong Sinmun news outlet also talked about a "new relationship" with the US. What has the US said? US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the president was fully prepared for the meeting. He said the US would be satisfied with nothing less than the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula - with verification the key part of any deal. The US was prepared to offer certainty to North Korea so it could be "comfortable that denuclearisation isn't something that ends badly for them". He would not be drawn on what might be on offer. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What should Donald Trump call Kim Jong-un? How did we get here? The two leaders have had an extraordinary up-and-down relationship over the past 18 months. Mr Trump's first year in office was marked by bitter exchanges between himself and Mr Kim - as North Korea conducted several ballistic missile tests in defiance of the international community. The US president successfully sought to tighten UN sanctions on the North, and to get its traditional ally, China, to go along. He also famously vowed to unleash "fire and fury" if Pyongyang kept threatening the US. Mr Kim has called him "mentally deranged" and a "dotard". A defiant North Korea carried out its sixth nuclear test in September 2017. Soon after, Mr Kim declared that his country had achieved its mission of becoming a nuclear state, with missiles that could reach the US. In early 2018, a remarkable turnaround in the relationship occurred. It started with significant diplomatic overtures from North Korea towards South Korea during the Winter Olympics. In March, Mr Trump shocked the world by accepting an invitation from Mr Kim to meet in person.

www.bbc.com

center

i3AYcJxiKdU7pqJ2

test

lLNsoOMDJ7nyarQP

media_bias

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/how-liberal-media-botched-story-of-incident-between-catholic-teens-and-native-american

How Liberal Media Botched Story of Incident Between Catholic Teens and Native American

2019-01-21

A fuller picture is emerging of a confrontation between a Catholic high school student and a Native American elder at Friday 's March for Life . Nick Sandmann was among a group of fellow students from Kentucky 's Covington Catholic High School attending the march on the National Mall , while Native American Nathan Phillips was also there for a separate rally for indigenous peoples . One video of the encounter shows the students chanting and laughing as Phillips drummed in Sandmann 's face . The footage was shared on social media and went viral , claiming that the boys blocked the Native American so they could taunt him . Liberal media outlets like CNN picked up the story and ran with it , fueling the outrage from leftists who spewed hate against the boys , assuming they were racist because some of them were wearing `` Make America Great Again '' hats . But longer videos of the encounter show the boys standing in that spot for a long period of time before Phillips walked up to them to play his drum right in the middle of their group . `` The protester everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd , which parted for him . I did not see anyone try to block his path , '' Sandmann said , contradicting the Native American elder 's claims that one of the students would n't let him move . `` 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 . '' The students were later condemned for their actions , but Sandmann , who was shown standing in front of Mr. Phillips smiling , says he was only trying to calm things down in the midst of the chaos . The teen explained that by `` remaining motionless and calm , '' he believed he was `` helping defuse the situation . '' `` I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand , '' he wrote . Likewise , Phillips says it was his intent as well to try to calm down things between conflicting groups . `` They were making remarks to each other ... ( such as ) 'In my state those Indians are nothing but a bunch of drunks . ' How do I report that ? '' Phillips said of the students . `` These young people were just roughshodding through our space , like what 's been going on for 500 years here — just walking through our territories , feeling like 'this is ours . ' '' But then on NPR Monday morning , Phillips said he had gone over to calm things down because a group of protesters , whom he compared to a black version of the racist group called the Westboro Baptists , was stoking confrontation . And Sandmann denies the students made derogatory statements , suggesting it was members of that third group affiliated with the Black Hebrew Israelites that were fomenting unrest , allegedly yelling negative statements at both groups . He noted the Black Israelites called he and his fellow students `` racists , '' ″bigots , '' `` white crackers '' and `` incest kids . '' One video also shows them using the `` n '' word , telling an African-American boy who appeared to be with the school group that the white people were going to steal his organs . Meanwhile , Sandmann responded to critics on social media who he says erroneously interpreted his actions as being racist . `` I am being called every name in the book , including a racist , and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family 's name , '' he said . Newly surfaced video shows Native American activist was not `` surrounded '' by # CovingtonCatholic students but instead * approached them * from afar . pic.twitter.com/brHMYpBUJC — Chris Menahan ( @ infolibnews ) January 20 , 2019

A fuller picture is emerging of a confrontation between a Catholic high school student and a Native American elder at Friday's March for Life. Nick Sandmann was among a group of fellow students from Kentucky's Covington Catholic High School attending the march on the National Mall, while Native American Nathan Phillips was also there for a separate rally for indigenous peoples. One video of the encounter shows the students chanting and laughing as Phillips drummed in Sandmann's face. The footage was shared on social media and went viral, claiming that the boys blocked the Native American so they could taunt him. Liberal media outlets like CNN picked up the story and ran with it, fueling the outrage from leftists who spewed hate against the boys, assuming they were racist because some of them were wearing "Make America Great Again" hats. But longer videos of the encounter show the boys standing in that spot for a long period of time before Phillips walked up to them to play his drum right in the middle of their group. "The protester everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path," Sandmann said, contradicting the Native American elder's claims that one of the students wouldn't let him move. "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." The students were later condemned for their actions, but Sandmann, who was shown standing in front of Mr. Phillips smiling, says he was only trying to calm things down in the midst of the chaos. The teen explained that by "remaining motionless and calm," he believed he was "helping defuse the situation." "I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand," he wrote. Likewise, Phillips says it was his intent as well to try to calm down things between conflicting groups. "They were making remarks to each other ... (such as) 'In my state those Indians are nothing but a bunch of drunks.' How do I report that?" Phillips said of the students. "These young people were just roughshodding through our space, like what's been going on for 500 years here — just walking through our territories, feeling like 'this is ours.'" But then on NPR Monday morning, Phillips said he had gone over to calm things down because a group of protesters, whom he compared to a black version of the racist group called the Westboro Baptists, was stoking confrontation. And Sandmann denies the students made derogatory statements, suggesting it was members of that third group affiliated with the Black Hebrew Israelites that were fomenting unrest, allegedly yelling negative statements at both groups. He noted the Black Israelites called he and his fellow students "racists," ″bigots," "white crackers" and "incest kids." One video also shows them using the "n" word, telling an African-American boy who appeared to be with the school group that the white people were going to steal his organs. Meanwhile, Sandmann responded to critics on social media who he says erroneously interpreted his actions as being racist. "I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family's name," he said. Watch the video below: Newly surfaced video shows Native American activist was not "surrounded" by #CovingtonCatholic students but instead *approached them* from afar. pic.twitter.com/brHMYpBUJC — Chris Menahan (@infolibnews) January 20, 2019

www1.cbn.com

right

lLNsoOMDJ7nyarQP

test

2b5eLhs0DkWEDEBA

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/mueller-says-he-could-not-charge-trump-as-congress-weighs-impeachment-idUSKCN1SZ1OC

Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

2019-05-30

Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller said on Wednesday his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election was never going to end with criminal charges against President Donald Trump but he did not clear him and indicated it was up to Congress to decide whether he should be impeached . In his first public comments since starting the investigation in May 2017 , Mueller said Justice Department policy prevented him from bringing charges against a sitting president or filing sealed charges , telling reporters it was “ not an option we would consider . ” But he also said his two-year investigation did not clear Trump of improper behavior and , while he did not use the word “ impeachment , ” he pointed out there were other ways to hold presidents accountable . “ The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing , ” Mueller said as he announced his resignation from the Justice Department . Congressional Democrats are debating whether to try to move ahead with impeachment in the Democratic-majority U.S. House of Representatives , even though the Republican-controlled Senate would be unlikely to complete the process outlined in the U.S. Constitution for removing a president from office by convicting him . The White House and several top Republicans responded to Mueller ’ s comments on Wednesday by saying it was time to move on to other matters , while several candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination , called for impeachment . One candidate , U.S . Senator Kamala Harris , wrote on Twitter : “ What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral . ” Calls to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump have grown among some Democrats , who have been frustrated by White House efforts to thwart congressional subpoenas seeking records and testimony related to the Russia investigation and other matters related to Trump and his family . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been more cautious and is arguing that lawmakers should push ahead with their investigations before deciding whether to impeach Trump . On Wednesday she said she was sticking with that plan . “ Nothing is off the table , but we do want to make such a compelling case , such an ironclad case , that even the Republican Senate , which at the time seems to be not an objective jury , will be convinced of the path that we have to take as a country , ” she said at a San Francisco event . Jerrold Nadler , the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , said he would hold Trump “ accountable ” but declined to say whether he would bring impeachment charges . “ With respect to impeachment , all options are on the table and nothing should be ruled out , ” he said at a news conference after Mueller ’ s appearance . A redacted version of Mueller ’ s report was published in April . It concluded that Russia repeatedly interfered in the 2016 election and that Trump ’ s election campaign had multiple contacts with Russian officials , but did not establish a criminal conspiracy with Moscow to win the White House . Mueller ’ s report declined to make a judgment on whether Trump obstructed justice , although it outlined 10 instances in which Trump tried to have Mueller fired or otherwise impede the investigation . “ If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime , we would have said so , ” Mueller said . “ We did not , however , make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime . ” Matthew Jacobs , a former federal prosecutor , said he thought Mueller was “ saying in his own way that a crime was committed . ” A source close to Trump said the Mueller statement amounted to a “ bad day for the home team . ” “ Mueller ’ s statement today was a direct assault on the president , ” said the source , who spoke on condition of anonymity . “ And it will only empower the Democrats to be bolder and more aggressive in their move to impeach him . ” Trump , who has repeatedly denounced Mueller ’ s investigation as a “ witch hunt ” and “ hoax ” meant to hobble his presidency , still took to Twitter to say the matter was settled . “ Nothing changes from the Mueller Report , ” he wrote . “ There was insufficient evidence and therefore , in our Country , a person is innocent . The case is closed ! Thank you . ” U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller makes a statement on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election at the Justice Department in Washington , U.S. , May 29 , 2019 . ███/Jim Bourg Mueller , a Republican who headed the FBI from 2001 to 2013 , said he would not elaborate beyond what was contained in his 448-page report , signaling to Democrats that he was unlikely to provide them more ammunition for impeachment if he were to testify to a congressional committee . Mueller , 74 , said his office is formally closing its doors and he is now returning to life as a private citizen . “ Beyond what I ’ ve said here today and what is contained in our written work , I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further , ” he said , adding that he would not go beyond what was in his report in any future testimony to Congress . It was not clear whether Mueller would testify to Congress . He made clear he would prefer not to , although House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said he still expects to hear from the special counsel . “ While I understand his reluctance to answer hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions he drew on his charging decisions , there are , nevertheless , a great many questions he can answer that go beyond the report , ” Schiff said . The House Judiciary Committee ’ s top Republican , Representative Doug Collins , said relitigating Mueller ’ s findings would only divide the country . “ It is time to move on from the investigation and start focusing on real solutions for the American people , ” he said . Only one Republican so far , Representative Justin Amash , has said Trump has committed impeachable offenses . “ The ball is in our court , Congress , ” he wrote on Twitter . Mueller ’ s investigation ensnared dozens of people , including several top Trump advisers and a series of Russian nationals and companies . Among them are his former campaign chairman , Paul Manafort , who is serving 7-1/2 years in prison for financial crimes and lobbying violations , and his former personal lawyer , Michael Cohen , who recently began a three-year sentence for campaign-finance violations and lying to Congress . Since the report ’ s release , Democratic lawmakers have tried without success to get the unredacted version and underlying evidence . Barr now is leading a review of the origins of the Russia investigation in what is the third known inquiry into the FBI ’ s handling of the matter . Trump harbors suspicions that the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama started the investigation in 2016 to undermine his presidency . In attacking Mueller ’ s probe , Trump also has often attacked the integrity of the FBI and its investigators . Mueller appeared to offer a response to that criticism on Wednesday . The prosecutors , FBI agents , analysts and others who worked with him were “ of the highest integrity , ” he said . He also defended the need to conduct the probe in the first place , saying Russia ’ s actions during the election campaign to interfere “ needed to be investigated and understood . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller said on Wednesday his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election was never going to end with criminal charges against President Donald Trump but he did not clear him and indicated it was up to Congress to decide whether he should be impeached. In his first public comments since starting the investigation in May 2017, Mueller said Justice Department policy prevented him from bringing charges against a sitting president or filing sealed charges, telling reporters it was “not an option we would consider.” But he also said his two-year investigation did not clear Trump of improper behavior and, while he did not use the word “impeachment,” he pointed out there were other ways to hold presidents accountable. “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Mueller said as he announced his resignation from the Justice Department. Congressional Democrats are debating whether to try to move ahead with impeachment in the Democratic-majority U.S. House of Representatives, even though the Republican-controlled Senate would be unlikely to complete the process outlined in the U.S. Constitution for removing a president from office by convicting him. The White House and several top Republicans responded to Mueller’s comments on Wednesday by saying it was time to move on to other matters, while several candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, called for impeachment. One candidate, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, wrote on Twitter: “What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral.” Calls to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump have grown among some Democrats, who have been frustrated by White House efforts to thwart congressional subpoenas seeking records and testimony related to the Russia investigation and other matters related to Trump and his family. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been more cautious and is arguing that lawmakers should push ahead with their investigations before deciding whether to impeach Trump. On Wednesday she said she was sticking with that plan. “Nothing is off the table, but we do want to make such a compelling case, such an ironclad case, that even the Republican Senate, which at the time seems to be not an objective jury, will be convinced of the path that we have to take as a country,” she said at a San Francisco event. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he would hold Trump “accountable” but declined to say whether he would bring impeachment charges. “With respect to impeachment, all options are on the table and nothing should be ruled out,” he said at a news conference after Mueller’s appearance. A redacted version of Mueller’s report was published in April. It concluded that Russia repeatedly interfered in the 2016 election and that Trump’s election campaign had multiple contacts with Russian officials, but did not establish a criminal conspiracy with Moscow to win the White House. Mueller’s report declined to make a judgment on whether Trump obstructed justice, although it outlined 10 instances in which Trump tried to have Mueller fired or otherwise impede the investigation. “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” Matthew Jacobs, a former federal prosecutor, said he thought Mueller was “saying in his own way that a crime was committed.” A source close to Trump said the Mueller statement amounted to a “bad day for the home team.” “Mueller’s statement today was a direct assault on the president,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “And it will only empower the Democrats to be bolder and more aggressive in their move to impeach him.” TRUMP DECLARES ‘CASE CLOSED’ Trump, who has repeatedly denounced Mueller’s investigation as a “witch hunt” and “hoax” meant to hobble his presidency, still took to Twitter to say the matter was settled. “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report,” he wrote. “There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.” U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller makes a statement on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., May 29, 2019. REUTERS/Jim Bourg Mueller, a Republican who headed the FBI from 2001 to 2013, said he would not elaborate beyond what was contained in his 448-page report, signaling to Democrats that he was unlikely to provide them more ammunition for impeachment if he were to testify to a congressional committee. Mueller, 74, said his office is formally closing its doors and he is now returning to life as a private citizen. “Beyond what I’ve said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further,” he said, adding that he would not go beyond what was in his report in any future testimony to Congress. He did not take questions after making his statement. It was not clear whether Mueller would testify to Congress. He made clear he would prefer not to, although House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said he still expects to hear from the special counsel. “While I understand his reluctance to answer hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions he drew on his charging decisions, there are, nevertheless, a great many questions he can answer that go beyond the report,” Schiff said. The House Judiciary Committee’s top Republican, Representative Doug Collins, said relitigating Mueller’s findings would only divide the country. “It is time to move on from the investigation and start focusing on real solutions for the American people,” he said. Only one Republican so far, Representative Justin Amash, has said Trump has committed impeachable offenses. “The ball is in our court, Congress,” he wrote on Twitter. Mueller’s investigation ensnared dozens of people, including several top Trump advisers and a series of Russian nationals and companies. Among them are his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who is serving 7-1/2 years in prison for financial crimes and lobbying violations, and his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who recently began a three-year sentence for campaign-finance violations and lying to Congress. Since the report’s release, Democratic lawmakers have tried without success to get the unredacted version and underlying evidence. Barr now is leading a review of the origins of the Russia investigation in what is the third known inquiry into the FBI’s handling of the matter. Trump harbors suspicions that the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama started the investigation in 2016 to undermine his presidency. Slideshow (4 Images) In attacking Mueller’s probe, Trump also has often attacked the integrity of the FBI and its investigators. Mueller appeared to offer a response to that criticism on Wednesday. The prosecutors, FBI agents, analysts and others who worked with him were “of the highest integrity,” he said. He also defended the need to conduct the probe in the first place, saying Russia’s actions during the election campaign to interfere “needed to be investigated and understood.”

www.reuters.com

center

2b5eLhs0DkWEDEBA

test

cM3ksRE7ATBnJ6UM

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-jfk-release/trump-releases-some-jfk-files-blocks-others-under-pressure-idUSKBN1CV3KL

Trump releases some JFK files, blocks others under pressure

2017-10-27

Steve Holland

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered the unveiling of 2,800 documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy but yielded to pressure from the FBI and CIA to block the release of other records to be reviewed further . Congress had ordered in 1992 that all remaining sealed files pertaining to the investigation into Kennedy ’ s death should be fully opened to the public through the National Archives in 25 years , by Oct. 26 , 2017 , except for those the president authorized for further withholding . Trump had confirmed on Saturday that he would allow for the release of the final batch of once-classified records , amounting to tens of thousands of pages , “ subject to the receipt of further information . ” But as the deadline neared , the administration decided at the last minute to stagger the final release over the next 180 days while government agencies studied whether any documents should stay sealed or redacted . The law allows the president to keep material under wraps if it is determined that harm to intelligence operations , national defense , law enforcement or the conduct of foreign relations would outweigh the public ’ s interest in full disclosure . More than 2,800 uncensored documents were posted immediately to the National Archives website on Thursday evening - a staggering , disparate cache that news outlets began poring through seeking new insights into a tragedy that has been endlessly dissected for decades by investigators , scholars and conspiracy theorists . The rest will be released “ on a rolling basis , ” with “ redactions in only the rarest of circumstances , ” by the end of the review on April 26 , 2018 , the White House said in a statement . In a memo to government agency heads , Trump said the American people deserved as much access as possible to the records . “ Therefore , I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted , ” he wrote , adding that he had no choice but to accept the requested redactions for now . A Central Intelligence Agency spokesman told ███ that every single one of approximately 18,000 remaining CIA records in the collection would ultimately be released , with just 1 percent of the material left redacted . CIA Director Mike Pompeo was a lead advocate in arguing to the White House for keeping some materials secret , one senior administration official said . While Kennedy was killed over half a century ago , the document file included material from investigations during the 1970s through the 1990s . Intelligence and law enforcement officials argued their release could thus put at risk some more recent “ law enforcement equities ” and other materials that still have relevance , the official said . Trump was resistant but “ acceded to it with deep insistence that this stuff is going to be reviewed and released in the next six months , ” the official added . Academics who have studied Kennedy ’ s slaying on Nov. 22 , 1963 , said they expected nothing in the final batch of files would alter the official conclusion of investigators that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who fired on the president ’ s open limousine that day in Dallas from an upper window of the Texas Book Depository building overlooking the motorcade route . They likewise anticipated that the latest releases would do little to quell long-held conspiracy theories that the 46-year-old Democratic president ’ s killing was organized by the Mafia , by Cuba , or a cabal of rogue agents . Of the roughly 5 million pages of JFK assassination-related records held by the National Archives , 88 percent have been available to the public without restriction since the late 1990s , and 11 percent more have been released with sensitive portions redacted . Only about 1 percent have remain withheld in full , according to the National Archives . Thousands of books , articles , TV shows and films have explored the idea that Kennedy ’ s assassination was the result of an elaborate conspiracy . None have produced conclusive proof that Oswald , who was fatally shot by a nightclub owner two days after killing Kennedy , worked with anyone else , although they retain a powerful cultural currency . “ My students are really skeptical that Oswald was the lone assassin , ” said Patrick Maney , a professor of history at Boston College . “ It ’ s hard to get our minds around this , that someone like a loner , a loser , could on his own have murdered Kennedy and changed the course of world history . But that ’ s where the evidence is . ” Kennedy ’ s assassination was the first in a string of politically motivated killings , including those of his brother Robert F. Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. , that stunned the United States during the turbulent 1960s . He remains one of the most admired U.S. presidents .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered the unveiling of 2,800 documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy but yielded to pressure from the FBI and CIA to block the release of other records to be reviewed further. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President John F. Kennedy, First Lady Jaqueline Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally ride in a liousine moments before Kennedy was assassinated, in Dallas, Texas November 22, 1963. Walt Cisco/Dallas Morning News/Handout/File Photo via REUTERS Congress had ordered in 1992 that all remaining sealed files pertaining to the investigation into Kennedy’s death should be fully opened to the public through the National Archives in 25 years, by Oct. 26, 2017, except for those the president authorized for further withholding. Trump had confirmed on Saturday that he would allow for the release of the final batch of once-classified records, amounting to tens of thousands of pages, “subject to the receipt of further information.” But as the deadline neared, the administration decided at the last minute to stagger the final release over the next 180 days while government agencies studied whether any documents should stay sealed or redacted. The law allows the president to keep material under wraps if it is determined that harm to intelligence operations, national defense, law enforcement or the conduct of foreign relations would outweigh the public’s interest in full disclosure. More than 2,800 uncensored documents were posted immediately to the National Archives website on Thursday evening - a staggering, disparate cache that news outlets began poring through seeking new insights into a tragedy that has been endlessly dissected for decades by investigators, scholars and conspiracy theorists. The rest will be released “on a rolling basis,” with “redactions in only the rarest of circumstances,” by the end of the review on April 26, 2018, the White House said in a statement. In a memo to government agency heads, Trump said the American people deserved as much access as possible to the records. “Therefore, I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted,” he wrote, adding that he had no choice but to accept the requested redactions for now. A Central Intelligence Agency spokesman told Reuters that every single one of approximately 18,000 remaining CIA records in the collection would ultimately be released, with just 1 percent of the material left redacted. CIA Director Mike Pompeo was a lead advocate in arguing to the White House for keeping some materials secret, one senior administration official said. While Kennedy was killed over half a century ago, the document file included material from investigations during the 1970s through the 1990s. Intelligence and law enforcement officials argued their release could thus put at risk some more recent “law enforcement equities” and other materials that still have relevance, the official said. Trump was resistant but “acceded to it with deep insistence that this stuff is going to be reviewed and released in the next six months,” the official added. QUELLING CONSPIRACY THEORIES? Academics who have studied Kennedy’s slaying on Nov. 22, 1963, said they expected nothing in the final batch of files would alter the official conclusion of investigators that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who fired on the president’s open limousine that day in Dallas from an upper window of the Texas Book Depository building overlooking the motorcade route. They likewise anticipated that the latest releases would do little to quell long-held conspiracy theories that the 46-year-old Democratic president’s killing was organized by the Mafia, by Cuba, or a cabal of rogue agents. Of the roughly 5 million pages of JFK assassination-related records held by the National Archives, 88 percent have been available to the public without restriction since the late 1990s, and 11 percent more have been released with sensitive portions redacted. Only about 1 percent have remain withheld in full, according to the National Archives. Slideshow (6 Images) Thousands of books, articles, TV shows and films have explored the idea that Kennedy’s assassination was the result of an elaborate conspiracy. None have produced conclusive proof that Oswald, who was fatally shot by a nightclub owner two days after killing Kennedy, worked with anyone else, although they retain a powerful cultural currency. “My students are really skeptical that Oswald was the lone assassin,” said Patrick Maney, a professor of history at Boston College. “It’s hard to get our minds around this, that someone like a loner, a loser, could on his own have murdered Kennedy and changed the course of world history. But that’s where the evidence is.” Kennedy’s assassination was the first in a string of politically motivated killings, including those of his brother Robert F. Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., that stunned the United States during the turbulent 1960s. He remains one of the most admired U.S. presidents.

www.reuters.com

center

cM3ksRE7ATBnJ6UM

test

Zg8Rb6VX6DhYmGHO

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/22/hillary-clinton-not-donald-trump-or-camb

Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump or Cambridge Analytics, Is Gaslighting America

2018-03-22

Nick Gillespie, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon

The election of Donald Trump has n't just brought a poorly mannered reality TV star into the Oval Office and our newsfeeds . It has also popularized the concept of gaslighting , or tricking rational people into thinking they 're insane . The phrase is a reference to a 1944 movie in which Charles Boyer tries to convince his young bride , played by Ingrid Bergman , that she 's nuts so he can cover up a murder and search for jewels hidden in the house they share ( the house 's gas lamps flicker due to Boyer 's late-night searches , hence the title ) . Go Google `` Donald Trump is gaslighting America '' and you 'll find a constantly growing list of stories from outlets ranging from CNN to Teen Vogue to Vanity Fair to Refinery 29 . The common thread is some variation on the theme that Trump 's brazen lies , misstatements , and rhetorical sleights of hand are designed to drive us all batshit crazy by contradicting what we plainly see happening to the United States of America . At rock bottom , Trump 's detractors believe there is simply no way that he could have legitimately won the 2016 election , especially against Hillary Clinton , of whom President Obama said , `` I do n't think that there 's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office . '' Yet it 's not Donald Trump who is gaslighting us , but Hillary Clinton , whose complete and utter refusal to take responsibility for her loss is at the heart of what 's so weird about contemporary America . You read it here first : Trump is the effect and not the cause of the ongoing mudslide that is the daily news . Ever since about 11 p.m . ET on November 8 , 2016 , Clinton and her allies in the media have worked overtime to provide increasingly fanciful explanations for her failure to beat the least-credible candidate ever in American history . Sometimes the apologias are conscious , sometimes not , but nobody really wants to accept what happened ( in fact , even Trump himself could n't believe it for a while , which helps explain why his transition was so incompetent ) . The result is a non-stop barrage of stories , some more credible than others , that Trump 's win was the result of some sort of sinister machination that has undermined our democracy . Following from this interpretation every aspect of his behavior , from his bro-ing out with Vladimir Putin to his indifferent spelling and capitalization while tweeting , is just one more sign that we are living in a world gone stark , raving mad . To be fair , Trump trades in delusion , such as his insistence that violent crime is at or near all-time highs , that massive voter fraud was the only ███ he lost the popular vote , and that his inauguration was the most-viewed ever . These sorts of patently false statements do indeed constitute attempts at gaslighting . So , too , do his unconvincing denials about a sexual relationship with the porn star known as Stormy Daniels , his doctor 's statement that he only weighs 239 lbs . ( giving rise to the `` Girther '' movement ) , and his fanciful stories about how Japanese car makers use bowling balls in quality-assurance tests . Against such a backdrop , even the president 's so-far-not-contradicted denial that his campaign colluded with Russia seems like a form of gaslighting . In fact , everything he says seems like it 's intended to drive us insane or at least seriously question basic reality . On their face , this week 's exposes about Cambridge Analytica , the market-research firm that harvested information from as many as 50 million * Facebook users while working for the Trump campaign , do n't just further the Trump-gaslighting narrative ; they pour gasoline on it . Finally , you can hear # NeverTrump partisans and # theResistance cells all over the country scream with relief , we finally know how he won ! While previous explanations have yet to be vindicated by evidence ( the Russians hacked it ! ) , widely embraced ( the GOP suppressed the minority vote ! ) , or pass the laugh test ( white women succumbed to `` ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband , your boss , your son , whoever , believes you should '' ) , the notion that Trump dialed deep into our psychographic hearts of darkness seems self-evident . As The Guardian puts it , Cambridge Analytica was not only able `` to turn tens of millions of Facebook profiles into a unique political weapon , '' it `` also attracted interest from a key Russian firm with links to the Kremlin . '' Christopher Wylie , the magenta-haired `` data war whistleblower , '' is not exactly measured when he dishes on how he created `` Steven Bannon 's pyschological warfare mindfuck tool '' that launched `` an extraordinary attack on the U.S. 's democratic process . '' What a gift to all of us Ingrid Bergmans suffering under the depredations of latter-day Charles Boyers ! The large takeaway from the Cambridge Analytica story is supposed to be that of all the sad sacks in the Western world , Donald Trump and his former Minister of Dark Arts , Steve Bannon—currently palling around with French ultra-rightists—had super-special treachery that helped them steal an election properly owed to Hillary Clinton . We can finally rest easy knowing that , to paraphrase the final line of King Kong , `` It was n't Trump 's overt racism and appeals to our basest instincts , it was social media that killed the Clinton campaign . '' And yet the Cambridge Analytica angle is pretty much horseshit . Recall that the firm had a remarkably weak track record when it worked with the awful Ted Cruz campaign before getting hired by the Trump folks and that `` even Cambridge Analytica did n't believe its own hype . '' Or that a New York Times reporter , Kenneth P. Vogel , tweeted this week , `` It was ( & is ) an overpriced service that delivered little value to the TRUMP campaign , & the other campaigns & PACs that retained it — most of which hired the firm because it was seen as a prerequisite for receiving $ $ $ from the MERCERS . '' In a smart piece published earlier this week , National Review 's Michael Brendan Dougherty argues that the liberal-leaning solons of Silicon Valley and folks in the media are in the middle of creating a moral panic over social media now that they realize it may be used by right-of-center folks just as effectively ( or not ) as by left-of-center types : Silicon Valley is working with its media and governmental critics to limit the damage to the center-Left going forward . You can see the dynamic in the way that the media generates a moral panic out of stories about how Brexit and the Trump election happened , and the way Silicon Valley responds . Fake news becomes a problem , and Silicon Valley responds by hiring progressive journalists as censors . I mean `` fact-checkers . '' You can see it in the demonetization of YouTube videos . Or in the new sets of regulation being imposed in European countries that deputize the social-media networks themselves as an all seeing social censor . Dougherty notes that when the Obama campaign used Facebook and other forms of social media to win its presidential races , the press swooned . Writing in MIT 's Technology Review in 2012 , Sasha Issenberg gushed that Obama 's team had created `` a new political currency that predicted the behavior of individual humans . The campaign did n't just know who you were ; it knew exactly how it could turn you into the type of person it wanted you to be . '' That , says Dougherty , was just one more sign that Barack got it , that he was an iPod-using cool kid : Today 's Cambridge Analytica scandal causes our tech chin-strokers to worry about `` information '' you did not consent to share , but the Obama team created social interactions you would n't have had . They did n't just build a psychological profile of persuadable voters , and algorithmically determine ways of persuading them , but actually encouraged particular friends — ones the campaign had profiled as influencers — to reach out to them personally . In a post-election interview , the campaign 's digital director Teddy Goff explained the strategy : `` People do n't trust campaigns . They do n't even trust media organizations , '' he told Time 's Michael Sherer , `` Who do they trust ? Their friends ? '' This level of manipulation was celebrated in the press . But all of this presupposes that the ███ why Trump won and Clinton lost was because the billionaire availed himself of unfair , shady , and possibly illegal information . And while there 's little doubt that Facebook needs to `` step up '' regarding its privacy policies ( in the words of Mark Zuckerberg ) , the reality is less interesting but ultimately more convincing . Exit polls showed that Clinton simply did n't turn out the voters she needed to in order to win . Around 136 million votes were cast and it turned out that about 77,000 of them in Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and especially Michigan determined the outcome . Republicans and Democrats can reliably turn out a certain minimum number of voters ; in presidential contests , the winner will be the one who either generates more enthusiasm ( such as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012 ) among partisans , or does n't completely turn off his own party members ( Trump ) . Hillary Clinton ignored at her peril voters in states that she assumed to be locks for her . In December 2016 , Politico 's Edward-Isaac Dovere * noted that Clinton managed to lose Michigan , which had voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections . * Yet `` Trump won the state despite getting 30,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did when he lost it in 2004 . '' Dovere argues : In results that narrow , Clinton 's loss could be attributed to any number of factors — FBI Director Jim Comey 's letter shifting late deciders , the lack of a compelling economic message , the apparent Russian hacking . But heartbroken and frustrated in-state battleground operatives worry that a lesson being missed is a simple one : Get the basics of campaigning right . Clinton never even stopped by a United Auto Workers union hall in Michigan , though a person involved with the campaign noted bitterly that the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days , and that AFSCME never even made any , despite months of appeals . Instead of nailing down every electoral vote in less-glamorous precincts , the Clinton campaign spent time raising money and running up popular vote counts in California and New York ( she won the popular vote by about 3 million ) . The same take-it-for-granted attitude that led to her loss was on brazen display in her recent comments to an Indian audience , where she explained `` I won the places that represent two-thirds of America 's gross domestic product… I won the places that are optimistic , diverse , dynamic , moving forward… . We do n't do well with married , white women…and part of that is an identification with the Republican Party , and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband , your boss , your son , whoever , believes you should . '' Whenever an election is unexpectedly close , there will always be weird things that crop up to `` explain '' the result . But just as with George W. Bush 's razor-thin victory in 2000 , the real question is n't what put the underdog over the top but how the hell the odds-on favorite managed to squander such a lead . In 2000 , Bush did n't win so much as Al Gore lost . So it is with 2016 : Trump did n't win as much as Hillary Clinton did everything possible to lose . And now we are paying for her loss by being treated to an endless procession of explanations that will take the measure of every possible ███ except for her own incompetence , arrogance , and sense of entitlement . * CORRECTIONS : I originally claimed that the profiles of 30 million Facebook users had been compromised . The correct figure is 50 million . Edward-Isaac Dovere 's was name misstated as Edward Isaac-Dovere . I wrote , `` Politico 's Edward Isaac-Dovere noted that had Clinton managed to hold Michigan , which had voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections , she would be president today . '' As he stated , `` Flip Michigan and leave the rest of the map , and Trump is still president-elect . ''

The election of Donald Trump hasn't just brought a poorly mannered reality TV star into the Oval Office and our newsfeeds. It has also popularized the concept of gaslighting, or tricking rational people into thinking they're insane. The phrase is a reference to a 1944 movie in which Charles Boyer tries to convince his young bride, played by Ingrid Bergman, that she's nuts so he can cover up a murder and search for jewels hidden in the house they share (the house's gas lamps flicker due to Boyer's late-night searches, hence the title). Go Google "Donald Trump is gaslighting America" and you'll find a constantly growing list of stories from outlets ranging from CNN to Teen Vogue to Vanity Fair to Refinery 29. The common thread is some variation on the theme that Trump's brazen lies, misstatements, and rhetorical sleights of hand are designed to drive us all batshit crazy by contradicting what we plainly see happening to the United States of America. At rock bottom, Trump's detractors believe there is simply no way that he could have legitimately won the 2016 election, especially against Hillary Clinton, of whom President Obama said, "I don't think that there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office." Yet it's not Donald Trump who is gaslighting us, but Hillary Clinton, whose complete and utter refusal to take responsibility for her loss is at the heart of what's so weird about contemporary America. You read it here first: Trump is the effect and not the cause of the ongoing mudslide that is the daily news. Ever since about 11 p.m. ET on November 8, 2016, Clinton and her allies in the media have worked overtime to provide increasingly fanciful explanations for her failure to beat the least-credible candidate ever in American history. Sometimes the apologias are conscious, sometimes not, but nobody really wants to accept what happened (in fact, even Trump himself couldn't believe it for a while, which helps explain why his transition was so incompetent). The result is a non-stop barrage of stories, some more credible than others, that Trump's win was the result of some sort of sinister machination that has undermined our democracy. Following from this interpretation every aspect of his behavior, from his bro-ing out with Vladimir Putin to his indifferent spelling and capitalization while tweeting, is just one more sign that we are living in a world gone stark, raving mad. To be fair, Trump trades in delusion, such as his insistence that violent crime is at or near all-time highs, that massive voter fraud was the only reason he lost the popular vote, and that his inauguration was the most-viewed ever. These sorts of patently false statements do indeed constitute attempts at gaslighting. So, too, do his unconvincing denials about a sexual relationship with the porn star known as Stormy Daniels, his doctor's statement that he only weighs 239 lbs. (giving rise to the "Girther" movement), and his fanciful stories about how Japanese car makers use bowling balls in quality-assurance tests. Against such a backdrop, even the president's so-far-not-contradicted denial that his campaign colluded with Russia seems like a form of gaslighting. In fact, everything he says seems like it's intended to drive us insane or at least seriously question basic reality. On their face, this week's exposes about Cambridge Analytica, the market-research firm that harvested information from as many as 50 million* Facebook users while working for the Trump campaign, don't just further the Trump-gaslighting narrative; they pour gasoline on it. Finally, you can hear #NeverTrump partisans and #theResistance cells all over the country scream with relief, we finally know how he won! While previous explanations have yet to be vindicated by evidence (the Russians hacked it!), widely embraced (the GOP suppressed the minority vote!), or pass the laugh test (white women succumbed to "ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should"), the notion that Trump dialed deep into our psychographic hearts of darkness seems self-evident. As The Guardian puts it, Cambridge Analytica was not only able "to turn tens of millions of Facebook profiles into a unique political weapon," it "also attracted interest from a key Russian firm with links to the Kremlin." Christopher Wylie, the magenta-haired "data war whistleblower," is not exactly measured when he dishes on how he created "Steven Bannon's pyschological warfare mindfuck tool" that launched "an extraordinary attack on the U.S.'s democratic process." What a gift to all of us Ingrid Bergmans suffering under the depredations of latter-day Charles Boyers! The large takeaway from the Cambridge Analytica story is supposed to be that of all the sad sacks in the Western world, Donald Trump and his former Minister of Dark Arts, Steve Bannon—currently palling around with French ultra-rightists—had super-special treachery that helped them steal an election properly owed to Hillary Clinton. We can finally rest easy knowing that, to paraphrase the final line of King Kong, "It wasn't Trump's overt racism and appeals to our basest instincts, it was social media that killed the Clinton campaign." And yet the Cambridge Analytica angle is pretty much horseshit. Recall that the firm had a remarkably weak track record when it worked with the awful Ted Cruz campaign before getting hired by the Trump folks and that "even Cambridge Analytica didn't believe its own hype." Or that a New York Times reporter, Kenneth P. Vogel, tweeted this week, "It was (& is) an overpriced service that delivered little value to the TRUMP campaign, & the other campaigns & PACs that retained it — most of which hired the firm because it was seen as a prerequisite for receiving $$$ from the MERCERS." In a smart piece published earlier this week, National Review's Michael Brendan Dougherty argues that the liberal-leaning solons of Silicon Valley and folks in the media are in the middle of creating a moral panic over social media now that they realize it may be used by right-of-center folks just as effectively (or not) as by left-of-center types: Silicon Valley is working with its media and governmental critics to limit the damage to the center-Left going forward. You can see the dynamic in the way that the media generates a moral panic out of stories about how Brexit and the Trump election happened, and the way Silicon Valley responds. Fake news becomes a problem, and Silicon Valley responds by hiring progressive journalists as censors. I mean "fact-checkers." You can see it in the demonetization of YouTube videos. Or in the new sets of regulation being imposed in European countries that deputize the social-media networks themselves as an all seeing social censor. Dougherty notes that when the Obama campaign used Facebook and other forms of social media to win its presidential races, the press swooned. Writing in MIT's Technology Review in 2012, Sasha Issenberg gushed that Obama's team had created "a new political currency that predicted the behavior of individual humans. The campaign didn't just know who you were; it knew exactly how it could turn you into the type of person it wanted you to be." That, says Dougherty, was just one more sign that Barack got it, that he was an iPod-using cool kid: Today's Cambridge Analytica scandal causes our tech chin-strokers to worry about "information" you did not consent to share, but the Obama team created social interactions you wouldn't have had. They didn't just build a psychological profile of persuadable voters, and algorithmically determine ways of persuading them, but actually encouraged particular friends — ones the campaign had profiled as influencers — to reach out to them personally. In a post-election interview, the campaign's digital director Teddy Goff explained the strategy: "People don't trust campaigns. They don't even trust media organizations," he told Time's Michael Sherer, "Who do they trust? Their friends?" This level of manipulation was celebrated in the press. But all of this presupposes that the reason why Trump won and Clinton lost was because the billionaire availed himself of unfair, shady, and possibly illegal information. And while there's little doubt that Facebook needs to "step up" regarding its privacy policies (in the words of Mark Zuckerberg), the reality is less interesting but ultimately more convincing. Exit polls showed that Clinton simply didn't turn out the voters she needed to in order to win. Around 136 million votes were cast and it turned out that about 77,000 of them in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and especially Michigan determined the outcome. Republicans and Democrats can reliably turn out a certain minimum number of voters; in presidential contests, the winner will be the one who either generates more enthusiasm (such as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012) among partisans, or doesn't completely turn off his own party members (Trump). Hillary Clinton ignored at her peril voters in states that she assumed to be locks for her. In December 2016, Politico's Edward-Isaac Dovere* noted that Clinton managed to lose Michigan, which had voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections.* Yet "Trump won the state despite getting 30,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did when he lost it in 2004." Dovere argues: In results that narrow, Clinton's loss could be attributed to any number of factors — FBI Director Jim Comey's letter shifting late deciders, the lack of a compelling economic message, the apparent Russian hacking. But heartbroken and frustrated in-state battleground operatives worry that a lesson being missed is a simple one: Get the basics of campaigning right. Clinton never even stopped by a United Auto Workers union hall in Michigan, though a person involved with the campaign noted bitterly that the UAW flaked on GOTV commitments in the final days, and that AFSCME never even made any, despite months of appeals. Instead of nailing down every electoral vote in less-glamorous precincts, the Clinton campaign spent time raising money and running up popular vote counts in California and New York (she won the popular vote by about 3 million). The same take-it-for-granted attitude that led to her loss was on brazen display in her recent comments to an Indian audience, where she explained "I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product… I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward…. We don't do well with married, white women…and part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should." Whenever an election is unexpectedly close, there will always be weird things that crop up to "explain" the result. But just as with George W. Bush's razor-thin victory in 2000, the real question isn't what put the underdog over the top but how the hell the odds-on favorite managed to squander such a lead. In 2000, Bush didn't win so much as Al Gore lost. So it is with 2016: Trump didn't win as much as Hillary Clinton did everything possible to lose. And now we are paying for her loss by being treated to an endless procession of explanations that will take the measure of every possible reason except for her own incompetence, arrogance, and sense of entitlement. *CORRECTIONS: I originally claimed that the profiles of 30 million Facebook users had been compromised. The correct figure is 50 million. Edward-Isaac Dovere's was name misstated as Edward Isaac-Dovere. I wrote, "Politico's Edward Isaac-Dovere noted that had Clinton managed to hold Michigan, which had voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, she would be president today." As he stated, "Flip Michigan and leave the rest of the map, and Trump is still president-elect."

www.reason.com

right

Zg8Rb6VX6DhYmGHO

test

T5p4AfJkkarVEYNc

race_and_racism

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48998696

Congresswomen hit back after Trump's tweets branded racist

The four US congresswomen attacked by US President Donald Trump in tweets widely called racist have dismissed his remarks as a distraction . Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar , Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib urged the US people `` not to take the bait '' at a news conference on Monday . Mr Trump had suggested the four women - all US citizens - `` can leave '' . He has defended his comments and denied allegations of racism . On Tuesday , he kept up his Twitter attack on the women , accusing them of saying `` filthy and hate-laced things '' . He also insisted : `` Those Tweets were NOT Racist . I do n't have a Racist bone in my body ! '' The president did not explicitly name the women in his initial Twitter tirade on Sunday , but the context made a clear link to the four Democrat women , who are known as The Squad . He sparked a furore after saying the women `` originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe '' and they should go home . Three of the women were born in the US and one , Ms Omar , was born in Somalia but came to the US as a child . Following the outcry , the four women told reporters they wanted to re-focus attention on to the president 's policies . `` This is simply a disruption and a distraction from the callous chaos and corrupt culture of this administration , all the way down , '' Ms Pressley said . Both Ms Omar and Ms Tlaib repeated their calls for Mr Trump to be impeached . Ms Pressley dismissed the president 's efforts `` to marginalise us and to silence us '' . She added : `` Our squad includes any person committed to building a more equitable and just world . '' All four women insisted that health care , gun violence and , in particular , detentions of migrants on the US border with Mexico should be in focus . `` The eyes of history are watching us , '' said Ms Omar said , decrying the `` mass deportation raids '' and `` human rights abuses at the border '' . Ms Omar says Mr Trump 's `` blatantly racist attack '' on four women of colour was `` the agenda of white nationalists '' , adding that the president would like `` nothing more than to divide our country '' . Ms Tlaib called it `` simply a continuation of his racist , xenophobic playbook '' . `` We remain focused on holding him accountable to the laws of this land , '' she said . President Trump doubled down at the White House , verbally attacking these congresswomen of colour , and he tripled down on Twitter later on . He is using language that is well outside of the usual parameters of presidential discourse . The fact that he is escalating the issue shows he seems to be enjoying it and , for him , it serves a political purpose . He sees it as revving up the base . However , he risks alienating the moderate Republicans - some of whom already failed to back him in last year 's mid-term elections . On Friday , Ms Ocasio-Cortez , Ms Tlaib and Ms Pressley testified to a House committee about conditions in a migrant detention centre they had visited . Democrats have widely criticised the Trump administration 's approach to border control , saying they are holding migrants in inhumane conditions . Mr Trump insists the border is facing a crisis and has defended the actions of his border agents . His administration announced a new rule to take effect on 16 July , which denies asylum to anyone who crosses the southern border without having applied for protection in `` at least one third country '' on their way to the US . After their testimony , Mr Trump said conditions at the centre had had `` great reviews '' . He then posted his series of tweets about the women and Ms Omar , attacks he redoubled on Monday . `` If you are not happy , if you are complaining all the time , you can leave , '' he told a heated news conference outside the White House . As the women spoke to reporters on Monday evening , he tweeted again . `` If you are not happy here , you can leave ! It is your choice , and your choice alone . This is about love for America , '' he wrote . Democrats have roundly condemned the president , and many were quick to say it was a racist attack . However , top Republicans have been less outspoken . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would answer questions Tuesday . Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said : `` I do n't find them racist , the president just went on and clarified his comments . '' He then changed the subject . Some , including Senator Lindsey Graham , turned the topic back on to the politics of the four women , who are seen to be progressive . He told Fox News they are communists and anti-America . US Senator and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Mr Trump 's remarks `` destructive , demeaning , and disunifying '' . But when a reporter asked him if they were racist , he walked away . Lower-ranking members of the Republican Party were , however , more direct . Tim Scott , the only African-American Republican in the Senate , called the president 's words `` racially offensive '' . Republican Congressman Will Hurd , who is also African American , described the comments as `` racist and xenophobic '' . Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has , meanwhile , announced a resolution in the House to condemn the attack . She has urged Republicans to back it . Her colleague Chuck Schumer said he would introduce a similar motion in the Senate . `` We 'll see how many Republicans sign on , '' he tweeted . The leaders of several US allies have come out against the president . New Zealand 's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she `` completely and utterly '' disagreed with Mr Trump , while Canada 's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau similarly denounced the comments . `` That is not how we do things in Canada . A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian , '' he said at a press conference . Both candidates for the British premiership condemned the attacks . Jeremy Hunt said he was `` utterly appalled '' by Mr Trump 's tweets , and Boris Johnson said `` you simply can not use that kind of language about sending people back to where they came from '' . Prime Minister Theresa May had earlier said the remarks were `` completely unacceptable '' .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib responded to the attacks at a press conference on Monday The four US congresswomen attacked by US President Donald Trump in tweets widely called racist have dismissed his remarks as a distraction. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib urged the US people "not to take the bait" at a news conference on Monday. Mr Trump had suggested the four women - all US citizens - "can leave". He has defended his comments and denied allegations of racism. On Tuesday, he kept up his Twitter attack on the women, accusing them of saying "filthy and hate-laced things". He also insisted: "Those Tweets were NOT Racist. I don't have a Racist bone in my body!" The president did not explicitly name the women in his initial Twitter tirade on Sunday, but the context made a clear link to the four Democrat women, who are known as The Squad. He sparked a furore after saying the women "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe" and they should go home. Three of the women were born in the US and one, Ms Omar, was born in Somalia but came to the US as a child. Following the outcry, the four women told reporters they wanted to re-focus attention on to the president's policies. "This is simply a disruption and a distraction from the callous chaos and corrupt culture of this administration, all the way down," Ms Pressley said. Both Ms Omar and Ms Tlaib repeated their calls for Mr Trump to be impeached. What did the congresswomen say? Ms Pressley dismissed the president's efforts "to marginalise us and to silence us". She added: "Our squad includes any person committed to building a more equitable and just world." All four women insisted that health care, gun violence and, in particular, detentions of migrants on the US border with Mexico should be in focus. "The eyes of history are watching us," said Ms Omar said, decrying the "mass deportation raids" and "human rights abuses at the border". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ilhan Omar responds to President Trump's racially charged tweets in a press conference Ms Omar says Mr Trump's "blatantly racist attack" on four women of colour was "the agenda of white nationalists", adding that the president would like "nothing more than to divide our country". Ms Tlaib called it "simply a continuation of his racist, xenophobic playbook". "We remain focused on holding him accountable to the laws of this land," she said. President Trump doubled down at the White House, verbally attacking these congresswomen of colour, and he tripled down on Twitter later on. He is using language that is well outside of the usual parameters of presidential discourse. The fact that he is escalating the issue shows he seems to be enjoying it and, for him, it serves a political purpose. He sees it as revving up the base. However, he risks alienating the moderate Republicans - some of whom already failed to back him in last year's mid-term elections. What is the row about? On Friday, Ms Ocasio-Cortez, Ms Tlaib and Ms Pressley testified to a House committee about conditions in a migrant detention centre they had visited. Democrats have widely criticised the Trump administration's approach to border control, saying they are holding migrants in inhumane conditions. Mr Trump insists the border is facing a crisis and has defended the actions of his border agents. His administration announced a new rule to take effect on 16 July, which denies asylum to anyone who crosses the southern border without having applied for protection in "at least one third country" on their way to the US. After their testimony, Mr Trump said conditions at the centre had had "great reviews". He then posted his series of tweets about the women and Ms Omar, attacks he redoubled on Monday. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption President Trump defends racially charged tweets "If you are not happy, if you are complaining all the time, you can leave," he told a heated news conference outside the White House. As the women spoke to reporters on Monday evening, he tweeted again. "If you are not happy here, you can leave! It is your choice, and your choice alone. This is about love for America," he wrote. How have Democrats and Republicans responded? Democrats have roundly condemned the president, and many were quick to say it was a racist attack. However, top Republicans have been less outspoken. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would answer questions Tuesday. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said: "I don't find them racist, the president just went on and clarified his comments." He then changed the subject. Some, including Senator Lindsey Graham, turned the topic back on to the politics of the four women, who are seen to be progressive. He told Fox News they are communists and anti-America. US Senator and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Mr Trump's remarks "destructive, demeaning, and disunifying". But when a reporter asked him if they were racist, he walked away. Lower-ranking members of the Republican Party were, however, more direct. Tim Scott, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, called the president's words "racially offensive". Republican Congressman Will Hurd, who is also African American, described the comments as "racist and xenophobic". Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has, meanwhile, announced a resolution in the House to condemn the attack. She has urged Republicans to back it. Her colleague Chuck Schumer said he would introduce a similar motion in the Senate. "We'll see how many Republicans sign on," he tweeted. How have world leaders reacted? The leaders of several US allies have come out against the president. New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she "completely and utterly" disagreed with Mr Trump, while Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau similarly denounced the comments. "That is not how we do things in Canada. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," he said at a press conference. Both candidates for the British premiership condemned the attacks. Jeremy Hunt said he was "utterly appalled" by Mr Trump's tweets, and Boris Johnson said "you simply cannot use that kind of language about sending people back to where they came from". Prime Minister Theresa May had earlier said the remarks were "completely unacceptable".

www.bbc.com

center

T5p4AfJkkarVEYNc

test

jU2yr9qmhSBLZqJK

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/february/a-tale-of-2-parties-dems-plagued-by-division-as-gop-unites-behind-trump-nbsp

A Tale of 2 Parties: Dems Plagued by Division as GOP Unites Behind Trump

2017-02-27

███ News ' David Brody weighed in on the developments unfolding in the Democratic and Republican Parties on The 700 Club . WASHINGTON – In a divided country of red and blue states , America 's major political parties are searching for unity . For Democrats , that responsibility now falls to Barack Obama 's former labor secretary , Tom Perez , who was chosen over the weekend to head up the party . `` We need a chair who can not only take the fight to Donald Trump , we also need a chair who can lead a turnaround and change the culture of the Democratic Party , '' Perez said . In a show of unity , Perez nominated the man who came in second , Rep. Keith Ellison , D-Minn. , to be his number two . As the first Muslim to serve in Congress , Ellison had the backing of progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders , D-Vt . `` We got to win elections . We 're in this mess because we lost not one , but a thousand elections , '' Ellison said . Perez 's election led to a social media battle in which President Donald Trump tweeted , `` …I could not be happier for him , or for the Republican Party ! '' Perez responded , tweeting , `` … Democrats united across the country will be your worst nightmare . '' Trump also used his favorite platform to announce he wo n't attend this year 's White House Correspondents ' Dinner . `` I will not be attending the White House Correspondents ' Association Dinner this year , '' Trump tweeted . `` Please wish everyone well and have a great evening ! '' This latest shot in his ongoing fight with the news media speaks right to his base and at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference , or CPAC , that base spoke back . Eighty-six percent of those polled said they `` strongly '' or `` somewhat '' approve of the job Trump is doing . At CPAC , the president made it clear he plans to deliver for evangelicals . `` And I want to thank , by the way , the evangelical community , the Christian community , communities of faith , rabbis and priests and pastors , ministers because the support for me was a record , as you know -- not only in terms of numbers of people but percentages of those numbers that voted for Trump . So , I want to thank you folks . It was an amazing , an amazing outpouring and I will not disappoint you , '' he said . The question now : Can Trump keep the promises he 's made on topics like Obamacare , border security and taxes ? Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , told ███ News he likes what he sees so far . `` I think the first month on substance and policy has been very , very strong , '' Cruz told ███ 's David Brody . Trump is going to need the support of lawmakers like Cruz and conservatives from all walks of the Republican Party to push his agenda through . He 'll also need a White House that 's on the same page . This is largely up to chief of staff Reince Priebus , a GOP establishment player , and top advisor and beltway outsider Steve Bannon . The two men put on a good show at CPAC , appearing together on stage , and encouraged all conservatives to do the same . Conservatives may unite behind Trump , but the tougher audience comes Tuesday when the president addresses a joint session of Congress . That 's where bringing this divided country together gets a whole lot harder .

CBN News' David Brody weighed in on the developments unfolding in the Democratic and Republican Parties on The 700 Club. WASHINGTON – In a divided country of red and blue states, America's major political parties are searching for unity. For Democrats, that responsibility now falls to Barack Obama's former labor secretary, Tom Perez, who was chosen over the weekend to head up the party. "We need a chair who can not only take the fight to Donald Trump, we also need a chair who can lead a turnaround and change the culture of the Democratic Party," Perez said. In a show of unity, Perez nominated the man who came in second, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to be his number two. As the first Muslim to serve in Congress, Ellison had the backing of progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt. "We got to win elections. We're in this mess because we lost not one, but a thousand elections," Ellison said. Perez's election led to a social media battle in which President Donald Trump tweeted, "…I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!" Perez responded, tweeting, "… Democrats united across the country will be your worst nightmare." Trump also used his favorite platform to announce he won't attend this year's White House Correspondents' Dinner. "I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year," Trump tweeted. "Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!" This latest shot in his ongoing fight with the news media speaks right to his base and at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, that base spoke back. Eighty-six percent of those polled said they "strongly" or "somewhat" approve of the job Trump is doing. At CPAC, the president made it clear he plans to deliver for evangelicals. "And I want to thank, by the way, the evangelical community, the Christian community, communities of faith, rabbis and priests and pastors, ministers because the support for me was a record, as you know -- not only in terms of numbers of people but percentages of those numbers that voted for Trump. So, I want to thank you folks. It was an amazing, an amazing outpouring and I will not disappoint you," he said. The question now: Can Trump keep the promises he's made on topics like Obamacare, border security and taxes? Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told CBN News he likes what he sees so far. "I think the first month on substance and policy has been very, very strong," Cruz told CBN's David Brody. Trump is going to need the support of lawmakers like Cruz and conservatives from all walks of the Republican Party to push his agenda through. He'll also need a White House that's on the same page. This is largely up to chief of staff Reince Priebus, a GOP establishment player, and top advisor and beltway outsider Steve Bannon. The two men put on a good show at CPAC, appearing together on stage, and encouraged all conservatives to do the same. Conservatives may unite behind Trump, but the tougher audience comes Tuesday when the president addresses a joint session of Congress. That's where bringing this divided country together gets a whole lot harder.

www1.cbn.com

right

jU2yr9qmhSBLZqJK

test

cdgJGQFE96Kq9jGz

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/16/cnn-vote-count-budget-deal-nearing-senate-approval-but-not-there-yet/?hpt=po_c1

CNN vote count: Budget deal nearing Senate approval, but not there yet

2013-12-16

Washington ( CNN ) – The budget deal struck by Republican and Democratic lawmakers that easily passed the House of Representatives last week has run into some opposition in the Senate . But according to CNN 's vote count , the deal appears close to passage . There are currently a total of 39 aye votes for the budget , according to the count , with five Republicans joining 33 Democrats and one independent . All no votes , according to the count , are coming from Republicans , with 23 Senate offices telling CNN they plan to vote against the deal . While Democrats do not have the 50 votes needed for final passage , top aides in both parties privately expressed confidence on Friday the bill will get the necessary support , even if a couple of wary Democrats end up voting `` no . '' But before the measure faces a final vote , it will need to pass the higher threshold of 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in a vote that is set to happen Tuesday . A number of Republicans have said they plan to back the motions that will eventually allow Democrats to only need a straight majority to pass the bill and senators and aides in both parties said they expected to break the filibuster . The five Republicans who plan to support the deal are Susan Collins of Maine , John McCain of Arizona , Ron Johnson of Wisconsin , Orrin Hatch of Utah and Johnny Isakson of Georgia . Isakson is the most recent Republican to come out in support of the bill . In a Monday statement , the Republican lawmaker said that he `` will vote for cloture and for final passage of the Murray-Ryan budget deal because it finally gives America a budget to operate under and averts government shutdowns through 2015 . '' `` As a longtime advocate of biennial budgeting , I believe this bipartisan agreement is a good first step toward managing government spending and the fiscal policy of our country , '' Isakson said . `` While reforms included in the agreement are modest , most move America in the right direction . '' The deal worked out by House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray soared through the house , passing by a 332-94 vote . The budget – while smaller than some had wanted – is a bright spot of bipartisanship in what has been a year full of bitter partisanship . For many , the deal represents a way to ensure that government does n't shut down again – like it did for 16 days in October . In the Senate , however , lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have questioned aspects of the deal . More liberal senators – like Tom Harkin for Iowa – complained that an unemployment benefit extension was not included in the deal . `` There ’ s over a million people now who can not find a job , out of work , and right at this time of year their unemployment insurance is being cut off , ” Harkin told Radio Iowa last week . “ It ’ s really unconscionable . ” If lawmakers do n't act , unemployment benefits – at a cost of $ 26 billion , according to the Congressional Budget Office – will expire for 1.3 million workers on December 28 . At the same time , lawmakers like Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio , who had expressed concern about not including unemployment benefits in the deal , told CNN they plan to vote for the compromise . On the other side , more conservative members of the Senate – like John Thune of South Dakota – told CNN he ca n't support the deal because it does n't `` include meaningful spending reforms that address our debt and deficit . '' Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina , along with other senators , have also raised question about reductions in cost of living benefits for military retirees . `` After careful review of the agreement , I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees , ” Graham said in a release . “ Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation ’ s most troubling times . They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides . ” A quarter of the Senate remains on the fence – with 25 members , including 11 Democrats , one independent and 13 Republicans – telling CNN they have not yet decided how they plan to vote . Representatives from three offices – two Democrats and one Republican – told CNN they are not announcing how they are voting . `` I will look closely at the details of this budget and evaluate how it meets the needs of New Mexicans and our country as a whole , '' Democrat Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico told CNN . Republicans also remain undecided , like John Cornyn of Texas , whose spokesman told CNN that the senator `` will take a close look '' at the deal but `` is concerned about reversing spending cuts . '' For this vote count , CNN has reached out to all 100 Senate offices and 10 have not responded .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) – The budget deal struck by Republican and Democratic lawmakers that easily passed the House of Representatives last week has run into some opposition in the Senate. But according to CNN's vote count, the deal appears close to passage. There are currently a total of 39 aye votes for the budget, according to the count, with five Republicans joining 33 Democrats and one independent. All no votes, according to the count, are coming from Republicans, with 23 Senate offices telling CNN they plan to vote against the deal. While Democrats do not have the 50 votes needed for final passage, top aides in both parties privately expressed confidence on Friday the bill will get the necessary support, even if a couple of wary Democrats end up voting "no." But before the measure faces a final vote, it will need to pass the higher threshold of 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles in a vote that is set to happen Tuesday. A number of Republicans have said they plan to back the motions that will eventually allow Democrats to only need a straight majority to pass the bill and senators and aides in both parties said they expected to break the filibuster. The five Republicans who plan to support the deal are Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Johnny Isakson of Georgia. Isakson is the most recent Republican to come out in support of the bill. In a Monday statement, the Republican lawmaker said that he "will vote for cloture and for final passage of the Murray-Ryan budget deal because it finally gives America a budget to operate under and averts government shutdowns through 2015." "As a longtime advocate of biennial budgeting, I believe this bipartisan agreement is a good first step toward managing government spending and the fiscal policy of our country," Isakson said. "While reforms included in the agreement are modest, most move America in the right direction." The deal worked out by House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray soared through the house, passing by a 332-94 vote. The budget – while smaller than some had wanted – is a bright spot of bipartisanship in what has been a year full of bitter partisanship. For many, the deal represents a way to ensure that government doesn't shut down again – like it did for 16 days in October. In the Senate, however, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have questioned aspects of the deal. More liberal senators – like Tom Harkin for Iowa – complained that an unemployment benefit extension was not included in the deal. "There’s over a million people now who cannot find a job, out of work, and right at this time of year their unemployment insurance is being cut off,” Harkin told Radio Iowa last week. “It’s really unconscionable.” If lawmakers don't act, unemployment benefits – at a cost of $26 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office – will expire for 1.3 million workers on December 28. At the same time, lawmakers like Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who had expressed concern about not including unemployment benefits in the deal, told CNN they plan to vote for the compromise. On the other side, more conservative members of the Senate – like John Thune of South Dakota – told CNN he can't support the deal because it doesn't "include meaningful spending reforms that address our debt and deficit." Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, along with other senators, have also raised question about reductions in cost of living benefits for military retirees. "After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,” Graham said in a release. “Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.” A quarter of the Senate remains on the fence – with 25 members, including 11 Democrats, one independent and 13 Republicans – telling CNN they have not yet decided how they plan to vote. Representatives from three offices – two Democrats and one Republican – told CNN they are not announcing how they are voting. "I will look closely at the details of this budget and evaluate how it meets the needs of New Mexicans and our country as a whole," Democrat Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico told CNN. Republicans also remain undecided, like John Cornyn of Texas, whose spokesman told CNN that the senator "will take a close look" at the deal but "is concerned about reversing spending cuts." For this vote count, CNN has reached out to all 100 Senate offices and 10 have not responded. - CNN's Dana Bash and Lisa Desjardins contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

cdgJGQFE96Kq9jGz

test

uxvlnuTwfrEzvLat

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/01/15/the-peace-prize-winner-who-wag

The Peace Prize Winner Who Waged War

2017-01-15

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

When he was first elected president , many observers , up to and including the Norwegian Nobel Committee , believed Barack Obama would represent a substantive departure from the foreign policy of his predecessor , George W. Bush . On the campaign trail , the then–senator from Illinois promised to bring the Iraq War to an end within 16 months . In reality , it ended in December 2011 , as agreed upon in the status of forces agreement Bush made with Iraq in 2008 , and only after Obama tried and failed to keep a 10,000-strong residual force there past the withdrawal date . On the eve of Election Day 2016 , there were about 5,000 U.S. soldiers in that country . Many were embedded with Iraqi troops or otherwise engaged in the military campaign to retake the city of Mosul from ISIS , a group that evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq—itself a product of and one of the primary combatants in the post-invasion phase of the war . The number of Americans in the country has crept upward since June 2014 , when Obama sent troops there at the request of the Iraqi government . The deployment came just two and a half years after the withdrawal that was supposed to mark the conclusion of the war in Iraq . Candidate Obama promised a `` robust '' diplomatic effort aimed toward Iraq and its neighbors ( including Syria and Iran ) to ensure the countries ' stability . Instead , the U.S. continues to press for regime change in Syria while keeping diplomatic engagement with Iran limited largely to the status of the latter 's nuclear program . U.S. troops and other American military assets are involved both in the fight against ISIS in Syria and in supporting the rebellion to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power . There are troops and other assets in Libya , whose previous government was overthrown during a U.S.-led intervention into the country 's civil war ; in Somalia , where the U.S. has had an on-again , off-again military presence since the collapse of the Siad Barre government in 1993 , and where the U.S. is currently fighting Al-Shabab , an Al Qaeda affiliate ; in Yemen , where the U.S.-and-Saudi-backed government-in-exile is trying to retake control of the country ; in West Africa , where the U.S. is assisting in the fight against Boko Haram , a Nigerian terror group with ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS ; and in Uganda and its neighbors , where the U.S. is assisting in the war with Joseph Kony and his Lord 's Resistance Army . According to the most recent War Powers report from Obama to Congress , we also have troops deployed in Turkey and Djibouti ( to support efforts in the Middle East ) , Cuba ( Guantanamo Bay remains open nearly eight years after Obama signed an executive order to close it ) , Egypt ( where we 've been since 1981 ) , Kosovo ( where we 've been since 1999 ) , and Jordan ( where 2,200 American troops are assisting the government ) . Finally , more than 8,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan . That war , begun in October 2001 as a response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 , has now lasted longer than the American Civil War and the entirety of World War I and World War II . President Obama has repeatedly postponed the date of withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan ; the final drawdown is currently scheduled for sometime after he leaves office . Obama promised to take the Afghan war more seriously , but a surge in troops and diplomatic personnel early in his presidency changed little on the ground , and the Afghan government seems no more capable now than it was eight years ago of governing the country without the assistance of foreign military powers . Any opportunity created by the deployments was squandered by bureaucratic infighting , as detailed in Rajiv Chandrasekaran 's 2012 book Little America : The War Within the War for Afghanistan . According to the committee that awarded him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize , Obama was being recognized `` for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples . '' At the time , Obama acknowledged that the honor was aspirational . It still is .

When he was first elected president, many observers, up to and including the Norwegian Nobel Committee, believed Barack Obama would represent a substantive departure from the foreign policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On the campaign trail, the then–senator from Illinois promised to bring the Iraq War to an end within 16 months. In reality, it ended in December 2011, as agreed upon in the status of forces agreement Bush made with Iraq in 2008, and only after Obama tried and failed to keep a 10,000-strong residual force there past the withdrawal date. On the eve of Election Day 2016, there were about 5,000 U.S. soldiers in that country. Many were embedded with Iraqi troops or otherwise engaged in the military campaign to retake the city of Mosul from ISIS, a group that evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq—itself a product of and one of the primary combatants in the post-invasion phase of the war. The number of Americans in the country has crept upward since June 2014, when Obama sent troops there at the request of the Iraqi government. The deployment came just two and a half years after the withdrawal that was supposed to mark the conclusion of the war in Iraq. Candidate Obama promised a "robust" diplomatic effort aimed toward Iraq and its neighbors (including Syria and Iran) to ensure the countries' stability. Instead, the U.S. continues to press for regime change in Syria while keeping diplomatic engagement with Iran limited largely to the status of the latter's nuclear program. U.S. troops and other American military assets are involved both in the fight against ISIS in Syria and in supporting the rebellion to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power. There are troops and other assets in Libya, whose previous government was overthrown during a U.S.-led intervention into the country's civil war; in Somalia, where the U.S. has had an on-again, off-again military presence since the collapse of the Siad Barre government in 1993, and where the U.S. is currently fighting Al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda affiliate; in Yemen, where the U.S.-and-Saudi-backed government-in-exile is trying to retake control of the country; in West Africa, where the U.S. is assisting in the fight against Boko Haram, a Nigerian terror group with ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS; and in Uganda and its neighbors, where the U.S. is assisting in the war with Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army. According to the most recent War Powers report from Obama to Congress, we also have troops deployed in Turkey and Djibouti (to support efforts in the Middle East), Cuba (Guantanamo Bay remains open nearly eight years after Obama signed an executive order to close it), Egypt (where we've been since 1981), Kosovo (where we've been since 1999), and Jordan (where 2,200 American troops are assisting the government). Finally, more than 8,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan. That war, begun in October 2001 as a response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, has now lasted longer than the American Civil War and the entirety of World War I and World War II. President Obama has repeatedly postponed the date of withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan; the final drawdown is currently scheduled for sometime after he leaves office. Obama promised to take the Afghan war more seriously, but a surge in troops and diplomatic personnel early in his presidency changed little on the ground, and the Afghan government seems no more capable now than it was eight years ago of governing the country without the assistance of foreign military powers. Any opportunity created by the deployments was squandered by bureaucratic infighting, as detailed in Rajiv Chandrasekaran's 2012 book Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan. According to the committee that awarded him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Obama was being recognized "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." At the time, Obama acknowledged that the honor was aspirational. It still is.

www.reason.com

right

uxvlnuTwfrEzvLat

test

UYCZ1NDiINeCpV41

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/697d654ea64f3370f373aacfca2da950

US cities gird for more violence as Trump decries `lowlifes’

2020-06-02

Zeke Miller, Tim Sullivan

With the White House in the background , a line of police forms behind a fence in Lafayette Park as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd , Tuesday , June 2 , 2020 , in Washington . Floyd died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers . ( AP Photo/Evan Vucci ) With the White House in the background , a line of police forms behind a fence in Lafayette Park as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd , Tuesday , June 2 , 2020 , in Washington . Floyd died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers . ( AP Photo/Evan Vucci ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Undeterred by curfews , protesters streamed back into the nation ’ s streets Tuesday , hours after President Donald Trump pressed governors to put down the violence set off by George Floyd ’ s death and demanded that New York call up the National Guard to stop the “ lowlifes and losers . ” But most protests passed peacefully , and while there were scattered reports of looting in New York City , the country appeared calmer by late Tuesday than it did a day earlier , when violence swept through multiple cities . The president , meanwhile , amplified his hard-line calls from Monday , when he threatened to send in the military to restore order if governors didn ’ t do it . “ NYC , CALL UP THE NATIONAL GUARD , ” he tweeted . “ The lowlifes and losers are ripping you apart . Act fast ! ” One day after a crackdown on peaceful protesters near the White House , thousands of demonstrators massed a block away from the presidential mansion , facing law enforcement personnel standing behind a black chain-link fence . The fence was put up overnight to block access to Lafayette Park , just across the street from the White House . “ Last night pushed me way over the edge , ” said Jessica DeMaio , 40 , of Washington , who attended a Floyd protest Tuesday for the first time . “ Being here is better than being at home feeling helpless . ” The crowd remained in place after the city ’ s 7 p.m. curfew passed , defying warnings that the response from law enforcement could be even more forceful . But the protest lacked the tension of the previous nights ’ demonstrations . The crowd Tuesday was peaceful , even polite . At one point , the crowd booed when a protester climbed a light post and took down a street sign . A chant went up : “ Peaceful protest ! ” On Monday , law enforcement officers on foot and horseback aggressively drove protesters away from Lafayette Park , clearing the way for President Donald Trump to do a photo op at nearby St. John ’ s Church . On Tuesday , pastors at the church prayed with demonstrators and handed out water bottles . Protests ranged across the U.S. , including in Los Angeles , Miami , St. Paul , Minnesota , Columbia , South Carolina , and Houston , where the police chief talked to peaceful demonstrators , vowing reforms . “ God as my witness , change is coming , ” Art Acevedo said . “ And we ’ re going to do it the right way . ” In New York , midtown Manhattan was pocked with battered storefronts after Monday ’ s protests . Macy ’ s flagship store was among those hit when crowds of people smashed windows and looted stores as they swept through the area . Police made nearly 700 arrests and Mayor Bill de Blasio extended an 8 p.m. curfew all week . “ We ’ re going to have a tough few days , ” he warned , but added : “ We ’ re going to beat it back. ” He pleaded with community leaders to step forward and “ create peace . ” Thousands of protesters marched Tuesday night in a string of demonstrations across Manhattan and Brooklyn after merchants boarded up their businesses , fearing a repeat of the night before . Many people remained on the streets after the curfew hour . Police eventually ordered them to move along and began taking some into custody . More than 20,000 National Guard members have been called up in 29 states to deal with the violence . New York is not among them , and de Blasio has said he does not want the Guard . On Tuesday , Democratic Gov . Andrew Cuomo called what happened in the city “ a disgrace . ” “ The NYPD and the mayor did not do their job last night , ” Cuomo said at a briefing in Albany . He said the mayor underestimated the problem , and the nation ’ s largest police force was not deployed in sufficient numbers , though the city had said it doubled the usual police presence . Tuesday marked the eighth straight night of the protests , which began in Minneapolis , where Floyd died , and quickly spread across the country . The mother of George Floyd ’ s 6-year-old daughter , Gianna , said she wanted the world to know that her little girl lost a good father . “ I want everybody to know that this is what those officers took , ” Roxie Washington said during a Minneapolis news conference with her young daughter at her side . “ I want justice for him because he was good . No matter what anybody thinks , he was good . ” On Monday , scattered violence flared in multiple protests , including an officer who was shot and gravely wounded outside a Las Vegas hotel and casino , and four officers shot in St. Louis . They were expected to recover . About a dozen other deaths have been reported around the country over the past week . And nearly 8,000 people nationwide have been arrested , according to a count by The ███ . Some protesters framed the burgeoning movement as a necessity after a string of killings by police . “ It feels like it ’ s just been an endless cascade of hashtags of black people dying , and it feels like nothing ’ s really being done by our political leaders to actually enact real change , ” said Christine Ohenzuwa , 19 , who attended a peaceful protest at the Minnesota state Capitol in St. Paul . “ There ’ s always going to be a breaking point . I think right now , we ’ re seeing the breaking point around the country . ” “ I live in this state . It ’ s really painful to see what ’ s going on , but it ’ s also really important to understand that it ’ s connected to a system of racial violence , ” she said . Meanwhile , governors and mayors , Republicans and Democrats alike , rejected Trump ’ s threat to send in the military , with some saying troops would be unnecessary and others questioning whether the government has such authority and warning that such a step would be dangerous . “ Denver is not Little Rock in 1957 , and Donald Trump is not President Eisenhower . This is a time for healing , for bringing people together , and the best way to protect civil rights is to move away from escalating violence , ” Colorado Gov . Jared Polis and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock , both Democrats , said in a statement , referring to Eisenhower ’ s use of troops to enforce school desegregation in the South . A senior White House official , speaking on condition of anonymity , said that the president is not rushing to send in the military and that his goal was to pressure governors to deploy more National Guard members . Such use of the military would mark a stunning federal intervention rarely seen in modern American history . Amid the protests , nine states and the District of Columbia held presidential primaries that tested the nation ’ s ability to run elections while balancing a pandemic and sweeping social unrest . Joe Biden won hundreds more delegates and was on the cusp of formally securing the Democratic presidential nomination . Also Tuesday , Minnesota opened an investigation into whether the Minneapolis Police Department has a pattern of discrimination against minorities . Floyd died May 25 after a white Minneapolis officer , Derek Chauvin , pressed his knee on the handcuffed black man ’ s neck for several minutes . Chauvin has been charged with murder . Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said prosecutors are working as fast as they can to determine if the three other officers at the scene should be charged too . All four have been fired .

With the White House in the background, a line of police forms behind a fence in Lafayette Park as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Tuesday, June 2, 2020, in Washington. Floyd died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) With the White House in the background, a line of police forms behind a fence in Lafayette Park as demonstrators gather to protest the death of George Floyd, Tuesday, June 2, 2020, in Washington. Floyd died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) WASHINGTON (AP) — Undeterred by curfews, protesters streamed back into the nation’s streets Tuesday, hours after President Donald Trump pressed governors to put down the violence set off by George Floyd’s death and demanded that New York call up the National Guard to stop the “lowlifes and losers.” But most protests passed peacefully, and while there were scattered reports of looting in New York City, the country appeared calmer by late Tuesday than it did a day earlier, when violence swept through multiple cities. The president, meanwhile, amplified his hard-line calls from Monday, when he threatened to send in the military to restore order if governors didn’t do it. “NYC, CALL UP THE NATIONAL GUARD,” he tweeted. “The lowlifes and losers are ripping you apart. Act fast!” ADVERTISEMENT One day after a crackdown on peaceful protesters near the White House, thousands of demonstrators massed a block away from the presidential mansion, facing law enforcement personnel standing behind a black chain-link fence. The fence was put up overnight to block access to Lafayette Park, just across the street from the White House. “Last night pushed me way over the edge,” said Jessica DeMaio, 40, of Washington, who attended a Floyd protest Tuesday for the first time. “Being here is better than being at home feeling helpless.” The crowd remained in place after the city’s 7 p.m. curfew passed, defying warnings that the response from law enforcement could be even more forceful. But the protest lacked the tension of the previous nights’ demonstrations. The crowd Tuesday was peaceful, even polite. At one point, the crowd booed when a protester climbed a light post and took down a street sign. A chant went up: “Peaceful protest!” On Monday, law enforcement officers on foot and horseback aggressively drove protesters away from Lafayette Park, clearing the way for President Donald Trump to do a photo op at nearby St. John’s Church. On Tuesday, pastors at the church prayed with demonstrators and handed out water bottles. Protests ranged across the U.S., including in Los Angeles, Miami, St. Paul, Minnesota, Columbia, South Carolina, and Houston, where the police chief talked to peaceful demonstrators, vowing reforms. “God as my witness, change is coming,” Art Acevedo said. “And we’re going to do it the right way.” In New York, midtown Manhattan was pocked with battered storefronts after Monday’s protests. Macy’s flagship store was among those hit when crowds of people smashed windows and looted stores as they swept through the area. Police made nearly 700 arrests and Mayor Bill de Blasio extended an 8 p.m. curfew all week. “We’re going to have a tough few days,” he warned, but added: “We’re going to beat it back.” He pleaded with community leaders to step forward and “create peace.” ADVERTISEMENT Thousands of protesters marched Tuesday night in a string of demonstrations across Manhattan and Brooklyn after merchants boarded up their businesses, fearing a repeat of the night before. Many people remained on the streets after the curfew hour. Police eventually ordered them to move along and began taking some into custody. More than 20,000 National Guard members have been called up in 29 states to deal with the violence. New York is not among them, and de Blasio has said he does not want the Guard. On Tuesday, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo called what happened in the city “a disgrace.” “The NYPD and the mayor did not do their job last night,” Cuomo said at a briefing in Albany. He said the mayor underestimated the problem, and the nation’s largest police force was not deployed in sufficient numbers, though the city had said it doubled the usual police presence. Tuesday marked the eighth straight night of the protests, which began in Minneapolis, where Floyd died, and quickly spread across the country. The mother of George Floyd’s 6-year-old daughter, Gianna, said she wanted the world to know that her little girl lost a good father. “I want everybody to know that this is what those officers took,” Roxie Washington said during a Minneapolis news conference with her young daughter at her side. “I want justice for him because he was good. No matter what anybody thinks, he was good.” On Monday, scattered violence flared in multiple protests, including an officer who was shot and gravely wounded outside a Las Vegas hotel and casino, and four officers shot in St. Louis. They were expected to recover. About a dozen other deaths have been reported around the country over the past week. And nearly 8,000 people nationwide have been arrested, according to a count by The Associated Press. Some protesters framed the burgeoning movement as a necessity after a string of killings by police. “It feels like it’s just been an endless cascade of hashtags of black people dying, and it feels like nothing’s really being done by our political leaders to actually enact real change,” said Christine Ohenzuwa, 19, who attended a peaceful protest at the Minnesota state Capitol in St. Paul. “There’s always going to be a breaking point. I think right now, we’re seeing the breaking point around the country.” “I live in this state. It’s really painful to see what’s going on, but it’s also really important to understand that it’s connected to a system of racial violence,” she said. Meanwhile, governors and mayors, Republicans and Democrats alike, rejected Trump’s threat to send in the military, with some saying troops would be unnecessary and others questioning whether the government has such authority and warning that such a step would be dangerous. “Denver is not Little Rock in 1957, and Donald Trump is not President Eisenhower. This is a time for healing, for bringing people together, and the best way to protect civil rights is to move away from escalating violence,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, both Democrats, said in a statement, referring to Eisenhower’s use of troops to enforce school desegregation in the South. A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the president is not rushing to send in the military and that his goal was to pressure governors to deploy more National Guard members. Such use of the military would mark a stunning federal intervention rarely seen in modern American history. Amid the protests, nine states and the District of Columbia held presidential primaries that tested the nation’s ability to run elections while balancing a pandemic and sweeping social unrest. Joe Biden won hundreds more delegates and was on the cusp of formally securing the Democratic presidential nomination. Also Tuesday, Minnesota opened an investigation into whether the Minneapolis Police Department has a pattern of discrimination against minorities. Floyd died May 25 after a white Minneapolis officer, Derek Chauvin, pressed his knee on the handcuffed black man’s neck for several minutes. Chauvin has been charged with murder. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said prosecutors are working as fast as they can to determine if the three other officers at the scene should be charged too. All four have been fired. ___ Sullivan reported from Minneapolis. Associated Press journalists across the U.S. contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

UYCZ1NDiINeCpV41

test

cBfKpBjoDaS8kL9T

great_britain

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/176c1393bb1d93a2fb39d2f714d04f8b

India’s prime minister decrees 21-day lockdown to curb virus

2020-03-24

Emily Schmall, Sheikh Saaliq

Railway officials walk through a deserted railway station platform in Prayagraj , India , Tuesday , March 24 , 2020 . Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday announced a total lockdown of the country of 1.3 billion people to contain the new coronavirus outbreak . For most people , the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms . For some it can cause more severe illness . ( AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh ) Railway officials walk through a deserted railway station platform in Prayagraj , India , Tuesday , March 24 , 2020 . Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday announced a total lockdown of the country of 1.3 billion people to contain the new coronavirus outbreak . For most people , the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms . For some it can cause more severe illness . ( AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh ) NEW DELHI ( AP ) — India will begin the world ’ s largest lockdown on Wednesday , Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in a TV address , warning citizens to stay inside or risk inviting the pandemic into their homes , and pledging $ 2 billion to bolster the country ’ s beleaguered health care system . “ To save India and every Indian , there will be a total ban on venturing out , ” Modi said Tuesday night , acknowledging that the 21-day lockdown would be a major blow to the economy , but that the alternative could set the country back 21 years . The move puts nearly one-fifth of the world ’ s population under lockdown . Indian health officials have reported 469 active cases of COVID-19 , the disease caused by the virus , and 10 deaths . Officials have repeatedly insisted there is no evidence yet of communal spread but have conducted relatively scant testing for the disease . In a country where tens of millions live in dense urban areas with irregular access to clean water , experts have said communal spread is inevitable . For weeks , while the coronavirus wracked neighboring China and other parts of Asia , India ’ s infection toll stood at just three , all students in the Chinese epicenter , Wuhan , who were treated in their home state of Kerala and recovered from the disease . But since the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a global pandemic , triggering India ’ s government to invoke a British Raj-era epidemic act giving it sweeping powers to contain the disease , the cases have been growing rapidly and , according to Modi , have the potential to “ spread like wildfire . ” In recent days , India has been gradually expanding stay-at-home orders and has banned international and domestic flights and suspended passenger service on its extensive rail system . Essential service providers , including hospitals , police and media had been exempted from the stay-in-place orders , and many grocery stores and pharmacies remained open . Modi called Tuesday ’ s order a “ total lockdown ” and did not address whether any service providers would be exempt , but said that “ all steps have been taken by central and state government to ensure supply of essential items . ” It was not clear what this would mean for about 300 million Indians who according to official data live below the poverty line . Indian finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman said Tuesday that a comprehensive relief package would be announced soon . The lockdown “ has essentially drawn a laxman rekha on our doors , ” Modi said , referring to a line drawn by the hero of the Hindu epic “ Ramayana ” to protect his wife ’ s dwelling-place . “ You must remember that you will invite a grave pandemic like coronavirus to your homes if you step out . ” Indian virologist Dr. T. Jacob John said before the wholesale lockdown was announced on Tuesday that India was being forced to take extreme containment measures after failing to mitigate the problem earlier on , when the caseload was light . “ There would have been time because the wolf was not yet at the door . Now today the wolf ’ s inside the door and India ’ s supposed to calmly respond with a wolf in the corner , ” he said .

Railway officials walk through a deserted railway station platform in Prayagraj, India, Tuesday, March 24, 2020. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday announced a total lockdown of the country of 1.3 billion people to contain the new coronavirus outbreak. For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms. For some it can cause more severe illness. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh) Railway officials walk through a deserted railway station platform in Prayagraj, India, Tuesday, March 24, 2020. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Tuesday announced a total lockdown of the country of 1.3 billion people to contain the new coronavirus outbreak. For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms. For some it can cause more severe illness. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh) NEW DELHI (AP) — India will begin the world’s largest lockdown on Wednesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in a TV address, warning citizens to stay inside or risk inviting the pandemic into their homes, and pledging $2 billion to bolster the country’s beleaguered health care system. “To save India and every Indian, there will be a total ban on venturing out,” Modi said Tuesday night, acknowledging that the 21-day lockdown would be a major blow to the economy, but that the alternative could set the country back 21 years. The move puts nearly one-fifth of the world’s population under lockdown. Indian health officials have reported 469 active cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, and 10 deaths. Officials have repeatedly insisted there is no evidence yet of communal spread but have conducted relatively scant testing for the disease. In a country where tens of millions live in dense urban areas with irregular access to clean water, experts have said communal spread is inevitable. For weeks, while the coronavirus wracked neighboring China and other parts of Asia, India’s infection toll stood at just three, all students in the Chinese epicenter, Wuhan, who were treated in their home state of Kerala and recovered from the disease. But since the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a global pandemic, triggering India’s government to invoke a British Raj-era epidemic act giving it sweeping powers to contain the disease, the cases have been growing rapidly and, according to Modi, have the potential to “spread like wildfire.” In recent days, India has been gradually expanding stay-at-home orders and has banned international and domestic flights and suspended passenger service on its extensive rail system. Essential service providers, including hospitals, police and media had been exempted from the stay-in-place orders, and many grocery stores and pharmacies remained open. Modi called Tuesday’s order a “total lockdown” and did not address whether any service providers would be exempt, but said that “all steps have been taken by central and state government to ensure supply of essential items.” It was not clear what this would mean for about 300 million Indians who according to official data live below the poverty line. Indian finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman said Tuesday that a comprehensive relief package would be announced soon. The lockdown “has essentially drawn a laxman rekha on our doors,” Modi said, referring to a line drawn by the hero of the Hindu epic “Ramayana” to protect his wife’s dwelling-place. “You must remember that you will invite a grave pandemic like coronavirus to your homes if you step out.” Indian virologist Dr. T. Jacob John said before the wholesale lockdown was announced on Tuesday that India was being forced to take extreme containment measures after failing to mitigate the problem earlier on, when the caseload was light. “There would have been time because the wolf was not yet at the door. Now today the wolf’s inside the door and India’s supposed to calmly respond with a wolf in the corner,” he said.

www.apnews.com

center

cBfKpBjoDaS8kL9T

test

I7UHpn5jZvsbwG1n

politics

Guest Writer - Right

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/december/trump-needs-to-declare-war-on-government-waste

OPINION: Trump Needs to Declare War on Government Waste

2018-12-06

Republicans need to regain the offensive on the fiscal issues . The GOP has somehow allowed big-spending Democrats to get to the right of them on the issue of financial responsibility and balanced budgets . Polls show that Democrats are now more trusted on balancing the budget than Republicans . That 's like losing an arm wrestling contest with Nancy Pelosi . The big first step for Republicans to regain American trust on fiscal responsibility is for Donald Trump to deliver a nationally televised prime-time speech from the Oval Office to announce an all-hands-on-deck War on Washington Waste . Declare a debt-spending emergency . If Americans believed Trump was seriously committed to this initiative , he would be regarded as a fiscal superhero . His approval ratings would skyrocket . Who better than a businessman president to scrub out the hundreds of billions of useless expenditures that have made Americans so contemptuous of the Washington swamp . The issue is teed up right now because the spending trends have been so alarming . The Congressional Budget Office just announced that the government is now spending $ 2 billion more than it takes in every DAY . Do n't even think about blaming the tax cuts . In 2018 , the estimated $ 3.4 trillion raised in federal revenues was the highest level ever in American history – even with the tax cut . The problem is a spending avalanche that now exceeds $ 4 trillion of outlays a year . Several weeks ago a taxpayer watchdog group called OpenTheBooks.com published an open letter signed by former Sen. Tom Coburn , and Tom Smith sent to the president urging a waste war and it listed hundreds of examples of taxpayer dollars being flushed down the drain . The nearby table lists many of these little piggies . OpenTheBrooks estimates $ 125 billion in waste at the Pentagon alone . When President Trump was shown these lists of white elephants he responded : `` I thought we already took care of this . '' Unfortunately , no . The bureaucratic blob made sure it would n't happen . Fighting this war on waste wo n't be easy . Back in 1981 President Ronald Reagan appointed the famous Grace Commission to ferret out waste , duplication and inefficiency in the federal government . That landmark commission of private sector businessmen and women examined every nook and cranny of the cavernous government agencies in and around Washington and uncovered some $ 420 billion in bureaucratic overspending . It called for the elimination of hundreds of bureaus , agencies and departments that serve no purpose . It exposed porters like the Pentagon 's infamous $ 640 toilet seats – that was back when $ 640 was a lot of money – and $ 7,600 coffee pots , even a horrendous waste of money at today 's prices . Then the bureaucratic `` resistance movement '' set in and only about 10 to 15 percent of the Grace Commission recommendations were ever adopted . Here we are 35 years later and we are still wasting tens of billions of dollars a year on programs that were identified as outdated back in the 1980s . The only difference is that now the cobwebs in these useless agencies are bigger than ever . Trump seems committed . He has called for a 5 percent cut in the budget of EVERY federal agency in 2019 . Five measly cents out of every dollar . Any agency that says it ca n't do that should be given the list of the hundreds of pork projects buried in their budget . OpenTheBooks wants Trump to require every agency to list all spending items as little as $ 100 to be listed on a government website so we can monitor how the money is being spent . They want the president to report to the American people each month how much progress is being made in every agency in cutting their budgets . Almost nothing would do more to guarantee Donald Trump 's reelection than a crusade to weed out the hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud , efficiency , and duplication in Washington . No one is better to do it than a president who has been a successful businessman . A government that is going broke and yet still spends tens of thousands of dollars a year on pianos , hundreds of millions of dollars a year on public relations firms ( to advertize what a great job they are doing spending money ? ) And billions of dollars a year sending Social Security checks out to dead people is n't serious about balancing the budget or spending taxpayer money with the same care they spend their own . And that 's the whole money problem in Washington in a nutshell . Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant at FreedomWorks . His latest book is `` Trumponomics . ''

COMMENTARY Republicans need to regain the offensive on the fiscal issues. The GOP has somehow allowed big-spending Democrats to get to the right of them on the issue of financial responsibility and balanced budgets. Polls show that Democrats are now more trusted on balancing the budget than Republicans. That's like losing an arm wrestling contest with Nancy Pelosi. The big first step for Republicans to regain American trust on fiscal responsibility is for Donald Trump to deliver a nationally televised prime-time speech from the Oval Office to announce an all-hands-on-deck War on Washington Waste. Declare a debt-spending emergency. If Americans believed Trump was seriously committed to this initiative, he would be regarded as a fiscal superhero. His approval ratings would skyrocket. Who better than a businessman president to scrub out the hundreds of billions of useless expenditures that have made Americans so contemptuous of the Washington swamp. The issue is teed up right now because the spending trends have been so alarming. The Congressional Budget Office just announced that the government is now spending $2 billion more than it takes in every DAY. Don't even think about blaming the tax cuts. In 2018, the estimated $3.4 trillion raised in federal revenues was the highest level ever in American history – even with the tax cut. The problem is a spending avalanche that now exceeds $4 trillion of outlays a year. Several weeks ago a taxpayer watchdog group called OpenTheBooks.com published an open letter signed by former Sen. Tom Coburn, and Tom Smith sent to the president urging a waste war and it listed hundreds of examples of taxpayer dollars being flushed down the drain. The nearby table lists many of these little piggies. OpenTheBrooks estimates $125 billion in waste at the Pentagon alone. When President Trump was shown these lists of white elephants he responded: "I thought we already took care of this." Unfortunately, no. The bureaucratic blob made sure it wouldn't happen. Fighting this war on waste won't be easy. Back in 1981 President Ronald Reagan appointed the famous Grace Commission to ferret out waste, duplication and inefficiency in the federal government. That landmark commission of private sector businessmen and women examined every nook and cranny of the cavernous government agencies in and around Washington and uncovered some $420 billion in bureaucratic overspending. It called for the elimination of hundreds of bureaus, agencies and departments that serve no purpose. It exposed porters like the Pentagon's infamous $640 toilet seats – that was back when $640 was a lot of money – and $7,600 coffee pots, even a horrendous waste of money at today's prices. Then the bureaucratic "resistance movement" set in and only about 10 to 15 percent of the Grace Commission recommendations were ever adopted. Here we are 35 years later and we are still wasting tens of billions of dollars a year on programs that were identified as outdated back in the 1980s. The only difference is that now the cobwebs in these useless agencies are bigger than ever. Trump seems committed. He has called for a 5 percent cut in the budget of EVERY federal agency in 2019. Five measly cents out of every dollar. Any agency that says it can't do that should be given the list of the hundreds of pork projects buried in their budget. OpenTheBooks wants Trump to require every agency to list all spending items as little as $100 to be listed on a government website so we can monitor how the money is being spent. They want the president to report to the American people each month how much progress is being made in every agency in cutting their budgets. Almost nothing would do more to guarantee Donald Trump's reelection than a crusade to weed out the hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud, efficiency, and duplication in Washington. No one is better to do it than a president who has been a successful businessman. A government that is going broke and yet still spends tens of thousands of dollars a year on pianos, hundreds of millions of dollars a year on public relations firms (to advertize what a great job they are doing spending money?) And billions of dollars a year sending Social Security checks out to dead people isn't serious about balancing the budget or spending taxpayer money with the same care they spend their own. And that's the whole money problem in Washington in a nutshell. Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant at FreedomWorks. His latest book is "Trumponomics."

www1.cbn.com

right

I7UHpn5jZvsbwG1n

test

cUNBHIlo0Pz4TaW2

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/07/manafort-trial-latest-rick-gates-defence-lawyers-question

Paul Manafort's lawyers to question Rick Gates's credibility after explosive testimony

2018-08-07

David Smith

Under cross examination at the tax evasion and bank fraud trial of his ex-boss Paul Manafort , Gates struggled to give clear answers A former campaign aide to Donald Trump lived a “ secret life ” including an extramarital affair in London , a court heard on Tuesday . Rick Gates , under cross examination at the tax evasion and bank fraud trial of his former boss Paul Manafort , admitted that he had “ another relationship ” involving first-class flights and luxury hotels , but denied these were funded with money embezzled from Manafort . Manafort ex-business partner Rick Gates testifies they committed crimes together Read more Manafort , a former Trump campaign chairman , has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank and tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts . His defence team is seeking to pin the blame on Gates , who they say was responsible for day-to-day operations of the business . In a dramatic moment before the jury , Manafort ’ s defence counsel , Kevin Downing , put it to the government ’ s star witness : “ There ’ s another life , right , the other Rick Gates ? The secret Rick Gates ? ” Play Video 4:47 Russia inquiry : how Trump 's inner circle could bring him down – video explainer Gates , who is 46 and married , admitted : “ There was a period in my life , about 10 years ago , when I had a relationship , yes . ” With a nod to linguistic differences for what Americans refer to as an apartment , Downing pressed : “ As part of your secret life did you maintain a flat – is that what they call it ? – in London ? ” Paul Manafort trial : prosecutors seek to paint picture of luxe lifestyle Read more Gates acknowledged that he did for two months and that he took first class flights and stayed in “ fancy hotels ” around Europe , but said the money came from bonuses rather than illicit gains . “ I had a period of time when I had another relationship , ” he added . As well as being a senior aide on Trump ’ s election campaign , Gates served as the deputy chairman of the US president ’ s inaugural committee . On Tuesday , he admitted it was possible he had sought to cheat the committee with false expenses claims . “ Did you submit personal expenses to the inaugural committee for reimbursement ? ” Downing asked . Gates appeared nervous on the witness stand at the court in Alexandria , Virginia , blinking frequently , his throat apparently dry as he spoke . He frequently used the phrases “ It ’ s possible ” and “ I don ’ t recall ” as Downing challenged him about inconsistencies in testimony he gave to the special counsel ’ s office . “ When did you start providing false and misleading information to the special counsel ’ s office ? ” the defence counsel asked bluntly . Gates struggled so badly to give a straight answer that eventually Judge T S Ellis III was forced to intervene . “ Did you provide false information or did you have a bad memory ? ” he asked . Gates finally admitted that he had provided false information prior to striking a plea agreement . “ I did , to one count , your honour , ” he said . He has already admitted embezzling some funds from Manafort . Downing pressed him on the specifics of their business relationship : which payments to Gates were authorised and which were not . Regarding a trading company Manafort had started with a partner in 2011 , he asked with deep scepticism : “ You ’ re asking the jury to believe Mr Manafort authorised another $ 250,000 as a bonus ? ” Why is Paul Manafort risking it all to face Mueller charges in court ? Read more Downing wondered aloud why Gates had shown “ perfect recollection ” during examination by the government but was now much less precise under cross-examination by Manafort ’ s defence . He challenged the witness : “ Have they [ the special counsel ’ s office ] confronted you with so many lies you can ’ t remember any of it ? ” Gates testified that he stole from Manafort because he was living beyond his means . Downing asked : “ Was it for your secret life ? ” The witness replied defensively : “ It ’ s not a secret life . It went to an account my wife knew about . ” Though he has at times seemed evasive under cross-examination , Gates insisted that he now acknowledges his mistake and is taking responsibility for it , whereas Manafort is not . But Downing challenged again : “ After all the lies you ’ ve told and fraud you ’ ve committed , you expect this jury to believe you ? ” Earlier on Tuesday , the prosecution had continued to question Gates , who described how millions of dollars were allegedly funneled from entities controlled by Ukrainian businessmen into Manafort ’ s shell companies in Cyprus . Although the allegations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia are not at issue in this trial , any significant blows to the government ’ s case are likely to be seized on by the president ’ s defenders , including conservative media , to support his contention that Mueller ’ s investigation is a “ rigged witch-hunt ” . Paul Manafort lawyers want mention of Trump banned in Virginia trial Read more Gates pleaded guilty in February and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors under a deal that could lead to a reduced sentence . On Monday , he testified that he helped Manafort file false tax returns and hide his foreign bank accounts . He was aware that Manafort was acting as an unregistered foreign agent in lobbying for Ukraine , he said . On Tuesday , the court was shown a series of emails , contracts and what prosecutor Greg Andres referred to as “ fake invoices ” , in which Gates altered the template to show the name of a shell company instead of Manafort ’ s . This was a way to decrease Manafort ’ s taxable income , added Gates , who did not report the money to Manafort ’ s bookkeeper or accountants . Manafort ’ s political work included advising Viktor Yanukovych on policy after he won the Ukrainian presidency , Gates said . “ Mr Manafort worked with the local political officials and helped implement policy initiatives based on the campaign promises . ” For this Manafort was paid $ 4m a year , in quarterly payments of $ 1m , Gates recalled , though at some point the currency switched from US dollars to Euros . His consultancy work also included “ Engage Ukraine ” , an effort to help Ukraine join the European Union . Government lawyers have previously referred to Yanukovych as Manafort ’ s “ golden goose ” . After Yanukovych lost power in 2014 , “ I would say it decreased the income stream ” , Gates , wearing a blue suit , told the court matter-of-factly . He added Manafort worked for a time for the Opposition Bloc , the party that replaced Yanukovych ’ s Party of Regions , but it was out of power and so “ income streams were more difficult to come by ” . By July 2015 , the court heard , Manafort was struggling financially . Andres asked : “ Was he having trouble paying his bills ? ” Gates replied : “ He was . ” Gates said he and Manafort turned to a Cypriot lawyer , whom he referred to in court as “ Dr K ” , who set up bank accounts and shell companies on Manafort ’ s behalf and “ handled everything ” . FBI investigates Russian-linked Cyprus bank accused of money laundering Read more When an individual sets up an entity in Cyprus , Gates explained , their name does not appear on any of the paperwork . He said of Manafort : “ I believe he understood his name would not be represented , nor would mine . ” As Manafort came under pressure to pay his bills , he was forced to seek loans , the court heard . Gates said he was responsible for collecting all relevant documents for the loan applications . Andres asked him : “ Did you provide false information to the banks ? ’

Under cross examination at the tax evasion and bank fraud trial of his ex-boss Paul Manafort, Gates struggled to give clear answers This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old A former campaign aide to Donald Trump lived a “secret life” including an extramarital affair in London, a court heard on Tuesday. Rick Gates, under cross examination at the tax evasion and bank fraud trial of his former boss Paul Manafort, admitted that he had “another relationship” involving first-class flights and luxury hotels, but denied these were funded with money embezzled from Manafort. Manafort ex-business partner Rick Gates testifies they committed crimes together Read more Manafort, a former Trump campaign chairman, has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank and tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. His defence team is seeking to pin the blame on Gates, who they say was responsible for day-to-day operations of the business. In a dramatic moment before the jury, Manafort’s defence counsel, Kevin Downing, put it to the government’s star witness: “There’s another life, right, the other Rick Gates? The secret Rick Gates?” Play Video 4:47 Russia inquiry: how Trump's inner circle could bring him down – video explainer Gates, who is 46 and married, admitted: “There was a period in my life, about 10 years ago, when I had a relationship, yes.” With a nod to linguistic differences for what Americans refer to as an apartment, Downing pressed: “As part of your secret life did you maintain a flat – is that what they call it? – in London?” Paul Manafort trial: prosecutors seek to paint picture of luxe lifestyle Read more Gates acknowledged that he did for two months and that he took first class flights and stayed in “fancy hotels” around Europe, but said the money came from bonuses rather than illicit gains. “I had a period of time when I had another relationship,” he added. As well as being a senior aide on Trump’s election campaign, Gates served as the deputy chairman of the US president’s inaugural committee. On Tuesday, he admitted it was possible he had sought to cheat the committee with false expenses claims. “Did you submit personal expenses to the inaugural committee for reimbursement?” Downing asked. Gates answered: “I don’t recall. It’s possible.” Gates appeared nervous on the witness stand at the court in Alexandria, Virginia, blinking frequently, his throat apparently dry as he spoke. He frequently used the phrases “It’s possible” and “I don’t recall” as Downing challenged him about inconsistencies in testimony he gave to the special counsel’s office. “When did you start providing false and misleading information to the special counsel’s office?” the defence counsel asked bluntly. Gates struggled so badly to give a straight answer that eventually Judge T S Ellis III was forced to intervene. “Did you provide false information or did you have a bad memory?” he asked. Gates finally admitted that he had provided false information prior to striking a plea agreement. “I did, to one count, your honour,” he said. He has already admitted embezzling some funds from Manafort. Downing pressed him on the specifics of their business relationship: which payments to Gates were authorised and which were not. Regarding a trading company Manafort had started with a partner in 2011, he asked with deep scepticism: “You’re asking the jury to believe Mr Manafort authorised another $250,000 as a bonus?” Why is Paul Manafort risking it all to face Mueller charges in court? Read more Downing wondered aloud why Gates had shown “perfect recollection” during examination by the government but was now much less precise under cross-examination by Manafort’s defence. He challenged the witness: “Have they [the special counsel’s office] confronted you with so many lies you can’t remember any of it?” Gates replied: “No.” Gates testified that he stole from Manafort because he was living beyond his means. Downing asked: “Was it for your secret life?” The witness replied defensively: “It’s not a secret life. It went to an account my wife knew about.” Though he has at times seemed evasive under cross-examination, Gates insisted that he now acknowledges his mistake and is taking responsibility for it, whereas Manafort is not. But Downing challenged again: “After all the lies you’ve told and fraud you’ve committed, you expect this jury to believe you?” Gates retorted: “Yes.” Earlier on Tuesday, the prosecution had continued to question Gates, who described how millions of dollars were allegedly funneled from entities controlled by Ukrainian businessmen into Manafort’s shell companies in Cyprus. Although the allegations of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia are not at issue in this trial, any significant blows to the government’s case are likely to be seized on by the president’s defenders, including conservative media, to support his contention that Mueller’s investigation is a “rigged witch-hunt”. Paul Manafort lawyers want mention of Trump banned in Virginia trial Read more Gates pleaded guilty in February and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors under a deal that could lead to a reduced sentence. On Monday, he testified that he helped Manafort file false tax returns and hide his foreign bank accounts. He was aware that Manafort was acting as an unregistered foreign agent in lobbying for Ukraine, he said. On Tuesday, the court was shown a series of emails, contracts and what prosecutor Greg Andres referred to as “fake invoices”, in which Gates altered the template to show the name of a shell company instead of Manafort’s. This was a way to decrease Manafort’s taxable income, added Gates, who did not report the money to Manafort’s bookkeeper or accountants. Manafort’s political work included advising Viktor Yanukovych on policy after he won the Ukrainian presidency, Gates said. “Mr Manafort worked with the local political officials and helped implement policy initiatives based on the campaign promises.” For this Manafort was paid $4m a year, in quarterly payments of $1m, Gates recalled, though at some point the currency switched from US dollars to Euros. His consultancy work also included “Engage Ukraine”, an effort to help Ukraine join the European Union. Government lawyers have previously referred to Yanukovych as Manafort’s “golden goose”. After Yanukovych lost power in 2014, “I would say it decreased the income stream”, Gates, wearing a blue suit, told the court matter-of-factly. He added Manafort worked for a time for the Opposition Bloc, the party that replaced Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, but it was out of power and so “income streams were more difficult to come by”. By July 2015, the court heard, Manafort was struggling financially. Andres asked: “Was he having trouble paying his bills?” Gates replied: “He was.” Gates said he and Manafort turned to a Cypriot lawyer, whom he referred to in court as “Dr K”, who set up bank accounts and shell companies on Manafort’s behalf and “handled everything”. FBI investigates Russian-linked Cyprus bank accused of money laundering Read more When an individual sets up an entity in Cyprus, Gates explained, their name does not appear on any of the paperwork. He said of Manafort: “I believe he understood his name would not be represented, nor would mine.” As Manafort came under pressure to pay his bills, he was forced to seek loans, the court heard. Gates said he was responsible for collecting all relevant documents for the loan applications. Andres asked him: “Did you provide false information to the banks?’ Without hesitating, Gates replied: “Yes.” Andres followed up: “Did Mr Manafort know?” Again the reply came: “Yes.”

www.theguardian.com

left

cUNBHIlo0Pz4TaW2

test

oRgUtBo9oi2WziJw

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/25/dear-media-please-stop-normalizing-the-a

Dear Media: Please Stop Normalizing the Alt-Right

2016-11-25

David Harsanyi, Peter Suderman, Noah Shepardson, Jonathan H. Adler, Mike Riggs, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Jacob Sullum, Shikha Dalmia, Eugene Volokh

Why does the March for Life , a rally that attracts tens of thousands of anti-abortion Americans to Washington , D.C. , every year get less prominent media coverage than a fringe neo-Nazi gathering ? Because institutional media and white nationalists have formed a politically convenient symbiotic relationship . For Jew-hating racists , the attention means they can playact as a viable and popular movement with pull in Washington . In return , many in the media get to confirm their own biases and treat white supremacy as if it were the secret ingredient to Republican success . Meanwhile , this obsessive coverage of the alt-right not only helps mainstream a small movement but it 's also exactly what the bigots need and want to grow . Check out the coverage of this weekend 's National Policy Institute conference in Washington . As far as I can tell , these pseudointellectual xenophobic bull sessions have been going on for years , featuring many of the same names . These people have generally been given the attention they deserve , which is to say exceptionally little . If you read this week 's headlines , though , you would have thought the German American Bund had packed 22,000 cheering fascists into the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center . A New York Times headline read , `` Alt-Right Exults in Donald Trump 's Election With a Salute : 'Heil Victory . ' '' Politico 's headline read , `` Alt-right celebrates Trump 's election at D.C . meeting . '' NPR 's read , `` Energized By Trump 's Win , White Nationalists Gather To 'Change The World . ' '' Every major cable news network had a discussion about the importance of the Institute . But here 's a little nugget from the NPR piece that asserts the election has given this `` once fringe movement a jolt '' : `` About 300 people—split nearly evenly between conference attendees and protesters of the conference outside—were on hand at the downtown D.C . event . '' About 300 people ? Some jolt . To put that into context , there were well over 300 people at thousands of churches and temples across the Washington area this weekend praying for peace on Earth . In this country , you could pull together 300 people for a meeting about anything , actually . Thousands of UFO enthusiasts got together in the Arizona desert last year in hopes of not being mass abducted by space aliens . A few years ago , I attended the Socialist convention in Chicago , where at least a thousand activists gathered to discuss how to end economic freedom . Since then , 43 percent of Democrat primary goers have given this extreme movement a jolt , I guess . Then again , it 's possible not every self-styled American `` socialist '' is an ideological purist about handing production of iPhones to the state . We 'd be wise to view many on the alt-right with similar skepticism . Still , it is indisputable that many of these people are odious—and not odious in the way liberals think of Republicans who worry about refugees from Syria , or in the way immigration laws are odious . We have a responsibility to use morally precise language when referring to this group ( which , in this case , is the neo-Nazi group ) ; contextualize their influence ( which is little but more than it should be ) ; and unequivocally call them out . We should never , ever glamorize them for political purposes . Why do media obsessively cover the alt-right ? I suppose it 's the same ███ every major publication gave former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke—who polled at 3 to 4 percent in the Louisiana Senate race all year—their undivided attention . ( What am I talking about ? We 're still hearing about Duke on a daily basis . ) It 's to create the impression that they matter . None of this is to say Trump should n't be called out for his vulgar rhetoric or ideas , some of which gave these people the space they needed . Nor does it absolve Republicans who look the other way when genuine bigotry appears . Yes , GOPers should n't normalize the alt-right , and neither should the media imbue the movement with an outsized importance to feed its preferred narrative regarding the election . For some reporters , I imagine it 's a matter of perception . Conservative critics of Trump were relentlessly attacked by astroturfing neo-Nazi types on social media during the primaries . After the primaries , when liberal journalists finally focused on Trump , they , too , became the target of harassment . The hate became a huge story because of these personal experiences . But that 's a generous reading of events . Another reading is that coverage is driven with the cynical purpose of exaggerating the importance of neo-Nazis to tie them to Republicans . The media will now demand the administration to denounce white supremacists every time they have a meeting—which itself intimates that there is a connection . Conflating these scary things can create the impression that conservatism is Donald Trump , which is Steve Bannon , which is David Duke , which is Richard Spencer . I 'm afraid it 's not that simple . And attempting to make it that simple only weakens legitimate criticism of the president-elect—of which there is plenty .

Why does the March for Life, a rally that attracts tens of thousands of anti-abortion Americans to Washington, D.C., every year get less prominent media coverage than a fringe neo-Nazi gathering? Because institutional media and white nationalists have formed a politically convenient symbiotic relationship. For Jew-hating racists, the attention means they can playact as a viable and popular movement with pull in Washington. In return, many in the media get to confirm their own biases and treat white supremacy as if it were the secret ingredient to Republican success. Meanwhile, this obsessive coverage of the alt-right not only helps mainstream a small movement but it's also exactly what the bigots need and want to grow. Check out the coverage of this weekend's National Policy Institute conference in Washington. As far as I can tell, these pseudointellectual xenophobic bull sessions have been going on for years, featuring many of the same names. These people have generally been given the attention they deserve, which is to say exceptionally little. If you read this week's headlines, though, you would have thought the German American Bund had packed 22,000 cheering fascists into the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center. A New York Times headline read, "Alt-Right Exults in Donald Trump's Election With a Salute: 'Heil Victory.'" Politico's headline read, "Alt-right celebrates Trump's election at D.C. meeting." NPR's read, "Energized By Trump's Win, White Nationalists Gather To 'Change The World.'" Every major cable news network had a discussion about the importance of the Institute. But here's a little nugget from the NPR piece that asserts the election has given this "once fringe movement a jolt": "About 300 people—split nearly evenly between conference attendees and protesters of the conference outside—were on hand at the downtown D.C. event." About 300 people? Some jolt. To put that into context, there were well over 300 people at thousands of churches and temples across the Washington area this weekend praying for peace on Earth. In this country, you could pull together 300 people for a meeting about anything, actually. Thousands of UFO enthusiasts got together in the Arizona desert last year in hopes of not being mass abducted by space aliens. A few years ago, I attended the Socialist convention in Chicago, where at least a thousand activists gathered to discuss how to end economic freedom. Since then, 43 percent of Democrat primary goers have given this extreme movement a jolt, I guess. Then again, it's possible not every self-styled American "socialist" is an ideological purist about handing production of iPhones to the state. We'd be wise to view many on the alt-right with similar skepticism. Still, it is indisputable that many of these people are odious—and not odious in the way liberals think of Republicans who worry about refugees from Syria, or in the way immigration laws are odious. We have a responsibility to use morally precise language when referring to this group (which, in this case, is the neo-Nazi group); contextualize their influence (which is little but more than it should be); and unequivocally call them out. We should never, ever glamorize them for political purposes. Why do media obsessively cover the alt-right? I suppose it's the same reason every major publication gave former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke—who polled at 3 to 4 percent in the Louisiana Senate race all year—their undivided attention. (What am I talking about? We're still hearing about Duke on a daily basis.) It's to create the impression that they matter. None of this is to say Trump shouldn't be called out for his vulgar rhetoric or ideas, some of which gave these people the space they needed. Nor does it absolve Republicans who look the other way when genuine bigotry appears. Yes, GOPers shouldn't normalize the alt-right, and neither should the media imbue the movement with an outsized importance to feed its preferred narrative regarding the election. For some reporters, I imagine it's a matter of perception. Conservative critics of Trump were relentlessly attacked by astroturfing neo-Nazi types on social media during the primaries. After the primaries, when liberal journalists finally focused on Trump, they, too, became the target of harassment. The hate became a huge story because of these personal experiences. But that's a generous reading of events. Another reading is that coverage is driven with the cynical purpose of exaggerating the importance of neo-Nazis to tie them to Republicans. The media will now demand the administration to denounce white supremacists every time they have a meeting—which itself intimates that there is a connection. Conflating these scary things can create the impression that conservatism is Donald Trump, which is Steve Bannon, which is David Duke, which is Richard Spencer. I'm afraid it's not that simple. And attempting to make it that simple only weakens legitimate criticism of the president-elect—of which there is plenty. COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS

www.reason.com

right

oRgUtBo9oi2WziJw

test

tLFrSG9qhJJw1K11

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/march/cpac-highlights-the-stakes-in-2020-the-socialist-agenda-extreme-abortion-laws-and-infanticide

CPAC Highlights the Stakes in 2020: The Socialist Agenda, Extreme Abortion Laws, and Infanticide

2019-02-28

WASHINGTON – Conservatives outside Washington have already started rallying around President Donald Trump 's 2020 bid to stay in the White House . Republicans at this year 's annual Conservative Political Action Conference ( CPAC ) are painting a picture of `` what makes America great . '' Their answer : a Trump presidency . Anything less , according to these conservatives , would be akin to socialism . President Trump recently declared , `` America will never be a socialist country . '' Front and center at this year 's CPAC are self-described `` radical '' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) and her new brand of far left politics . Republicans are taking on the freshman congresswoman 's `` Green New Deal . '' Rep. Mark Meadows ( R-NC ) said , `` With this Green New Deal , they are trying to get rid of all the cows but I 've got good news ... Chick-fil-A stock will go way up because we are going to be eating more chicken . '' Sending signals in a new video that the fight for 2020 will target Democrats as advocates of socialism . In CPAC 's video , Ocasio-Cortez and numerous other prominent members of her party push for socialist policies for America . They propose things like : `` Their 2020 platform sounds identical to policies already tried and now failing in the collapsed socialist state of Venezuela , '' the video states . The video also highlights recent examples of anti-Semitism from new members of Congress . Nearly two years away from the presidential election , conservatives are training their fire and articulating their wins . Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) said , `` Think about the first two years of this presidency , taxes have been cut , regulations reduced , economy growing at an unprecedented rate , unemployment at its lowest in 50 years , we are outta the Iran Deal , Embassy is in Jerusalem , Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Court , hostages are home from North Korea , new NAFTA agreement and a president who at the State of the Union will stand up and talk about the sanctity of human life . '' The far Left is taking center stage at CPAC – and the life issue is playing a major role . Gov . Scott Walker ( R-WI ) hit back at Democrats in Congress for blocking a Republican bill this week to protect children born alive after botched abortions . `` It 's not live birth abortion . It 's not infanticide -- it is murder . If you take the baby home and kill the baby at home , it 's murder and the same thing 's true at the hospital , '' Walker said . This comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) took to the Senate floor Thursday to announce his opposition to new legislation from the Democrats . McConnell said , `` This legislation would shatter the longstanding consensus that federal dollars should not pay for abortions and force taxpayers to fund abortions nationwide . '' Concerned Women for America President Penny Nance , a well-known conservative speaker , highlighted the Republican stance on the life issue at CPAC Thursday . She was outraged at senators who on Monday blocked legislation that would protect babies who survive a botched abortion . We 're talking about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which lawmakers shot down . `` Sometimes the abortionist does n't get the job done in the womb and a baby is able to survive and when she is born does she deserve life-saving treatment ? We say absolutely yes ! 44 , 'The Dirty 44 ' said no , '' she said . Nance is referring to the 44 senators who voted no – like Democratic presidential hopefuls : Sens . Kamala Harris , Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren to name a few . `` It 's been a great honor to work alongside the most Pro-life president in US history , '' she said . `` I think he came to his issue late ; I do n't think earlier in his life that he had thought about it or maybe he did n't have the right information , but once he had the opportunity to recognize what it meant , what abortions did to families , what it did to babies , what it does to their mothers , he has become a real convert to the issue and he very plainly expressed that . '' Nance says the Life Advisory Council has been busy working on legislation to protect the unborn and also keep money out of Planned Parenthood and other places that perform abortions . CPAC runs through the weekend , and some of CPAC 's biggest speakers have yet to arrive . Vice President Mike Pence will talk on Friday at 10 am while the president is set to speak Saturday . CPAC is expected to draw more than 10,000 people . This year 's theme is `` What Makes America Great '' which plays on the president 's campaign slogan .

WASHINGTON – Conservatives outside Washington have already started rallying around President Donald Trump's 2020 bid to stay in the White House. Republicans at this year's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) are painting a picture of "what makes America great." Their answer: a Trump presidency. Anything less, according to these conservatives, would be akin to socialism. President Trump recently declared, "America will never be a socialist country." Front and center at this year's CPAC are self-described "radical" Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and her new brand of far left politics. Republicans are taking on the freshman congresswoman's "Green New Deal." Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said, "With this Green New Deal, they are trying to get rid of all the cows but I've got good news... Chick-fil-A stock will go way up because we are going to be eating more chicken." Sending signals in a new video that the fight for 2020 will target Democrats as advocates of socialism. In CPAC's video, Ocasio-Cortez and numerous other prominent members of her party push for socialist policies for America. They propose things like: No use of fossil fuels within 12 years No more private health insurance Open borders by abolishing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) "Their 2020 platform sounds identical to policies already tried and now failing in the collapsed socialist state of Venezuela," the video states. The video also highlights recent examples of anti-Semitism from new members of Congress. Nearly two years away from the presidential election, conservatives are training their fire and articulating their wins. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, "Think about the first two years of this presidency, taxes have been cut, regulations reduced, economy growing at an unprecedented rate, unemployment at its lowest in 50 years, we are outta the Iran Deal, Embassy is in Jerusalem, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Court, hostages are home from North Korea, new NAFTA agreement and a president who at the State of the Union will stand up and talk about the sanctity of human life." The far Left is taking center stage at CPAC – and the life issue is playing a major role. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) hit back at Democrats in Congress for blocking a Republican bill this week to protect children born alive after botched abortions. "It's not live birth abortion. It's not infanticide -- it is murder. If you take the baby home and kill the baby at home, it's murder and the same thing's true at the hospital," Walker said. This comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to the Senate floor Thursday to announce his opposition to new legislation from the Democrats. McConnell said, "This legislation would shatter the longstanding consensus that federal dollars should not pay for abortions and force taxpayers to fund abortions nationwide." Concerned Women for America President Penny Nance, a well-known conservative speaker, highlighted the Republican stance on the life issue at CPAC Thursday. She was outraged at senators who on Monday blocked legislation that would protect babies who survive a botched abortion. We're talking about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which lawmakers shot down. "Sometimes the abortionist doesn't get the job done in the womb and a baby is able to survive and when she is born does she deserve life-saving treatment? We say absolutely yes! 44, 'The Dirty 44' said no," she said. Nance is referring to the 44 senators who voted no – like Democratic presidential hopefuls: Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren to name a few. Nance serves on President Trump's "Life Advisory Council." "It's been a great honor to work alongside the most Pro-life president in US history," she said. "I think he came to his issue late; I don't think earlier in his life that he had thought about it or maybe he didn't have the right information, but once he had the opportunity to recognize what it meant, what abortions did to families, what it did to babies, what it does to their mothers, he has become a real convert to the issue and he very plainly expressed that." Nance says the Life Advisory Council has been busy working on legislation to protect the unborn and also keep money out of Planned Parenthood and other places that perform abortions. CPAC runs through the weekend, and some of CPAC's biggest speakers have yet to arrive. Vice President Mike Pence will talk on Friday at 10 am while the president is set to speak Saturday. CPAC is expected to draw more than 10,000 people. This year's theme is "What Makes America Great" which plays on the president's campaign slogan.

www1.cbn.com

right

tLFrSG9qhJJw1K11

test

32cVOvEs7dO2bjGs

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46815227

US government shutdown: Six ways it could end

President Donald Trump 's standoff with Democrats over a border wall has dragged the US into the longest-ever government shutdown . Both sides appear to be dug in , so how might it end ? Mr Trump continues to call the border a national security crisis while Democrats say he is holding America hostage over an exaggerated threat . As the nation waits for Washington to move forward , here are a few ways the situation could evolve . The BBC 's Anthony Zurcher also chips in with his thoughts and his probability rating . Airport security staff , who have been working without pay since December , have begun leaving their jobs , according to officials . Terminals in some major airports have begun experiencing delays or are closing as a result . Food safety has also come into question as agencies struggle to operate . And on Tuesday the White House said it had doubled its estimate of the economic strain caused by the shutdown . Mr Trump 's public opinion is also suffering , according to new polling . Anthony : There 's always the possibility that the president could just throw in the towel . He did it when the heat became intolerable on his family-separation policy last year . He could do it again , if it becomes increasingly unlikely that Democrats are going to make concessions and the extended shutdown starts eating into the robust US economic growth that he frequently touts . The big question would be whether his base would go along with this . Would they view a three-week shutdown as enough of an effort to fulfil this campaign promise ? Mr Trump would certainly take heat from conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter , but at some point the price of the shutdown might exceed the pain of backing down . Mr Trump has been meeting congressional leaders but last week 's attempts to resolve the shutdown ended with him walking out when Democrats refused to budge . But as it drags on , pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill . Anthony : It 's a testament to the determination of both sides in the shutdown confrontation that , for the most part , partisan ranks appear to be holding firm . A handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted to reopen the government without wall funding , while the Republican leadership of the Senate has successfully squelched calls for a vote of any kind . Meanwhile , Democrats have been steadfast - at least publicly - in their resistance to any kind of wall funding . That deadlock may not hold for much longer , however . As the pain from the shutdown spills out beyond just the 800,000 federal employees affected into the public at large , the pressure to reach any kind of a deal is growing . In the end the most probable deal would involve some new , vaguely worded border security funding that does n't explicitly give the president money for his much-promised wall . Both sides could declare victory , and both sides would be right ( and wrong ) . Appearing on Fox News Sunday , Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suggested the president reopen the government for three weeks of negotiations . If talks are still stalled by the end , he could declare a national emergency . The following day , President Trump appeared to reject that plan . But Mr Graham was undeterred , joining forces with other senators from both parties to draft a letter - obtained by Axios - requesting a short-term spending bill . According to a leaked draft of the letter , the senators are requesting Mr Trump pause the shutdown `` to give Congress time to develop and vote on a bipartisan agreement '' . It does not mention a border wall or national emergency . Anthony : Graham is drafting a letter to the president that suggests a full debate on border security in exchange for a 30-day reopening of the government . It 's an offer the president has rejected in the past - but it at least buys both sides some time ( and gets federal employees their past-due paycheques ) . If Mr Trump does invoke his presidential powers , he could bypass Congress and obtain the means for his wall through military resources . Emergencies are usually declared in times of crisis , when the White House needs funds quickly and can not wait for Congress to approve it . Critics would consider this a flagrant misuse of power and both political and legal battles would ensue . But the 1976 National Emergencies Act , which doled out unilateral authority in emergencies to presidents , as well as a court history of deferring to the president 's national security decisions , could be in his favour . Anthony Zurcher : For a while , it seemed like this would be a clever way for Mr Trump to extricate himself from the shutdown crisis . He could make the announcement to redirect existing funds to the border , sign legislation reopening the government and declare victory . Yes , the action would get bogged down in the courts , but a protracted legal fight might be a useful campaign issue in 2020 . But some Republicans have balked at the prospect of a Democratic president using emergency declarations to enact gun control , nationalised healthcare or stringent environmental regulation . At some point Mr Trump might get so frustrated he ignores the concerns of his fellow Republicans , of course . It would n't be the first time . Little sign of a capitulation happening , with the leadership steadfast in their refusal to bow to President Trump 's demands for a wall . Seven House Democrats accepted the president 's invitation to the White House for talks on Wednesday , but their statement afterwards gave no hint of compromise . Anthony : The parody website The Onion recently ran an article about how even Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was surprised he had n't caved yet to Republican demands . It 's meant as a joke , but there 's some truth to it . In the past Democrats have been more keen to seek middle ground and compromise , even when their base thought they conceding too much . This time around , however , the Democrats have shown hardly a crack in their resistance . Mr Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have stood almost literally arm-in-arm in their opposition to Mr Trump 's demands . The rank and file have largely been quiet , even though the pain being felt by government employees - whose unions are big Democratic supporters - has been acute . Instead , Ms Pelosi has been playing hardball , even suggesting the president should delay his high-profile State of the Union Address scheduled for later this month . Democrats are buoyed by a number of polls showing that not only is a majority of the public opposed to Mr Trump 's proposal for an expanded border wall , they blame the president for the shutdown as well . For the moment , the Democrats have the high ground in this confrontation - and they are acting like it . No , it 's not an ending , as such . It 's the opposite of an ending , but it 's a way forward - it 's possible the shutdown may just carry on . Some 800,000 federal workers missed their first paycheque this month . Many have been furloughed - temporarily laid off - but those deemed essential have been working since 22 December without pay . Close to 50,000 workers have now been called back by the administration to work unpaid on key tasks like tax refunds and food safety . Over the last 26 days , federal employees have shared their fears of affording rent , making credit card payments and putting food on the table . Hundreds have turned to fundraising or side-jobs to make ends meet . Thousands of contract workers - who are not entitled to any back pay from Congress - and small businesses working closely with federal agencies have also been suffering . Anthony Zurcher : The president has ordered tens of thousands of federal employees back to work - without pay . It 's an acknowledgment that the consequences of the government shutdown are worsening and a way of alleviating some of the pain . Many Americans are anxious to get their federal tax returns , and the Internal Revenue Service is getting the manpower to handle the paperwork . That may buy the president some time and allow the shutdown to drag on . But federal employees ca n't work for free forever . Some are suing the government to end this practice . Others are threatening to call in sick or quit en masse . The shutdown may stretch on , but it ca n't continue forever .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump v Democrats on the border wall and government shutdown President Donald Trump's standoff with Democrats over a border wall has dragged the US into the longest-ever government shutdown. Both sides appear to be dug in, so how might it end? Mr Trump continues to call the border a national security crisis while Democrats say he is holding America hostage over an exaggerated threat. As the nation waits for Washington to move forward, here are a few ways the situation could evolve. The BBC's Anthony Zurcher also chips in with his thoughts and his probability rating. 1. Things get so bad that Trump caves Airport security staff, who have been working without pay since December, have begun leaving their jobs, according to officials. Terminals in some major airports have begun experiencing delays or are closing as a result. Food safety has also come into question as agencies struggle to operate. And on Tuesday the White House said it had doubled its estimate of the economic strain caused by the shutdown. Mr Trump's public opinion is also suffering, according to new polling. Anthony: There's always the possibility that the president could just throw in the towel. He did it when the heat became intolerable on his family-separation policy last year. He could do it again, if it becomes increasingly unlikely that Democrats are going to make concessions and the extended shutdown starts eating into the robust US economic growth that he frequently touts. The big question would be whether his base would go along with this. Would they view a three-week shutdown as enough of an effort to fulfil this campaign promise? Mr Trump would certainly take heat from conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, but at some point the price of the shutdown might exceed the pain of backing down. Chances: 20% Image copyright Getty Images 2. Trump strikes a deal with Congress Mr Trump has been meeting congressional leaders but last week's attempts to resolve the shutdown ended with him walking out when Democrats refused to budge. But as it drags on, pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill. Anthony: It's a testament to the determination of both sides in the shutdown confrontation that, for the most part, partisan ranks appear to be holding firm. A handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted to reopen the government without wall funding, while the Republican leadership of the Senate has successfully squelched calls for a vote of any kind. Meanwhile, Democrats have been steadfast - at least publicly - in their resistance to any kind of wall funding. That deadlock may not hold for much longer, however. As the pain from the shutdown spills out beyond just the 800,000 federal employees affected into the public at large, the pressure to reach any kind of a deal is growing. In the end the most probable deal would involve some new, vaguely worded border security funding that doesn't explicitly give the president money for his much-promised wall. Both sides could declare victory, and both sides would be right (and wrong). Chances: 40% and creeping up 3. The Lindsey Graham solution Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham suggested the president reopen the government for three weeks of negotiations. If talks are still stalled by the end, he could declare a national emergency. The following day, President Trump appeared to reject that plan. But Mr Graham was undeterred, joining forces with other senators from both parties to draft a letter - obtained by Axios - requesting a short-term spending bill. According to a leaked draft of the letter, the senators are requesting Mr Trump pause the shutdown "to give Congress time to develop and vote on a bipartisan agreement". It does not mention a border wall or national emergency. Anthony: Graham is drafting a letter to the president that suggests a full debate on border security in exchange for a 30-day reopening of the government. It's an offer the president has rejected in the past - but it at least buys both sides some time (and gets federal employees their past-due paycheques). Chances: 10% Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Five questions about Trump's border wall 4. Trump declares a national emergency If Mr Trump does invoke his presidential powers, he could bypass Congress and obtain the means for his wall through military resources. Emergencies are usually declared in times of crisis, when the White House needs funds quickly and cannot wait for Congress to approve it. Critics would consider this a flagrant misuse of power and both political and legal battles would ensue. But the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which doled out unilateral authority in emergencies to presidents, as well as a court history of deferring to the president's national security decisions, could be in his favour. Image copyright The Washington Post via Getty Images Image caption Trump holds up a photo of a 'typical standard wall design' as he speaks during a roundtable discussion on border security Anthony Zurcher: For a while, it seemed like this would be a clever way for Mr Trump to extricate himself from the shutdown crisis. He could make the announcement to redirect existing funds to the border, sign legislation reopening the government and declare victory. Yes, the action would get bogged down in the courts, but a protracted legal fight might be a useful campaign issue in 2020. But some Republicans have balked at the prospect of a Democratic president using emergency declarations to enact gun control, nationalised healthcare or stringent environmental regulation. At some point Mr Trump might get so frustrated he ignores the concerns of his fellow Republicans, of course. It wouldn't be the first time. Chances: 20% and dropping 5. The Democrats cave Little sign of a capitulation happening, with the leadership steadfast in their refusal to bow to President Trump's demands for a wall. Seven House Democrats accepted the president's invitation to the White House for talks on Wednesday, but their statement afterwards gave no hint of compromise. Anthony: The parody website The Onion recently ran an article about how even Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was surprised he hadn't caved yet to Republican demands. It's meant as a joke, but there's some truth to it. In the past Democrats have been more keen to seek middle ground and compromise, even when their base thought they conceding too much. This time around, however, the Democrats have shown hardly a crack in their resistance. Mr Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have stood almost literally arm-in-arm in their opposition to Mr Trump's demands. The rank and file have largely been quiet, even though the pain being felt by government employees - whose unions are big Democratic supporters - has been acute. Instead, Ms Pelosi has been playing hardball, even suggesting the president should delay his high-profile State of the Union Address scheduled for later this month. Democrats are buoyed by a number of polls showing that not only is a majority of the public opposed to Mr Trump's proposal for an expanded border wall, they blame the president for the shutdown as well. For the moment, the Democrats have the high ground in this confrontation - and they are acting like it. Chances: 9% 6. Shutdown continues No, it's not an ending, as such. It's the opposite of an ending, but it's a way forward - it's possible the shutdown may just carry on. Some 800,000 federal workers missed their first paycheque this month. Many have been furloughed - temporarily laid off - but those deemed essential have been working since 22 December without pay. Close to 50,000 workers have now been called back by the administration to work unpaid on key tasks like tax refunds and food safety. Over the last 26 days, federal employees have shared their fears of affording rent, making credit card payments and putting food on the table. Hundreds have turned to fundraising or side-jobs to make ends meet. Thousands of contract workers - who are not entitled to any back pay from Congress - and small businesses working closely with federal agencies have also been suffering. Anthony Zurcher: The president has ordered tens of thousands of federal employees back to work - without pay. It's an acknowledgment that the consequences of the government shutdown are worsening and a way of alleviating some of the pain. Many Americans are anxious to get their federal tax returns, and the Internal Revenue Service is getting the manpower to handle the paperwork. That may buy the president some time and allow the shutdown to drag on. But federal employees can't work for free forever. Some are suing the government to end this practice. Others are threatening to call in sick or quit en masse. The shutdown may stretch on, but it can't continue forever. Chances: 1%

www.bbc.com

center

32cVOvEs7dO2bjGs

test

qGGkPWzeAPN7VNAd

nuclear_weapons

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/20/north-korea-nuclear-missile-could-it-hit-california-trump

North Korea nuclear threat: should California start panicking?

2017-04-20

Alan Yuhas

As rhetoric between North Korea and the US ratchets up , should major cities on the west coast be worried about a missile strike ? Experts say the answer is tricky In test blasts , military parades and propaganda videos that show San Francisco and Washington DC in ruins , North Korea has broadcast its intention to be a world nuclear power . Less clear , experts say , is how close the secretive nation is to realizing its ambitions to threaten the mainland of the United States . As rhetoric between the two nations has ratcheted up in recent weeks , residents of major west coast cities such as San Francisco , Portland and Seattle have begun to ask out loud : should they be worried ? After five nuclear tests in a decade , North Korea has already shown that it poses a nuclear threat to South Korea and Japan , roughly 80,000 American soldiers stationed in those countries , and to China , its nominal ally . But although Kim Jong-un has dramatically increased missile testing since he took power in 2011 , North Korea has yet to test an intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) that could cross nearly 5,500 miles of the Pacific . North Korea would need to overcome two feats of engineering to threaten the American mainland : a working ICBM system and a warhead for one of those missiles . Unlike shorter-range missiles , long-range missiles have multiple engines and flight stages , meaning North Korean engineers have to make rockets – and bombs – that can survive the violent vibrations of launch , the wrenching g-forces of flight , and the temperature changes of takeoff and re-entry from space . “ Producing a warhead that can handle all that is a challenge , ” said Joseph Bermudez , an analyst for 38 North , a thinktank affiliated with the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies . Although Kim has said he wants to test an ICBM later this year , Bermudez doubted the test would be a success . In February , North Korea fired a medium-range missileinto the Sea of Japan , travelling about 300 miles . North Korea has also developed a missile with an estimated range of 2,200 miles , almost halfway to Hawaii , but so far struggled to launch it . Until North Korea begins ICBM tests , it will be difficult to gauge the country ’ s capabilities , said Joshua Pollack , a senior researcher at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey , California . “ If they do get to the point where they decide to start a campaign of ICBM flight testing , that will allow them to work through the usual technical difficulties , ” he said , noting that they had an “ impressive ” record of solving problems . “ It will allow them in time , I ’ m confident , to create a reliable weapon . ” But Pollack was wary about any timeline . “ They could flight test an ICBM today and it could work or it could take them a year or two , ” he said . “ I really hesitate to say anything about it . ” Other experts have offered cautious estimates , based on the rate of testing in the last six years . “ If everything proceeds as is , it ’ s likely by 2020 that they could have a system reaching the United States , ” Bermudez said . “ It should be viewed as an emerging threat . ” They could flight test an ICBM today and it could work , or it could take them a year or two After the fifth test last fall , Siegfried Hecker , the former director of Los Alamos National Lab , the cradle of the first atomic bomb , gave a similar assessment . “ Left unchecked , Pyongyang will likely develop the capability to reach the continental United States with a nuclear tipped missile in a decade or so , ” he wrote in a post for 38 North . While North Korea can not hide its missile tests – even short-range tests are usually visible to satellites – it has performed nuclear tests in a tunnel system beneath a mile-high mountain . The secrecy means experts know relatively little about how small or sophisticated North Korea ’ s bombs are , or how many exist . Experts agreed , however , that North Korea probably has the means to fit a warhead to an ICBM . “ It ’ s within the range of their technical capabilities and competence , ” Bermudez said . “ That doesn ’ t mean they could easily or successfully do it . ” The US has reportedly made it more difficult for North Korea to get missiles off the ground , with a series of cyber-attacks begun by Barack Obama . But government hackers alone probably can not stop North Korea ’ s ambitions , Bermudez said . “ It ’ s likely that any cyberwarfare campaign would not be able to stop either the nuclear program or the ballistic program , only delay it . ” Donald Trump vowed on Twitter earlier this year that Kim would not test an ICBM , and his advisers have not ruled out pre-emptive military action . Last weekend ’ s parade , the experts said , showed a natural arc in North Korea ’ s progress : a mix of propaganda , aspirations and actual progress , to take with a grain of salt . In the parade North Korea showcased two apparently new ICBMs , larger even than existing models already designed to reach the east coast of the US . Nuclear war has become thinkable again – we need a reminder of what it means | Paul Mason Read more “ That does not mean it ’ s ready , that also does not mean it ’ s fake , ” Pollack said . “ You see a mix of old and new , some things not quite ready for primetime , others tried and true . ” Hecker and Pollack have urged diplomacy to stall North Korea ’ s program , saying that Obama ’ s non-negotiating policy of “ strategic patience ” gave Kim time to develop ICBMs as leverage . “ The good news , if you ’ re worried , is first of all the North Koreans are not suicidal , they ’ re not going to just start a war , ” Pollack said , noting that the US had coexisted for decades with other nuclear rivals , Russia and China . “ So this is a familiar condition for us and I don ’ t think we need to get too worked up . ”

As rhetoric between North Korea and the US ratchets up, should major cities on the west coast be worried about a missile strike? Experts say the answer is tricky In test blasts, military parades and propaganda videos that show San Francisco and Washington DC in ruins, North Korea has broadcast its intention to be a world nuclear power. Less clear, experts say, is how close the secretive nation is to realizing its ambitions to threaten the mainland of the United States. As rhetoric between the two nations has ratcheted up in recent weeks, residents of major west coast cities such as San Francisco, Portland and Seattle have begun to ask out loud: should they be worried? After five nuclear tests in a decade, North Korea has already shown that it poses a nuclear threat to South Korea and Japan, roughly 80,000 American soldiers stationed in those countries, and to China, its nominal ally. But although Kim Jong-un has dramatically increased missile testing since he took power in 2011, North Korea has yet to test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could cross nearly 5,500 miles of the Pacific. North Korea would need to overcome two feats of engineering to threaten the American mainland: a working ICBM system and a warhead for one of those missiles. Unlike shorter-range missiles, long-range missiles have multiple engines and flight stages, meaning North Korean engineers have to make rockets – and bombs – that can survive the violent vibrations of launch, the wrenching g-forces of flight, and the temperature changes of takeoff and re-entry from space. “Producing a warhead that can handle all that is a challenge,” said Joseph Bermudez, an analyst for 38 North, a thinktank affiliated with the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Although Kim has said he wants to test an ICBM later this year, Bermudez doubted the test would be a success. In February, North Korea fired a medium-range missileinto the Sea of Japan, travelling about 300 miles. North Korea has also developed a missile with an estimated range of 2,200 miles, almost halfway to Hawaii, but so far struggled to launch it. Until North Korea begins ICBM tests, it will be difficult to gauge the country’s capabilities, said Joshua Pollack, a senior researcher at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Soldiers march during a military parade in Pyongyang, North Korea, to celebrate the 105th birth anniversary of Kim Il-sung, the country’s late founder. Photograph: Wong Maye-E/AP “If they do get to the point where they decide to start a campaign of ICBM flight testing, that will allow them to work through the usual technical difficulties,” he said, noting that they had an “impressive” record of solving problems. “It will allow them in time, I’m confident, to create a reliable weapon.” But Pollack was wary about any timeline. “They could flight test an ICBM today and it could work or it could take them a year or two,” he said. “I really hesitate to say anything about it.” Other experts have offered cautious estimates, based on the rate of testing in the last six years. “If everything proceeds as is, it’s likely by 2020 that they could have a system reaching the United States,” Bermudez said. “It should be viewed as an emerging threat.” They could flight test an ICBM today and it could work, or it could take them a year or two After the fifth test last fall, Siegfried Hecker, the former director of Los Alamos National Lab, the cradle of the first atomic bomb, gave a similar assessment. “Left unchecked, Pyongyang will likely develop the capability to reach the continental United States with a nuclear tipped missile in a decade or so,” he wrote in a post for 38 North. While North Korea cannot hide its missile tests – even short-range tests are usually visible to satellites – it has performed nuclear tests in a tunnel system beneath a mile-high mountain. The secrecy means experts know relatively little about how small or sophisticated North Korea’s bombs are, or how many exist. Experts agreed, however, that North Korea probably has the means to fit a warhead to an ICBM. “It’s within the range of their technical capabilities and competence,” Bermudez said. “That doesn’t mean they could easily or successfully do it.” The US has reportedly made it more difficult for North Korea to get missiles off the ground, with a series of cyber-attacks begun by Barack Obama. But government hackers alone probably cannot stop North Korea’s ambitions, Bermudez said. “It’s likely that any cyberwarfare campaign would not be able to stop either the nuclear program or the ballistic program, only delay it.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest The secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, speaks about North Korea. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images Donald Trump vowed on Twitter earlier this year that Kim would not test an ICBM, and his advisers have not ruled out pre-emptive military action. Last weekend’s parade, the experts said, showed a natural arc in North Korea’s progress: a mix of propaganda, aspirations and actual progress, to take with a grain of salt. In the parade North Korea showcased two apparently new ICBMs, larger even than existing models already designed to reach the east coast of the US. Nuclear war has become thinkable again – we need a reminder of what it means | Paul Mason Read more “That does not mean it’s ready, that also does not mean it’s fake,” Pollack said. “You see a mix of old and new, some things not quite ready for primetime, others tried and true.” Hecker and Pollack have urged diplomacy to stall North Korea’s program, saying that Obama’s non-negotiating policy of “strategic patience” gave Kim time to develop ICBMs as leverage. “The good news, if you’re worried, is first of all the North Koreans are not suicidal, they’re not going to just start a war,” Pollack said, noting that the US had coexisted for decades with other nuclear rivals, Russia and China. “So this is a familiar condition for us and I don’t think we need to get too worked up.”

www.theguardian.com

left

qGGkPWzeAPN7VNAd

test

j9iumabRGAuQ2HKQ

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/06/sick_of_republican_shenanigans_why_obama_may_not_get_snookered_this_time/

Sick of Republican shenanigans: Why Obama may not get snookered this time

2014-11-06

Jim Newell

There was a predictable conventional wisdom heading into Wednesday 's post-election press conference that President Obama would need to announce some sort of vaguely defined course correction , or at least show contrition . That he would need to develop a list of center-right policy proposals to discuss with Mitch McConnell over some sort of ice-breaking lunch . That he would have to abandon the partisan posture that allegedly hung his party out to dry on Tuesday night . What a shocking development it must have been , then , to see the president not completely change his set of beliefs and priorities overnight after his party fared poorly in a midterm election . He reiterated his intention to take whatever executive action on immigration he legally can by the end of the year while also encouraging Congress to deliver a comprehensive immigration reform bill that he knows will never come . He said he will veto the bills he believes are bad ideas , such as a repeal of the Affordable Care Act or of its most crucial components . He will be open to working on the right-of-center policy positions that he 's always been annoyingly open to : trade deals and corporate tax reform . He still wants to fix bridges and roads and increase the minimum wage . The only major policy that he seemed to introduce -- and it 's an important one -- was in welcoming an Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) to define the war against ISIS . He 's basically the same guy he was the day before the election , and that 's going to send many in Washington to their fainting couches . Why ca n't he abandon his plans for executive action on immigration ? Why wo n't he fire someone ? Why wo n't he agree to sign everything the Republicans send him ? Does n't he realize he has to change if he wants to accomplish things with Republicans ? Lest we forget , though , he 's been through this once before , after the 2010 elections . And he appears to have learned the right lessons from that : No changes in his behavior are going to cause a rapprochement with Republicans . Remember the big , sad show he put on after 2010 , the last time he was pressured into changing his ways overnight ? It makes you wince . Hiring Bill Daley , a person who had no idea what he was doing , to serve as chief of staff in order to curry favor with the `` business community . '' Signing a two-year extension of the top-bracket Bush tax cuts . Allowing Republicans to trick him into negotiating over a raise in the debt ceiling . Trying countless times to pursue a `` grand bargain '' deficit deal on taxes and social insurance programs . What he got in return for these efforts was nothing . ( And thank God , by the way , that he did n't get a grand bargain . ) The Republican Party refused to negotiate with him , because the current Republican Party 's identity is forged on being oppositional to Barack Obama . If it were to agree with him on some significant piece of legislation , then that would make Barack Obama something less-than-Satan , which would make the Republican Party ... what ? Let 's do a thought experiment . Say Barack Obama dropped his plan to take executive action on immigration in order to foster cooperation with Republicans on passing comprehensive immigration reform . What would happen ? He 'd be denounced by a significant portion of the Democratic base , perhaps irreparably . And then the Republican leaders in the House and Senate would proceed to do exactly nothing on immigration , because it 's not in their members ' interests to cut a comprehensive immigration reform deal with Barack Obama . And then Obama , because he is the president , would get the blame for nothing `` getting done '' in Washington . What possible reason is there for him to delay executive action on immigration ? He can either improve the lives of millions of people , excite the members of his party , and have Republicans hate him or improve the lives of no one , depress the members of his party , and have Republicans hate him . Otherwise , it 's not exactly clear what he could do for a `` fresh start . '' The closest and therefore most lazily applied reference is to President George W. Bush 's response to his party 's 2006 midterm loss , when he fired Donald Rumsfeld . Obama could fire someone , but whom ? There is no equivalent to a Rumsfeld in this administration . Bush lost that election because of the Iraq War , and Rumsfeld was the surly household name running the Iraq War . There is no analogous figurehead in the Obama administration waiting to be lopped off . And it 's not like Rumsfeld 's firing ceased the Bush administration 's prosecution of the war , anyway . One of the first things Bush did with his new Democratic Congress was ask for ( and receive ) funding to deploy tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq . If Obama seemed unusually calm in his press conference Wednesday , it 's because he felt no pressure to present himself as something other than the center-left technocrat that he is . He learned after 2010 that it does n't matter whether he presents himself as a center-left technocrat , a center-right technocrat , a budget hawk , John Boehner 's golf buddy or whatever : Those who are intent on seeing him as a radical leftist hell-bent on America 's destruction will see him as a radical leftist hell-bent on America 's destruction , because that 's the narrative that works for them . But sure , if Mitch McConnell wants to have a drink , they can have a drink .

There was a predictable conventional wisdom heading into Wednesday's post-election press conference that President Obama would need to announce some sort of vaguely defined course correction, or at least show contrition. That he would need to develop a list of center-right policy proposals to discuss with Mitch McConnell over some sort of ice-breaking lunch. That he would have to abandon the partisan posture that allegedly hung his party out to dry on Tuesday night. What a shocking development it must have been, then, to see the president not completely change his set of beliefs and priorities overnight after his party fared poorly in a midterm election. Advertisement: He reiterated his intention to take whatever executive action on immigration he legally can by the end of the year while also encouraging Congress to deliver a comprehensive immigration reform bill that he knows will never come. He said he will veto the bills he believes are bad ideas, such as a repeal of the Affordable Care Act or of its most crucial components. He will be open to working on the right-of-center policy positions that he's always been annoyingly open to: trade deals and corporate tax reform. He still wants to fix bridges and roads and increase the minimum wage. The only major policy that he seemed to introduce -- and it's an important one -- was in welcoming an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to define the war against ISIS. He's basically the same guy he was the day before the election, and that's going to send many in Washington to their fainting couches. Why can't he abandon his plans for executive action on immigration? Why won't he fire someone? Why won't he agree to sign everything the Republicans send him? Doesn't he realize he has to change if he wants to accomplish things with Republicans? Lest we forget, though, he's been through this once before, after the 2010 elections. And he appears to have learned the right lessons from that: No changes in his behavior are going to cause a rapprochement with Republicans. Advertisement: Remember the big, sad show he put on after 2010, the last time he was pressured into changing his ways overnight? It makes you wince. Hiring Bill Daley, a person who had no idea what he was doing, to serve as chief of staff in order to curry favor with the "business community." Signing a two-year extension of the top-bracket Bush tax cuts. Allowing Republicans to trick him into negotiating over a raise in the debt ceiling. Trying countless times to pursue a "grand bargain" deficit deal on taxes and social insurance programs. What he got in return for these efforts was nothing. (And thank God, by the way, that he didn't get a grand bargain.) The Republican Party refused to negotiate with him, because the current Republican Party's identity is forged on being oppositional to Barack Obama. If it were to agree with him on some significant piece of legislation, then that would make Barack Obama something less-than-Satan, which would make the Republican Party ... what? Let's do a thought experiment. Say Barack Obama dropped his plan to take executive action on immigration in order to foster cooperation with Republicans on passing comprehensive immigration reform. What would happen? He'd be denounced by a significant portion of the Democratic base, perhaps irreparably. And then the Republican leaders in the House and Senate would proceed to do exactly nothing on immigration, because it's not in their members' interests to cut a comprehensive immigration reform deal with Barack Obama. And then Obama, because he is the president, would get the blame for nothing "getting done" in Washington. What possible reason is there for him to delay executive action on immigration? He can either improve the lives of millions of people, excite the members of his party, and have Republicans hate him or improve the lives of no one, depress the members of his party, and have Republicans hate him. Advertisement: Otherwise, it's not exactly clear what he could do for a "fresh start." The closest and therefore most lazily applied reference is to President George W. Bush's response to his party's 2006 midterm loss, when he fired Donald Rumsfeld. Obama could fire someone, but whom? There is no equivalent to a Rumsfeld in this administration. Bush lost that election because of the Iraq War, and Rumsfeld was the surly household name running the Iraq War. There is no analogous figurehead in the Obama administration waiting to be lopped off. And it's not like Rumsfeld's firing ceased the Bush administration's prosecution of the war, anyway. One of the first things Bush did with his new Democratic Congress was ask for (and receive) funding to deploy tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq. If Obama seemed unusually calm in his press conference Wednesday, it's because he felt no pressure to present himself as something other than the center-left technocrat that he is. He learned after 2010 that it doesn't matter whether he presents himself as a center-left technocrat, a center-right technocrat, a budget hawk, John Boehner's golf buddy or whatever: Those who are intent on seeing him as a radical leftist hell-bent on America's destruction will see him as a radical leftist hell-bent on America's destruction, because that's the narrative that works for them. Advertisement: But sure, if Mitch McConnell wants to have a drink, they can have a drink.

www.salon.com

left

j9iumabRGAuQ2HKQ

test

VlwdI7caZ7dRyQno

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-fight

Run against Trump? Elizabeth Warren will certainly stand and fight

2017-05-01

David Smith

Senator who the president derides with a racist nickname has a book to promote , a seat to win and rumors of a White House bid to … neither confirm nor deny Donald Trump has named his most likely challenger in the 2020 presidential election . It is Elizabeth Warren . 100 daze of Trump : euphoria and nausea on the White House rollercoaster Read more Standing before the faithful of the National Rifle Association in Atlanta on Friday , the president predicted a surfeit of candidates . “ You ’ ll have plenty of those Democrats coming over and you ’ re going to say , ‘ No , sir , no thank you – no , ma ’ am , ’ ” the president said . “ Perhaps ma ’ am . It may be Pocahontas , remember that . ” Pocahontas is the racially charged term that Trump used on the campaign trail to dismiss Warren , who has claimed Native American heritage . Clearly , she had got under his skin . The Massachusetts senator was a self-declared “ nasty woman ” with a message for Trump : “ Women have had it with guys like you. ” She went toe to toe with him on his favourite medium , Twitter , hammering him for delivering a “ one-two punch of bigotry and economic lies ” . It is small wonder that , if asked who now personifies the anti-Trump resistance , Warren would come top of many people ’ s lists . At 67 , the former Harvard law professor is a formidable figure with a reputation for reticence bordering on aloofness when approached by reporters in the corridors of Capitol Hill . But the woman who walks into Senate Democratic offices in Washington for this interview , wearing a blue jacket and dark trousers , is the opposite of aloof . “ Elizabeth Warren , ” she says , despite being instantly recognisable to anyone following US politics , offering a handshake and warm smile . She reminisces about her first visit to this room , when she was on her way to becoming a senator in 2012 , and jokes about ███ ’ s voice recorder resembling a Taser . But when she turns to business , she is characteristically forthright and makes clear that Barack Obama ’ s grace period – a presidential afterglow in which he is beyond criticism in the Democratic party – is over . Most Americans are being left behind in this economy . Worse than being left behind , they ’ re getting kicked in the teeth “ I think President Obama , like many others in both parties , talks about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots , ” she says . “ That GDP , unemployment , no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans . And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy . “ Worse than being left behind , they ’ re getting kicked in the teeth . ” In the topsy-turvy election , both Trump and the leftwing candidate for the Democratic nomination , Bernie Sanders , spoke of a rigged economy . Hillary Clinton , the Democratic nominee , has articulated the view that Obama did not get the credit he deserved from rescuing America from the financial crisis of 2007-08 . That , it transpired , was small comfort to voters in decaying industrial towns who felt the globalisation train had left the station without them . With Sanders still a leading voice and energy coming from the progressive base , and centrist politics around the world in retreat , it might be tempting for the Democrats to turn left . Warren – who grew up in deep red Oklahoma but now lives in Massachusetts , the state of the Kennedys – frames the question in a different way . Again , she demonstrates a willingness to criticise her own party . “ I think left-right is less and less an accurate description of the political landscape , ” she says . “ Now , having said that , I think there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats here in the United States . The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful , but so have a lot of Democrats . You know , it ’ s a question of walking the walk on working people , on fighting for working people . I think that was the real point . ” Warren did not not name any individuals . Some commentators have criticised Bill and Hillary Clinton for becoming too close to wealthy elites . Much has been written in the electoral postmortems over the definition of a Democrat : whether economic populism was neglected during the election in favour of identity politics relating to gender , race and sexuality . For progressives , it might be argued that Warren represents the best of Clinton and Sanders rolled into one : strong on issues such as equal pay and reproductive rights but equally strong on class inequality and economic opportunity . This is also what makes her such a tempting target for Trump and the Republicans . “ I think it ’ s a false choice , ” she says . “ To talk about the economics of survival in the 21st century is also to include a woman ’ s right to make decisions over her own body , a woman ’ s meaningful access to birth control . That is as deeply woven into the economic stability of that woman individually , her family , her community , this entire nation . I think those are deeply tied to each other . Not either-ors . ” The senator ’ s choice of abortion as an example is timely . Sanders triggered fierce soul searching in the party last week by rallying in Omaha , Nebraska for a mayoral candidate who opposes abortion rights but promises economic justice . Pro-choice activists described it as a betrayal of the women who have been in the vanguard of the resistance to Trump . Would Warren endorse a Democratic candidate who was anti-abortion ? “ Probably not , ” she says . “ But let me be clear . Look , I ’ m pro-choice , I ’ m strongly pro-choice , I ’ ve been in these fights forever and forever and forever and at the federal level this is powerfully important to me … I get that not everyone in the Democratic party agrees with me but I am in this fight all the way . ” Trump has energised and galvanised the apathetic and apolitical . He made politics great again in the sense of getting people to care instead of allowing it to hum softly in the background . Suddenly , it is no longer a tepid struggle within the grey managerial class . Suddenly it matters . Newspaper readership and news channel viewership have revived after years of decline ; late-night TV comedians are thriving . What Trump Did Next is a constant topic of conversation at dinner tables . It may yet prove to be his legacy . Many call Trump a fascist . 100 days in , is he just a reactionary Republican ? | Victoria de Grazia Read more On 21 January , for example , more than 400,000 protesters took part in a women ’ s march in Washington , with millions more marching across America and around the world . For Warren , it was an awakening : “ I think that when the history of this time period is written it will be about Donald Trump ’ s election , no doubt , but it will be about the Women ’ s March the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated . Democracy changed in America on that day . “ We are no longer a country that believes we can do politics only once every four years , or even once every two years , no longer a country that says that democracy is only about elections and that it will tend to itself in the time periods between elections . People are deeply engaged in issues right now . The healthcare fight . Immigration . ” Warren advocates marches and rallies , online protests , viral videos , collective action and running for office . “ Let me give a giant hug to the resistance . Resistance , persistence , insistence – every part of it – and how to bring more people into the fight . Look , Democrats are in the minority in the House , in the Senate , our tools are very limited to block Trump ’ s actions but democracy is working in an entirely new way . “ This is one of the things I now talk about everywhere we go , about how to get more engaged and how people can make their voices more effective , and how they can make sure they get heard in Washington , and it is changing the United States Congress . Not fast enough , but it ’ s changing it . ” Trump has tried to undermine a free press . He ’ s shown no respect for the courts . Those are the steps authoritarians take Warren , a mother of two and grandmother of three , is at the tip of that particular spear . She has never met Trump – the closest she came was at the inauguration – but she clashed with him on Twitter last year . “ Thumbs at 30 paces , ” she jokes , miming the typing action in mid-air . On 21 March 2016 , she posted : “ Many of history ’ s worst authoritarians started out as losers – and @ realDonaldTrump is a serious threat. ” In her new book , This Fight is Our Fight , she recalls on inauguration day seeing protesters carrying a giant banner that said just one word : “ FASCIST . ” Asked if she considers Trump an authoritarian , a fascist , she replies forcefully : “ Look at what he has done . He has expressed his admiration for Mussolini , for Vladimir Putin . He has tried to undermine a free press . He ’ s shown no respect for the courts . Those are the steps that authoritarians take . ” Can America withstand it ? “ That ’ s ultimately what the book is about . It ’ s the narrative arc of how America built a middle class and then corporate CEOs and billionaires took the legs out from underneath the middle class , how their tool was money , and the final chapter , whether or not we can withstand the punch that Donald Trump delivers to our working families and to our democracy . And yet , I would say , this book ends on a note of optimism . ” Trump may be a one-off but the conditions that produced him are not . The disillusionment in towns across America that felt forgotten by flashy big cities , that felt they had nothing to lose by voting for Trump , rhymed with what led to the Brexit vote in the UK . America had Reagan and trickle-down economics ; Britain had Thatcher and the invisible hand of the market . “ There are certainly parallels , ” Warren says . “ Billionaires and corporate CEOs have figured out that for an investment of millions of dollars – they can get returns of billions of dollars . So if they can get their snout to the trough of government money , government handouts , government gifts , government loopholes , they can get richer and richer and richer . It ’ s not a secret that was developed here in the United States alone . It ’ s a point that ’ s spread all around the globe . ” In This Fight is Our Fight , Warren recalls a conversation with her husband , Bruce Mann , over whether to run for president in 2016 . He pointed out how difficult the first Senate race was . “ It was hard for him to see me ridiculed and called names , hard to see our children dragged into political attacks , hard to see both his sister and my brothers worry , ” she writes . He gave her his blessing but talking it through with him decided her against . Trump 's promise for healthcare act contradicts Republicans ' proposal Read more Will this deter her again in 2020 ? Clinton recently said she believes misogyny played a part in her own defeat . Reviewing Warren ’ s book for the New York Times , economist Paul Krugman wrote : “ Let ’ s be honest : Republicans have gone after Warren herself , in a way they haven ’ t gone after Sanders , in part because of her gender . ” Warren does not say no . But first , she reminds us , she has a Senate race to run in 2018 – a midterm election that should provide a clue as to the durability of the resistance at the ballot box . “ I said I ’ m in this fight , there ’ s no pause about that , ” she says . “ I can take whatever somebody wants to throw at me . It ’ s harder when things get thrown at your family but that ’ s become the reality of 21st-century politics . ” She recalls her own journey , from janitor ’ s daughter to Harvard academic to senator , thanks to opportunities she believes were lost to today ’ s children when Washington decided it was more important to give tax breaks to billionaires and giant corporations . “ So that ’ s what drives me , ” she says , passionately . “ And if you told me that what it would take for me to make a difference would be to get up every day and walk across broken glass but that I have a chance to open some doors for the next kid who comes along , I ’ d do it . ”

Senator who the president derides with a racist nickname has a book to promote, a seat to win and rumors of a White House bid to … neither confirm nor deny Donald Trump has named his most likely challenger in the 2020 presidential election. It is Elizabeth Warren. 100 daze of Trump: euphoria and nausea on the White House rollercoaster Read more Standing before the faithful of the National Rifle Association in Atlanta on Friday, the president predicted a surfeit of candidates. “You’ll have plenty of those Democrats coming over and you’re going to say, ‘No, sir, no thank you – no, ma’am,’” the president said. “Perhaps ma’am. It may be Pocahontas, remember that.” Pocahontas is the racially charged term that Trump used on the campaign trail to dismiss Warren, who has claimed Native American heritage. Clearly, she had got under his skin. The Massachusetts senator was a self-declared “nasty woman” with a message for Trump: “Women have had it with guys like you.” She went toe to toe with him on his favourite medium, Twitter, hammering him for delivering a “one-two punch of bigotry and economic lies”. It is small wonder that, if asked who now personifies the anti-Trump resistance, Warren would come top of many people’s lists. At 67, the former Harvard law professor is a formidable figure with a reputation for reticence bordering on aloofness when approached by reporters in the corridors of Capitol Hill. But the woman who walks into Senate Democratic offices in Washington for this interview, wearing a blue jacket and dark trousers, is the opposite of aloof. “Elizabeth Warren,” she says, despite being instantly recognisable to anyone following US politics, offering a handshake and warm smile. She reminisces about her first visit to this room, when she was on her way to becoming a senator in 2012, and jokes about the Guardian’s voice recorder resembling a Taser. But when she turns to business, she is characteristically forthright and makes clear that Barack Obama’s grace period – a presidential afterglow in which he is beyond criticism in the Democratic party – is over. Most Americans are being left behind in this economy. Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth “I think President Obama, like many others in both parties, talks about a set of big national statistics that look shiny and great but increasingly have giant blind spots,” she says. “That GDP, unemployment, no longer reflect the lived experiences of most Americans. And the lived experiences of most Americans is that they are being left behind in this economy. “Worse than being left behind, they’re getting kicked in the teeth.” In the topsy-turvy election, both Trump and the leftwing candidate for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, spoke of a rigged economy. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has articulated the view that Obama did not get the credit he deserved from rescuing America from the financial crisis of 2007-08. That, it transpired, was small comfort to voters in decaying industrial towns who felt the globalisation train had left the station without them. With Sanders still a leading voice and energy coming from the progressive base, and centrist politics around the world in retreat, it might be tempting for the Democrats to turn left. Warren – who grew up in deep red Oklahoma but now lives in Massachusetts, the state of the Kennedys – frames the question in a different way. Again, she demonstrates a willingness to criticise her own party. “I think left-right is less and less an accurate description of the political landscape,” she says. “Now, having said that, I think there are real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats here in the United States. The Republicans have clearly thrown their lot in with the rich and the powerful, but so have a lot of Democrats. You know, it’s a question of walking the walk on working people, on fighting for working people. I think that was the real point.” Warren did not not name any individuals. Some commentators have criticised Bill and Hillary Clinton for becoming too close to wealthy elites. Much has been written in the electoral postmortems over the definition of a Democrat: whether economic populism was neglected during the election in favour of identity politics relating to gender, race and sexuality. For progressives, it might be argued that Warren represents the best of Clinton and Sanders rolled into one: strong on issues such as equal pay and reproductive rights but equally strong on class inequality and economic opportunity. This is also what makes her such a tempting target for Trump and the Republicans. “I think it’s a false choice,” she says. “To talk about the economics of survival in the 21st century is also to include a woman’s right to make decisions over her own body, a woman’s meaningful access to birth control. That is as deeply woven into the economic stability of that woman individually, her family, her community, this entire nation. I think those are deeply tied to each other. Not either-ors.” The senator’s choice of abortion as an example is timely. Sanders triggered fierce soul searching in the party last week by rallying in Omaha, Nebraska for a mayoral candidate who opposes abortion rights but promises economic justice. Pro-choice activists described it as a betrayal of the women who have been in the vanguard of the resistance to Trump. Would Warren endorse a Democratic candidate who was anti-abortion? “Probably not,” she says. “But let me be clear. Look, I’m pro-choice, I’m strongly pro-choice, I’ve been in these fights forever and forever and forever and at the federal level this is powerfully important to me … I get that not everyone in the Democratic party agrees with me but I am in this fight all the way.” ‘Democracy changed in America’ Facebook Twitter Pinterest Warren with Senator Bernie Sanders, in 2015. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call,Inc. Trump has energised and galvanised the apathetic and apolitical. He made politics great again in the sense of getting people to care instead of allowing it to hum softly in the background. Suddenly, it is no longer a tepid struggle within the grey managerial class. Suddenly it matters. Newspaper readership and news channel viewership have revived after years of decline; late-night TV comedians are thriving. What Trump Did Next is a constant topic of conversation at dinner tables. It may yet prove to be his legacy. Many call Trump a fascist. 100 days in, is he just a reactionary Republican? | Victoria de Grazia Read more On 21 January, for example, more than 400,000 protesters took part in a women’s march in Washington, with millions more marching across America and around the world. For Warren, it was an awakening: “I think that when the history of this time period is written it will be about Donald Trump’s election, no doubt, but it will be about the Women’s March the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated. Democracy changed in America on that day. “We are no longer a country that believes we can do politics only once every four years, or even once every two years, no longer a country that says that democracy is only about elections and that it will tend to itself in the time periods between elections. People are deeply engaged in issues right now. The healthcare fight. Immigration.” Warren advocates marches and rallies, online protests, viral videos, collective action and running for office. “Let me give a giant hug to the resistance. Resistance, persistence, insistence – every part of it – and how to bring more people into the fight. Look, Democrats are in the minority in the House, in the Senate, our tools are very limited to block Trump’s actions but democracy is working in an entirely new way. “This is one of the things I now talk about everywhere we go, about how to get more engaged and how people can make their voices more effective, and how they can make sure they get heard in Washington, and it is changing the United States Congress. Not fast enough, but it’s changing it.” Trump has tried to undermine a free press. He’s shown no respect for the courts. Those are the steps authoritarians take Warren, a mother of two and grandmother of three, is at the tip of that particular spear. She has never met Trump – the closest she came was at the inauguration – but she clashed with him on Twitter last year. “Thumbs at 30 paces,” she jokes, miming the typing action in mid-air. On 21 March 2016, she posted: “Many of history’s worst authoritarians started out as losers – and @realDonaldTrump is a serious threat.” In her new book, This Fight is Our Fight, she recalls on inauguration day seeing protesters carrying a giant banner that said just one word: “FASCIST.” Asked if she considers Trump an authoritarian, a fascist, she replies forcefully: “Look at what he has done. He has expressed his admiration for Mussolini, for Vladimir Putin. He has tried to undermine a free press. He’s shown no respect for the courts. Those are the steps that authoritarians take.” Can America withstand it? “That’s ultimately what the book is about. It’s the narrative arc of how America built a middle class and then corporate CEOs and billionaires took the legs out from underneath the middle class, how their tool was money, and the final chapter, whether or not we can withstand the punch that Donald Trump delivers to our working families and to our democracy. And yet, I would say, this book ends on a note of optimism.” Trump may be a one-off but the conditions that produced him are not. The disillusionment in towns across America that felt forgotten by flashy big cities, that felt they had nothing to lose by voting for Trump, rhymed with what led to the Brexit vote in the UK. America had Reagan and trickle-down economics; Britain had Thatcher and the invisible hand of the market. “There are certainly parallels,” Warren says. “Billionaires and corporate CEOs have figured out that for an investment of millions of dollars – they can get returns of billions of dollars. So if they can get their snout to the trough of government money, government handouts, government gifts, government loopholes, they can get richer and richer and richer. It’s not a secret that was developed here in the United States alone. It’s a point that’s spread all around the globe.” ‘I’m in this fight, there’s no pause’ In This Fight is Our Fight, Warren recalls a conversation with her husband, Bruce Mann, over whether to run for president in 2016. He pointed out how difficult the first Senate race was. “It was hard for him to see me ridiculed and called names, hard to see our children dragged into political attacks, hard to see both his sister and my brothers worry,” she writes. He gave her his blessing but talking it through with him decided her against. Trump's promise for healthcare act contradicts Republicans' proposal Read more Will this deter her again in 2020? Clinton recently said she believes misogyny played a part in her own defeat. Reviewing Warren’s book for the New York Times, economist Paul Krugman wrote: “Let’s be honest: Republicans have gone after Warren herself, in a way they haven’t gone after Sanders, in part because of her gender.” Warren does not say no. But first, she reminds us, she has a Senate race to run in 2018 – a midterm election that should provide a clue as to the durability of the resistance at the ballot box. “I said I’m in this fight, there’s no pause about that,” she says. “I can take whatever somebody wants to throw at me. It’s harder when things get thrown at your family but that’s become the reality of 21st-century politics.” She recalls her own journey, from janitor’s daughter to Harvard academic to senator, thanks to opportunities she believes were lost to today’s children when Washington decided it was more important to give tax breaks to billionaires and giant corporations. “So that’s what drives me,” she says, passionately. “And if you told me that what it would take for me to make a difference would be to get up every day and walk across broken glass but that I have a chance to open some doors for the next kid who comes along, I’d do it.”

www.theguardian.com

left

VlwdI7caZ7dRyQno

test

H6xi23nFGsn5JufU

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/trump-campaign-ex-chief-manafort-to-dispute-breach-of-plea-deal-idUSKCN1PJ13C

Trump campaign ex-chief Manafort to dispute breach of plea deal

2019-01-25

Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A federal judge on Friday ordered lawyers for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and President Donald Trump ’ s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to appear Feb. 4 for a closed hearing on whether Manafort breached his plea deal by lying to investigators . Judge Amy Berman Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia cast doubt on some of the lying allegations against Manafort but said others appeared more firm . The special counsel has accused Manafort , 69 , of breaching his plea deal by lying to federal investigators on at least five different subjects ranging from his contacts with Trump administration officials in 2018 to his interactions with his former business partner in Ukraine Konstantin Kilimnik , who Mueller ’ s office has said has ties to Russian intelligence . Some details about Manafort ’ s alleged lies were made public inadvertently by his defense lawyers in a Jan. 8 court filing . Prosecutors said Manafort lied about sharing election polling data with Kilimnik , about his discussions with Kilimnik concerning a Ukrainian peace plan and a meeting the two had in Madrid . Kilimnik , who has denied ties to Russian intelligence , was indicted by Mueller in June on obstruction of justice charges . Manafort ’ s attorneys say he had memory lapses but was not trying to lead investigators astray . Jackson said the court would release a redacted transcript of Manafort ’ s February hearing soon after its conclusion . She said she was a bit torn after reading the court pleadings . Jackson said “ not all of the instances rise to the level of actual false statements within the meaning of the criminal code ” but that in other cases Manafort “ may have lied - pure and simple . ” If Jackson finds Manafort breached his agreement , it is still unclear how it would impact his sentence . Manafort pleaded guilty in September 2018 in the Washington case to attempted witness tapering and conspiring against the United States , a charge that covers conduct including money laundering and unregistered lobbying . Both counts carry a statutory maximum of 10 years , which is well below the sentencing guidelines . To increase the sentence beyond the 10-year maximum , prosecutors could file fresh charges against Manafort for lying or recharge him with the other remaining counts in the indictment , according to sentencing experts . Jackson also could consider stacking his sentence on top of whatever he gets in the Eastern District of Virginia , where he is due to be sentenced on Feb. 8 after a jury convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud . On Friday , prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said his office does not currently intend to charge Manafort with other crimes and there is no reason to delay sentencing . He declined to rule out the chance that charges could be filed later against Manafort by Mueller ’ s office or other Justice Department prosecutors . Manafort , who has in recent months waived most court appearances , showed up to court on Friday wearing a suit and walking with the assistance of a cane . His hearing came on the same day that his former business partner and fellow Trump campaign associate Roger Stone was arrested on charges of obstruction , witness tampering and making false statements related to the release of stolen Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential campaign . Mueller , a former FBI director , is investigating whether Trump ’ s campaign conspired with Moscow and whether the president unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe . Russia has denied election interference . Trump has denied collusion with Moscow .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday ordered lawyers for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to appear Feb. 4 for a closed hearing on whether Manafort breached his plea deal by lying to investigators. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives for arraignment on a third superseding indictment against him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on charges of witness tampering, at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S. June 15, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo Judge Amy Berman Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia cast doubt on some of the lying allegations against Manafort but said others appeared more firm. The special counsel has accused Manafort, 69, of breaching his plea deal by lying to federal investigators on at least five different subjects ranging from his contacts with Trump administration officials in 2018 to his interactions with his former business partner in Ukraine Konstantin Kilimnik, who Mueller’s office has said has ties to Russian intelligence. Some details about Manafort’s alleged lies were made public inadvertently by his defense lawyers in a Jan. 8 court filing. Prosecutors said Manafort lied about sharing election polling data with Kilimnik, about his discussions with Kilimnik concerning a Ukrainian peace plan and a meeting the two had in Madrid. Kilimnik, who has denied ties to Russian intelligence, was indicted by Mueller in June on obstruction of justice charges. Manafort’s attorneys say he had memory lapses but was not trying to lead investigators astray. Jackson said the court would release a redacted transcript of Manafort’s February hearing soon after its conclusion. She said she was a bit torn after reading the court pleadings. Jackson said “not all of the instances rise to the level of actual false statements within the meaning of the criminal code” but that in other cases Manafort “may have lied - pure and simple.” If Jackson finds Manafort breached his agreement, it is still unclear how it would impact his sentence. Manafort pleaded guilty in September 2018 in the Washington case to attempted witness tapering and conspiring against the United States, a charge that covers conduct including money laundering and unregistered lobbying. Both counts carry a statutory maximum of 10 years, which is well below the sentencing guidelines. To increase the sentence beyond the 10-year maximum, prosecutors could file fresh charges against Manafort for lying or recharge him with the other remaining counts in the indictment, according to sentencing experts. Jackson also could consider stacking his sentence on top of whatever he gets in the Eastern District of Virginia, where he is due to be sentenced on Feb. 8 after a jury convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud. On Friday, prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said his office does not currently intend to charge Manafort with other crimes and there is no reason to delay sentencing. He declined to rule out the chance that charges could be filed later against Manafort by Mueller’s office or other Justice Department prosecutors. Manafort, who has in recent months waived most court appearances, showed up to court on Friday wearing a suit and walking with the assistance of a cane. His hearing came on the same day that his former business partner and fellow Trump campaign associate Roger Stone was arrested on charges of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements related to the release of stolen Democratic Party emails during the 2016 presidential campaign. Mueller, a former FBI director, is investigating whether Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow and whether the president unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe. Russia has denied election interference. Trump has denied collusion with Moscow.

www.reuters.com

center

H6xi23nFGsn5JufU

test

3FmsnadaWKiB0nzR

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/18/racism_is_americas_original_sin_unless_we_tell_the_truth_about_our_history_well_never_find_the_way_to_reconciliation/

Racism is “America’s original sin”: Unless we tell the truth about our history, we’ll never find the way to reconciliation

2016-01-18

Jim Wallis

Race is about the American story , and about each of our own stories . Overcoming racism is more than an issue or a cause—it is also a story , which can be part of each of our stories , too . The story about race that was embedded into America at the founding of our nation was a lie ; it is time to change that story and discover a new one . Understanding our own stories about race , and talking about them to one another , is absolutely essential if we are to become part of the larger pilgrimage to defeat racism in America . It is also a biblical story , and now a global story in which we play a central role . We all start with our own stories about race , so I will begin with mine . Fifty years ago I was a teenager in Detroit . I took a job as a janitor at the Detroit Edison Company to earn money for college . There I met a young man named Butch who was also on the janitorial staff . But his money was going to support his family , because his father had died . We became friends . I was a young white man , and Butch was a young black man , and the more we talked , the more we wanted to keep talking . When the company ’ s elevator operators were off , Butch and I would often be the fill-ins . When you operated elevators , the law required you to take breaks in the morning and in the afternoon . On my breaks , I ’ d go into Butch ’ s elevator to ride up and down and talk with him . On his breaks , Butch came to ride and talk with me . Those conversations changed the way I saw Detroit , my country , and my life . Butch and I had both grown up in Detroit , but I began to realize that we had lived in two different countries—in the same city . When Butch invited me to come to his home one night for dinner and meet his family , I said yes without even thinking about it . In the 1960s , whites from the suburbs , like me , didn ’ t travel at night into the city , where the African Americans lived . I had to get directions from Butch . When I arrived , his younger siblings quickly jumped into my lap with big smiles on their faces , but the older ones hung back and looked at me more suspiciously . Later , I understood that the longer blacks lived in Detroit , the more negative experiences they had with white people . Butch was very political , and even becoming militant—he always carried a book he was reading , such as Frantz Fanon ’ s The Wretched of the Earth , stuffed into the back pocket of his khaki janitor ’ s uniform—but his mom certainly wasn ’ t . She was much like my own mother , focused on her kids and worried that her son ’ s ideas would get him into trouble . As we talked through the evening about life in Detroit , Butch ’ s mom told me about the experiences all the men in her family—her father , her brothers , her husband , and her sons—had with the Detroit police . Then she said something I will never forget as long as I live . “ So I tell all of my children , ” she said , “ if you are ever lost and can ’ t find your way back home , and you see a policeman , quickly duck behind a building or down a stairwell . When the policeman is gone , come out and find your own way back home. ” As Butch ’ s mother said that to me , my own mother ’ s words rang in my head . My mom told all of her five kids , “ If you are ever lost and can ’ t find your way home , look for a policeman . The policeman is your friend . He will take care of you and bring you safely home. ” Butch and I were becoming friends . And I remember his mother ’ s advice to her children as vividly today as I heard those words fifty years ago . Five decades ago , revelations about race in my hometown turned my life upside down—and turned me in a different direction . Encounters with black Detroit set me on a new path , on which I am still walking . My own white church ignored and denied the problem of race . People there didn ’ t want to talk about the questions that were coming up in my head and heart—questions that suggested something very big was wrong about my city and my country . As a teenager , I was listening to my city , reading the newspapers , having conversations with people . I wondered why life in black Detroit seemed so different from life in the white Detroit suburbs . I didn ’ t know any hungry people or dads without jobs , and I didn ’ t have any family members who had ever been in jail . Why were all these things happening in the city ? Weren ’ t there black churches in the city too ? Why had we never visited them or had them come to visit us ? Who was this minister in the south named King , and what was he up to ? Nobody in my white world wanted to talk about it—any of it . All of this drew me into the city to find answers to questions that nobody wanted to talk about at home . When I got my driver ’ s license at age sixteen , I would drive into the city and just walk around , looking and learning . I took jobs in downtown Detroit , working side by side with black men , and I tried to listen to them . That ’ s how I met Butch and many young men like him who had grown up in an entirely different city from me—just a few miles away . In Detroit , I found the answers I was looking for , and I made new friends . I also met the black churches , which warmly took in a young white boy with so many questions and patiently explained the answers . When I came back to my white church with new ideas , new friends , and more questions , the response was painfully clear . An elder in my white church said to me one night , “ Son , you ’ ve got to understand : Christianity has nothing to do with racism ; that ’ s political , and our faith is personal . ” That conversation had a dramatic effect on me ; it was a real conversion experience , but one that took me out of the church . That was the night that I left the church I had been raised in and the faith that had raised me—left it in my head and my heart . And my church was glad to see me go . During my student years I joined the civil rights and antiwar movements of my generation and left faith behind . But that conversation with the church elder was indeed “ converting , ” because it led me to the people who would later bring me back to my Christian faith— “ the least of these ” whom Jesus talks about in Matthew 25 , which would ultimately become my conversion text . How we treat the poorest and most vulnerable , Jesus instructs us in that Gospel passage , is how we treat him : “ Just as you did it to one of the least of these . . . you did it to me ” ( v. 40 ) . My white church had missed that fundamental gospel message and , in doing so , had missed where to find the Jesus it talked so much about . My church , like so many white churches , talked about Jesus all the time , but its isolated social and racial geography kept it from really knowing him . At the same time , black churches were leading our nation to a new place . Their more holistic vision of the gospel was transforming my understanding of faith , and my relationship to the churches was forever changed . I had to leave my white home church to finally discover Christ himself and come back to my faith . In doing so , I discovered something that has shaped the rest of my life : I have always learned the most about the world by going to places I was never supposed to be and being with people I was never supposed to meet . What I discovered by driving from the white suburbs to the city of Detroit every day , and going into neighborhoods and homes like Butch ’ s , were some truths about America that the majority culture didn ’ t want to talk about—truths that are always more clearly seen from the bottom of a society than from the top . This different perspective continues to change me , and Matthew 25 continues to be my conversion passage . As a teenager , I didn ’ t have the words to explain what happened to me that night with my church elder , but I found them later : God is always personal , but never private . Trying to understand the public meaning of faith has been my vocation ever since . How that personal and public gospel can overcome the remaining agendas of racism in America is the subject of this book . A half century later , much has changed . Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and the black churches of America led a civil rights movement that changed the country and impacted the world . The historic Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 . Black elected officials moved into office around the country for the first time since Reconstruction . And Barack Obama was elected the first black president of the United States and reelected four years later . African Americans have achieved much in every area of American society , from law and medicine to business and labor , from education and civil service to entertainment , sports , and , always , religion and human rights . A new generation , of all races , is more ready for a diverse American society than any generation has ever been . But much still hasn ’ t changed . Too many African Americans have been left behind without good education , jobs , homes , and families—and these factors are all connected . Perhaps most visibly and dramatically , the treatment of black men by police and a still-racialized criminal justice system in America became a painful and controversial national issue over the last few years , making visible what has been true for decades . The cases of Trayvon Martin in Sanford , Florida ; Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri ; Eric Garner in New York ; Tamir Rice in Cleveland ; and Freddie Gray in Baltimore , along with countless other black men whose names didn ’ t receive national attention , have provoked a raw and angry racial debate in our nation . As I finish the final edits on this book , yet another story has drawn national attention , this time involving a young black woman named Sandra Bland , who was on her way to take a new job at Prairie View A & M University , her alma mater in Texas , until she was arrested in a routine traffic stop and died three days later in police custody . The facts in specific cases are often in great dispute . But the reality that young black men and women are treated differently than are young white men and women by our law enforcement system is beyond dispute . A half century after my relationship with my friend Butch ’ s family , there is still not equal treatment under the law for black and white Americans . And that is the great moral and religious failure we must now address . I feel a deep sadness at recent revelations that show how deep our racial divides still go . The stories of young black men , in particular , are still so different from the stories of my young white sons . As a dad who is also a person of faith , I believe that is an unacceptable wrong it is time to right . All the black parents I have ever spoken to have had “ the talk ” with their sons and daughters . “ The talk ” is a conversation about how to behave and not to behave with police— “ Keep your hands open and out in front of you , don ’ t make any sudden movements , shut your mouth , be respectful , say ‘ sir , ’ ” as my friend and regular cab driver , Chester Spencer , said he told his son . “ The talk ” is about what to do and say ( and what not to do and say ) when you find yourself in the presence of a police officer with a gun . White parents don ’ t have to have this talk with their kids . That ’ s a radical difference between the experiences of black and white parents in America . Why do we continue to accept that ? As a Little League baseball coach , I know that all the parents of the black kids I have coached have had the talk , while none of the white parents have had such conversations with their children . And most white parents don ’ t have a clue about those talks between their children ’ s black teammates and their parents . It ’ s important now that we white people begin to understand “ the talk. ” Even white couples who have adopted black sons and daughters have that same conversation with their kids . As a white dad , that is a talk I don ’ t need to have with my two white sons , Luke and Jack , who are now ages sixteen and twelve . The fact that most white parents don ’ t know that this talk is even occurring is a big problem . Not being able to trust the law enforcement in your community—especially in relationship to our own children—is a terrible burden to bear . The stark difference in the way young black men and women are treated by police and our criminal justice system compared to white children is a deeply personal and undeniable structural issue for every black family in American society . For many white Americans , the tragic deaths of young black men at the hands of white police officers are “ unfortunate incidents ” that can be explained away . But for most black families , they are indicative of systems they have lived with their entire lives . Therein lies the fundamental difference : a radical contrast in experience and , therefore , perspective . If the mistreatment of young black men by law enforcement officials is true , if black lives are worth less in our criminal justice system than white lives are , then this is a fundamental and unacceptable wrong that it is time to correct . I know it is true . The overwhelming evidence on the operations of our criminal justice system proves it is true , even beyond the individual facts of particular cases . Believing that black experience is different from white experience is the beginning of changing white attitudes and perspectives . How can we get to real justice if white people don ’ t hear , understand , and , finally , believe the real-life experience of black people ? Families have to listen to other families . If white children were treated in the ways that black children are , it would not be acceptable to white parents ; so the mistreatment of black children must also become unacceptable to those of us who are white dads and moms . The old talk is still necessary—and it ’ s time to start talking together . If we do , I believe we can change the underlying patterns of personal and social prejudice that hold up the larger structural injustices in our society . The best way to change that old talk that black parents have with their children is to start a new talk between white and black parents . These conversations will make people uncomfortable , and they should . White parents should ask their black friends who are parents whether they have had “ the talk ” with their children . What did they say ? What did their children say ? How did it feel for them to have that conversation with their children ? What ’ s it like not to be able to trust law enforcement in your own community ? Pay attention , read , listen . If you are white and have African American colleagues at work or friends at your church , ask them to talk with you about this , to tell you their stories—then listen . If you don ’ t have any black people or other people of color in your church , it ’ s time to ask why . Reach out , and ask your pastor to reach out , to black and Latino churches in your community . We must find safe and authentic ways to hear one another ’ s stories across the racial boundaries that insulate and separate us from others . Reach out sensitively to black parents at your children ’ s schools . Ask to hear their stories . Talk to the black parents of your children ’ s teammates if they play a sport . Or maybe it ’ s time to realize that not having children of color at your children ’ s school or on their teams is a big part of the problem . Parents talking to parents and hearing one another ’ s stories may be one of the most important ways of moving forward in the church and in the nation . But white Americans must also take responsibility for their self-education and preparation before these talks so as to not put the whole burden of their learning on their colleagues and friends of color . White people need to stop talking so much—stop defending the systems that protect and serve us and stop saying , “ I ’ m not a racist. ” If white people turn a blind eye to systems that are racially biased , we can ’ t be absolved from the sin of racism . Listen to the people the criminal justice system fails to serve and protect ; try to see the world as they do . Loving our neighbors means identifying with their suffering , meeting them in it , and working together to change it . And , for those of us who are parents , loving our neighbors means loving other people ’ s kids as much as we love our own . To put this in a religious context : overcoming the divisions of race has been central to the church since its beginning , and the dynamic diversity of the body of Christ is one of the most powerful forces in the global church . Our Christian faith stands fundamentally opposed to racism in all its forms , which contradict the good news of the gospel . The ultimate answer to the question of race is our identity as children of God , which we so easily forget applies to all of us . And the political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem . The churches have too often “ baptized ” us into our racial divisions , instead of understanding how our authentic baptism unites us above and beyond our racial identities . Do we believe what we say about the unity of “ the body of Christ ” or not ? The New Testament speaks of the church as one body with many members . For just as the body is one and has many members , and all the members of the body , though many , are one body , so it is with Christ . . . . For the body does not consist of one member but of many . . . . As it is , there are many parts , yet one body . . . that there may be no discord in the body , but that the members may have the same care for one another . If one member suffers , all suffer together ; if one member is honored , all rejoice together . ( 1 Cor . 12:12 , 14 , 20 , 25–26 RSV ) Another version of 1 Corinthians 12:26 reads , “ If one part of the body suffers , all the other parts share its suffering ” ( GW ) . What would it mean to share in the suffering of our brothers and sisters of color who are subjected to a racialized criminal justice system ? So let ’ s be honest . As I said in the introduction to this book , if white Christians in America were ready to act more Christian than white when it comes to race , black parents would be less fearful for their children . Racial healing is a commitment at the heart of the gospel . If we say we belong to Christ , that mission of reconciliation is ours too . What does racial healing and reconciliation mean in the face of America ’ s racial divide over policing and the criminal justice system ? Churches , in particular , can offer leadership in navigating us through these difficult issues . The United States has the most racial diversity of any country in the world . This diversity is essential to our greatness , but it has also given us a history of tension and conflict . It has always been the resolving and , ultimately , the reconciling of those tensions that makes us “ a more perfect union. ” However , that can not happen when we ignore , deny , or suppress our racial history and journey ; it can occur only when we talk about it , engage it , embrace it , and be ready to be transformed by it . Ironically and tragically , American diversity began with acts of violent racial oppression that I am calling “ America ’ s original sin ” —the theft of land from Indigenous people who were either killed or removed and the enslavement of millions of Africans who became America ’ s greatest economic resource—in building a new nation . The theft of land and the violent exploitation of labor were embedded in America ’ s origins . Later immigration of other racial minorities was also driven—at least in part—by the need for more cheap labor . Therefore , our original racial diversity was a product of appalling human oppression based on greed . Many people have come to America , involuntarily in chains or voluntarily in the hope of a better life . And our great diversity is the key to our brightest and most transforming future . Indeed , it has already been one of America ’ s greatest contributions to the world . I believe that most police are good cops , but it would take more than a few “ bad apples ” to produce all the stories that almost every black person in America has about their experience with the police . Those stories are about a system , a culture , old structures and habits , and continuing racial prejudice , and how the universal but complex relationship between poverty and crime is made worse by racism . All of that can and must change with reforms that begin with better training and transparency and more independent prosecution in incidents of lethal police violence—and end with making police more relational and accountable to the diverse communities they serve . But underneath the flaws and injustices of the criminal justice system is our unfinished business of challenging and ending racism , an agenda that is not finished and never will be . We are not now , nor will we ever be , a “ postracial ” society . We are instead a society on a journey toward embracing our ever-greater and richer diversity , which is the American story . The path forward is the constant renewal of our nation ’ s ideal of the equality of all our citizens under the law—which makes the American promise so compelling , even though it is still so far from being fulfilled . Our highest and most inspirational points as a nation have been when we have overcome our racial prejudices ; our lowest and ugliest points have been when we have succumbed to them . In 2013 , Time magazine did a cover story on the fiftieth anniversary of the “ I Have a Dream ” speech . In it , Time rightly said that Martin Luther King Jr. is now understood to be a “ father ” of our nation because he helped shape its course as much as the founding fathers did . King and the movement he led opened a new door of opportunity for the future of America . But as we are becoming , for the first time , a country with no single racial majority—having been from our beginnings a white-majority nation—we stand at another door , which many white Americans are still very fearful of passing through . Race is woven throughout the American story and each of our own stories . All of our stories can help to change the racial story of America . I hope you will join me in this hard but critical—and ultimately transforming—conversation . Only by telling the truth about our history and genuinely repenting of its sins , which still linger , can we find the true road to justice and reconciliation . Excerpted from `` America 's Original Sin : Racism , White Privilege , and the Bridge to a New America '' by Jim Wallis . Copyright © 2016 by Jim Wallis . Excerpted by permission of Brazos Press .

Race is about the American story, and about each of our own stories. Overcoming racism is more than an issue or a cause—it is also a story, which can be part of each of our stories, too. The story about race that was embedded into America at the founding of our nation was a lie; it is time to change that story and discover a new one. Understanding our own stories about race, and talking about them to one another, is absolutely essential if we are to become part of the larger pilgrimage to defeat racism in America. It is also a biblical story, and now a global story in which we play a central role. We all start with our own stories about race, so I will begin with mine. Advertisement: My Story Fifty years ago I was a teenager in Detroit. I took a job as a janitor at the Detroit Edison Company to earn money for college. There I met a young man named Butch who was also on the janitorial staff. But his money was going to support his family, because his father had died. We became friends. I was a young white man, and Butch was a young black man, and the more we talked, the more we wanted to keep talking. When the company’s elevator operators were off, Butch and I would often be the fill-ins. When you operated elevators, the law required you to take breaks in the morning and in the afternoon. On my breaks, I’d go into Butch’s elevator to ride up and down and talk with him. On his breaks, Butch came to ride and talk with me. Those conversations changed the way I saw Detroit, my country, and my life. Butch and I had both grown up in Detroit, but I began to realize that we had lived in two different countries—in the same city. Advertisement: When Butch invited me to come to his home one night for dinner and meet his family, I said yes without even thinking about it. In the 1960s, whites from the suburbs, like me, didn’t travel at night into the city, where the African Americans lived. I had to get directions from Butch. When I arrived, his younger siblings quickly jumped into my lap with big smiles on their faces, but the older ones hung back and looked at me more suspiciously. Later, I understood that the longer blacks lived in Detroit, the more negative experiences they had with white people. Butch was very political, and even becoming militant—he always carried a book he was reading, such as Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, stuffed into the back pocket of his khaki janitor’s uniform—but his mom certainly wasn’t. She was much like my own mother, focused on her kids and worried that her son’s ideas would get him into trouble. As we talked through the evening about life in Detroit, Butch’s mom told me about the experiences all the men in her family—her father, her brothers, her husband, and her sons—had with the Detroit police. Then she said something I will never forget as long as I live. “So I tell all of my children,” she said, “if you are ever lost and can’t find your way back home, and you see a policeman, quickly duck behind a building or down a stairwell. When the policeman is gone, come out and find your own way back home.” As Butch’s mother said that to me, my own mother’s words rang in my head. My mom told all of her five kids, “If you are ever lost and can’t find your way home, look for a policeman. The policeman is your friend. He will take care of you and bring you safely home.” Butch and I were becoming friends. And I remember his mother’s advice to her children as vividly today as I heard those words fifty years ago. Advertisement: Five decades ago, revelations about race in my hometown turned my life upside down—and turned me in a different direction. Encounters with black Detroit set me on a new path, on which I am still walking. My own white church ignored and denied the problem of race. People there didn’t want to talk about the questions that were coming up in my head and heart—questions that suggested something very big was wrong about my city and my country. As a teenager, I was listening to my city, reading the newspapers, having conversations with people. I wondered why life in black Detroit seemed so different from life in the white Detroit suburbs. I didn’t know any hungry people or dads without jobs, and I didn’t have any family members who had ever been in jail. Why were all these things happening in the city? Weren’t there black churches in the city too? Why had we never visited them or had them come to visit us? Who was this minister in the south named King, and what was he up to? Nobody in my white world wanted to talk about it—any of it. Advertisement: All of this drew me into the city to find answers to questions that nobody wanted to talk about at home. When I got my driver’s license at age sixteen, I would drive into the city and just walk around, looking and learning. I took jobs in downtown Detroit, working side by side with black men, and I tried to listen to them. That’s how I met Butch and many young men like him who had grown up in an entirely different city from me—just a few miles away. In Detroit, I found the answers I was looking for, and I made new friends. I also met the black churches, which warmly took in a young white boy with so many questions and patiently explained the answers. When I came back to my white church with new ideas, new friends, and more questions, the response was painfully clear. An elder in my white church said to me one night, “Son, you’ve got to understand: Christianity has nothing to do with racism; that’s political, and our faith is personal.” That conversation had a dramatic effect on me; it was a real conversion experience, but one that took me out of the church. That was the night that I left the church I had been raised in and the faith that had raised me—left it in my head and my heart. And my church was glad to see me go. Advertisement: During my student years I joined the civil rights and antiwar movements of my generation and left faith behind. But that conversation with the church elder was indeed “converting,” because it led me to the people who would later bring me back to my Christian faith—“the least of these” whom Jesus talks about in Matthew 25, which would ultimately become my conversion text. How we treat the poorest and most vulnerable, Jesus instructs us in that Gospel passage, is how we treat him: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these . . . you did it to me” (v. 40). My white church had missed that fundamental gospel message and, in doing so, had missed where to find the Jesus it talked so much about. My church, like so many white churches, talked about Jesus all the time, but its isolated social and racial geography kept it from really knowing him. At the same time, black churches were leading our nation to a new place. Their more holistic vision of the gospel was transforming my understanding of faith, and my relationship to the churches was forever changed. Advertisement: I had to leave my white home church to finally discover Christ himself and come back to my faith. In doing so, I discovered something that has shaped the rest of my life: I have always learned the most about the world by going to places I was never supposed to be and being with people I was never supposed to meet. What I discovered by driving from the white suburbs to the city of Detroit every day, and going into neighborhoods and homes like Butch’s, were some truths about America that the majority culture didn’t want to talk about—truths that are always more clearly seen from the bottom of a society than from the top. This different perspective continues to change me, and Matthew 25 continues to be my conversion passage. As a teenager, I didn’t have the words to explain what happened to me that night with my church elder, but I found them later: God is always personal, but never private. Trying to understand the public meaning of faith has been my vocation ever since. How that personal and public gospel can overcome the remaining agendas of racism in America is the subject of this book. Much Has Changed, but Much Still Hasn’t Advertisement: A half century later, much has changed. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and the black churches of America led a civil rights movement that changed the country and impacted the world. The historic Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Black elected officials moved into office around the country for the first time since Reconstruction. And Barack Obama was elected the first black president of the United States and reelected four years later. African Americans have achieved much in every area of American society, from law and medicine to business and labor, from education and civil service to entertainment, sports, and, always, religion and human rights. A new generation, of all races, is more ready for a diverse American society than any generation has ever been. But much still hasn’t changed. Too many African Americans have been left behind without good education, jobs, homes, and families—and these factors are all connected. Perhaps most visibly and dramatically, the treatment of black men by police and a still-racialized criminal justice system in America became a painful and controversial national issue over the last few years, making visible what has been true for decades. The cases of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida; Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; Eric Garner in New York; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; and Freddie Gray in Baltimore, along with countless other black men whose names didn’t receive national attention, have provoked a raw and angry racial debate in our nation. As I finish the final edits on this book, yet another story has drawn national attention, this time involving a young black woman named Sandra Bland, who was on her way to take a new job at Prairie View A&M University, her alma mater in Texas, until she was arrested in a routine traffic stop and died three days later in police custody. The facts in specific cases are often in great dispute. But the reality that young black men and women are treated differently than are young white men and women by our law enforcement system is beyond dispute. A half century after my relationship with my friend Butch’s family, there is still not equal treatment under the law for black and white Americans. And that is the great moral and religious failure we must now address. Advertisement: I feel a deep sadness at recent revelations that show how deep our racial divides still go. The stories of young black men, in particular, are still so different from the stories of my young white sons. As a dad who is also a person of faith, I believe that is an unacceptable wrong it is time to right. The Talk All the black parents I have ever spoken to have had “the talk” with their sons and daughters. “The talk” is a conversation about how to behave and not to behave with police—“Keep your hands open and out in front of you, don’t make any sudden movements, shut your mouth, be respectful, say ‘sir,’” as my friend and regular cab driver, Chester Spencer, said he told his son. “The talk” is about what to do and say (and what not to do and say) when you find yourself in the presence of a police officer with a gun. White parents don’t have to have this talk with their kids. That’s a radical difference between the experiences of black and white parents in America. Why do we continue to accept that? As a Little League baseball coach, I know that all the parents of the black kids I have coached have had the talk, while none of the white parents have had such conversations with their children. And most white parents don’t have a clue about those talks between their children’s black teammates and their parents. Advertisement: It’s important now that we white people begin to understand “the talk.” Even white couples who have adopted black sons and daughters have that same conversation with their kids. As a white dad, that is a talk I don’t need to have with my two white sons, Luke and Jack, who are now ages sixteen and twelve. The fact that most white parents don’t know that this talk is even occurring is a big problem. Not being able to trust the law enforcement in your community—especially in relationship to our own children—is a terrible burden to bear. The stark difference in the way young black men and women are treated by police and our criminal justice system compared to white children is a deeply personal and undeniable structural issue for every black family in American society. For many white Americans, the tragic deaths of young black men at the hands of white police officers are “unfortunate incidents” that can be explained away. But for most black families, they are indicative of systems they have lived with their entire lives. Therein lies the fundamental difference: a radical contrast in experience and, therefore, perspective. If the mistreatment of young black men by law enforcement officials is true, if black lives are worth less in our criminal justice system than white lives are, then this is a fundamental and unacceptable wrong that it is time to correct. I know it is true. The overwhelming evidence on the operations of our criminal justice system proves it is true, even beyond the individual facts of particular cases. Believing that black experience is different from white experience is the beginning of changing white attitudes and perspectives. How can we get to real justice if white people don’t hear, understand, and, finally, believe the real-life experience of black people? Families have to listen to other families. If white children were treated in the ways that black children are, it would not be acceptable to white parents; so the mistreatment of black children must also become unacceptable to those of us who are white dads and moms. Advertisement: The old talk is still necessary—and it’s time to start talking together. If we do, I believe we can change the underlying patterns of personal and social prejudice that hold up the larger structural injustices in our society. Building Racial Bridges The best way to change that old talk that black parents have with their children is to start a new talk between white and black parents. These conversations will make people uncomfortable, and they should. White parents should ask their black friends who are parents whether they have had “the talk” with their children. What did they say? What did their children say? How did it feel for them to have that conversation with their children? What’s it like not to be able to trust law enforcement in your own community? Pay attention, read, listen. If you are white and have African American colleagues at work or friends at your church, ask them to talk with you about this, to tell you their stories—then listen. If you don’t have any black people or other people of color in your church, it’s time to ask why. Reach out, and ask your pastor to reach out, to black and Latino churches in your community. We must find safe and authentic ways to hear one another’s stories across the racial boundaries that insulate and separate us from others. Reach out sensitively to black parents at your children’s schools. Ask to hear their stories. Talk to the black parents of your children’s teammates if they play a sport. Or maybe it’s time to realize that not having children of color at your children’s school or on their teams is a big part of the problem. Parents talking to parents and hearing one another’s stories may be one of the most important ways of moving forward in the church and in the nation. But white Americans must also take responsibility for their self-education and preparation before these talks so as to not put the whole burden of their learning on their colleagues and friends of color. White people need to stop talking so much—stop defending the systems that protect and serve us and stop saying, “I’m not a racist.” If white people turn a blind eye to systems that are racially biased, we can’t be absolved from the sin of racism. Listen to the people the criminal justice system fails to serve and protect; try to see the world as they do. Loving our neighbors means identifying with their suffering, meeting them in it, and working together to change it. And, for those of us who are parents, loving our neighbors means loving other people’s kids as much as we love our own. Racism as a Faith Issue To put this in a religious context: overcoming the divisions of race has been central to the church since its beginning, and the dynamic diversity of the body of Christ is one of the most powerful forces in the global church. Our Christian faith stands fundamentally opposed to racism in all its forms, which contradict the good news of the gospel. The ultimate answer to the question of race is our identity as children of God, which we so easily forget applies to all of us. And the political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem. The churches have too often “baptized” us into our racial divisions, instead of understanding how our authentic baptism unites us above and beyond our racial identities. Do we believe what we say about the unity of “the body of Christ” or not? The New Testament speaks of the church as one body with many members. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. . . . For the body does not consist of one member but of many. . . . As it is, there are many parts, yet one body . . . that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. (1 Cor. 12:12, 14, 20, 25–26 RSV) Another version of 1 Corinthians 12:26 reads, “If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts share its suffering” (GW). What would it mean to share in the suffering of our brothers and sisters of color who are subjected to a racialized criminal justice system? So let’s be honest. As I said in the introduction to this book, if white Christians in America were ready to act more Christian than white when it comes to race, black parents would be less fearful for their children. Racial healing is a commitment at the heart of the gospel. If we say we belong to Christ, that mission of reconciliation is ours too. What does racial healing and reconciliation mean in the face of America’s racial divide over policing and the criminal justice system? Churches, in particular, can offer leadership in navigating us through these difficult issues. The American Pilgrimage The United States has the most racial diversity of any country in the world. This diversity is essential to our greatness, but it has also given us a history of tension and conflict. It has always been the resolving and, ultimately, the reconciling of those tensions that makes us “a more perfect union.” However, that cannot happen when we ignore, deny, or suppress our racial history and journey; it can occur only when we talk about it, engage it, embrace it, and be ready to be transformed by it. Ironically and tragically, American diversity began with acts of violent racial oppression that I am calling “America’s original sin”—the theft of land from Indigenous people who were either killed or removed and the enslavement of millions of Africans who became America’s greatest economic resource—in building a new nation. The theft of land and the violent exploitation of labor were embedded in America’s origins. Later immigration of other racial minorities was also driven—at least in part—by the need for more cheap labor. Therefore, our original racial diversity was a product of appalling human oppression based on greed. Many people have come to America, involuntarily in chains or voluntarily in the hope of a better life. And our great diversity is the key to our brightest and most transforming future. Indeed, it has already been one of America’s greatest contributions to the world. I believe that most police are good cops, but it would take more than a few “bad apples” to produce all the stories that almost every black person in America has about their experience with the police. Those stories are about a system, a culture, old structures and habits, and continuing racial prejudice, and how the universal but complex relationship between poverty and crime is made worse by racism. All of that can and must change with reforms that begin with better training and transparency and more independent prosecution in incidents of lethal police violence—and end with making police more relational and accountable to the diverse communities they serve. But underneath the flaws and injustices of the criminal justice system is our unfinished business of challenging and ending racism, an agenda that is not finished and never will be. We are not now, nor will we ever be, a “postracial” society. We are instead a society on a journey toward embracing our ever-greater and richer diversity, which is the American story. The path forward is the constant renewal of our nation’s ideal of the equality of all our citizens under the law—which makes the American promise so compelling, even though it is still so far from being fulfilled. Our highest and most inspirational points as a nation have been when we have overcome our racial prejudices; our lowest and ugliest points have been when we have succumbed to them. In 2013, Time magazine did a cover story on the fiftieth anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. In it, Time rightly said that Martin Luther King Jr. is now understood to be a “father” of our nation because he helped shape its course as much as the founding fathers did. King and the movement he led opened a new door of opportunity for the future of America. But as we are becoming, for the first time, a country with no single racial majority—having been from our beginnings a white-majority nation—we stand at another door, which many white Americans are still very fearful of passing through. Race is woven throughout the American story and each of our own stories. All of our stories can help to change the racial story of America. I hope you will join me in this hard but critical—and ultimately transforming—conversation. Only by telling the truth about our history and genuinely repenting of its sins, which still linger, can we find the true road to justice and reconciliation. Excerpted from "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America" by Jim Wallis. Copyright © 2016 by Jim Wallis. Excerpted by permission of Brazos Press.

www.salon.com

left

3FmsnadaWKiB0nzR

test

yZ4Qn27BLhi6NiRT

cybersecurity

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/10/17/lebron-james-china-nba-twitter-morey/

Here’s How A Massive, Mysterious Pro-China Troll Mob Silenced NBA Exec Daryl Morey’s Twitter Account

2019-10-17

An enormous pro-China Twitter mob descended on Houston Rocket ’ s General Manager Daryl Morey after his ill-fated Hong Kong tweet and , in the process , thrust the NBA into the hotspot , The Wall Street Journal reported . Morey was the victim of what experts say is a massive , coordinated assault after his Oct. 4 tweet supporting Hong Kong protesters , the report noted , citing a review of about 170,000 tweets directed at the NBA executive . Experts are not ruling out the possibility that the full-throated attack was state-sponsored . “ I ’ m not saying this is a state-affiliated operation , ” Clemson University researcher Darren Linvill told TheWSJ on Wednesday . “ But I ’ ve only seen so many brand-new accounts used at one time when it was a state-affiliated operation . ” Much of the action happened during the daytime in China , TheWSJ noted . TheWSJ based its analysis on the 168,907 tweets directed at Morey between Oct. 4 and Oct. 10 that were collected by Linvill and his Clemson colleague , Patrick Warren . ( RELATED : James Harden Apologizes To China Over Daryl Morey Tweets ) Morey ’ s account was inundated with comments from pro–Chinese government accounts in the 12 hours after he posted his tweet , which championed Hong Kong ’ s fight for freedom . The tweets mentioned him more than 16,000 times , Ben Nimmo , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council ’ s Digital Forensic Research Lab , noted in a separate analysis of Morey ’ s tweets . Nimmo said the problem does not have an easily solution since it was a troll mob . “ It looks like there were humans at the keyboard for many of these posts , ” he told reporters . “ This wasn ’ t primarily a bot swarm . It was a troll mob . Which is a lot harder to deal with. ” Twitter has not responded to ███ News Foundation ’ s request for comment about the campaign . Nearly 6 % of the 100 accounts with the most activity that began with zero followers before the incident have been restricted or no longer exist , TheWSJ noted . “ Coordinated activity and other forms of platform manipulation have no place on our service , ” a spokesman for Twitter said , according to TheWSJ . “ We will take enforcement action on any accounts that are displaying these behaviors . ” The analysis shows 22 % of the tweets came from so-called sock puppet accounts that had zero followers before the fracas began . More than 3,677 of the 4,855 total users responsible for the tweets didn ’ t have accounts until Morey ’ s tweet , which he deleted Oct. 6 following two days of backlash . The apology was too little too late , as it turns out . Security at an Oct. 10 NBA game between the Washington Wizards and Guangzhou Long-Lions swiped pro-Hong Kong signs from several game attendees , a Wizards spokesman said . Rockets gear went missing on Nike ’ s Chinese website after the tweet . Other strange occurrences happened as the NBA flap hit its peak . Apple and Google , for instance , removed an app Oct. 10 that allowed people in Hong Kong to track police activity . The move came after China complained about the app , which the country claim promotes “ illegal behavior . ” Neither Google nor Apple have responded to the DCNF ’ s request for comment .

An enormous pro-China Twitter mob descended on Houston Rocket’s General Manager Daryl Morey after his ill-fated Hong Kong tweet and, in the process, thrust the NBA into the hotspot, The Wall Street Journal reported. Morey was the victim of what experts say is a massive, coordinated assault after his Oct. 4 tweet supporting Hong Kong protesters, the report noted, citing a review of about 170,000 tweets directed at the NBA executive. Experts are not ruling out the possibility that the full-throated attack was state-sponsored. “I’m not saying this is a state-affiliated operation,” Clemson University researcher Darren Linvill told TheWSJ on Wednesday. “But I’ve only seen so many brand-new accounts used at one time when it was a state-affiliated operation.” Much of the action happened during the daytime in China, TheWSJ noted. TheWSJ based its analysis on the 168,907 tweets directed at Morey between Oct. 4 and Oct. 10 that were collected by Linvill and his Clemson colleague, Patrick Warren. (RELATED: James Harden Apologizes To China Over Daryl Morey Tweets) Morey’s account was inundated with comments from pro–Chinese government accounts in the 12 hours after he posted his tweet, which championed Hong Kong’s fight for freedom. The tweets mentioned him more than 16,000 times, Ben Nimmo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, noted in a separate analysis of Morey’s tweets. Nimmo said the problem does not have an easily solution since it was a troll mob. “It looks like there were humans at the keyboard for many of these posts,” he told reporters. “This wasn’t primarily a bot swarm. It was a troll mob. Which is a lot harder to deal with.” Twitter has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the campaign. Nearly 6% of the 100 accounts with the most activity that began with zero followers before the incident have been restricted or no longer exist, TheWSJ noted. “Coordinated activity and other forms of platform manipulation have no place on our service,” a spokesman for Twitter said, according to TheWSJ. “We will take enforcement action on any accounts that are displaying these behaviors.” The analysis shows 22% of the tweets came from so-called sock puppet accounts that had zero followers before the fracas began. More than 3,677 of the 4,855 total users responsible for the tweets didn’t have accounts until Morey’s tweet, which he deleted Oct. 6 following two days of backlash. The apology was too little too late, as it turns out. Security at an Oct. 10 NBA game between the Washington Wizards and Guangzhou Long-Lions swiped pro-Hong Kong signs from several game attendees, a Wizards spokesman said. Rockets gear went missing on Nike’s Chinese website after the tweet. Other strange occurrences happened as the NBA flap hit its peak. Apple and Google, for instance, removed an app Oct. 10 that allowed people in Hong Kong to track police activity. The move came after China complained about the app, which the country claim promotes “illegal behavior.” Neither Google nor Apple have responded to the DCNF’s request for comment. 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

yZ4Qn27BLhi6NiRT

test

AcmFAxESWCq5WgA4

fbi

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/f2d8d48dede72f5ceb9883e97818caa2

Watchdog caught in political crossfire on his Russia report

2019-12-11

Eric Tucker, Michael Balsamo

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington , Wednesday , Dec. 11 , 2019 , during a hearing on the Inspector General 's report on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington , Wednesday , Dec. 11 , 2019 , during a hearing on the Inspector General 's report on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Justice Department ’ s internal watchdog was caught in a political tug of war Wednesday as Republican and Democratic senators used his report on the origins of the Russia investigation involving Donald Trump ’ s 2016 campaign to support their views that it was a legitimate probe or a badly bungled farce . Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his findings that while the FBI had a legitimate basis to launch the investigation and was not motivated by political bias in doing so , there were major flaws in how that investigation was conducted . The hearing was the latest reflection of Washington ’ s intense politicization . Senators from both parties praised a detailed , nuanced report by a widely respected , nonpartisan investigator , while pressing him to call attention to findings that back their positions . He noted , on one hand , his conclusion that there was a proper basis to open the investigation and that that decision did not appear motivated by political bias . And under questioning from Democrats , he acknowledged the absence of evidence for some of the most sensational claims by Trump and his supporters : that the investigation into ties between his presidential campaign and Russia had been opened for political reasons , that agents had infiltrated his election bid or that former President Barack Obama had directed a wiretap of the Republican candidate . Still , his opening statement was overwhelmingly critical of the investigation , and he returned time and again throughout the hearing to serious problems that he said underscored the need for policy changes . He made clear that the FBI should not be comforted by his findings . The most serious problems , he said , concerned FBI applications for court approval to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide . He rebuked officials up and down the chain of command for failing to update judges as they learned new information that undercut some of their original assertions . “ It doesn ’ t vindicate anybody at the FBI who touched this , including the leadership , ” Horowitz said . That was a rejection of the views of former FBI Director James Comey , who earlier this week had claimed vindication for the bureau based on Horowitz ’ s conclusions . Republicans and Democrats pressed Horowitz on whether he believed the FBI had acted with partisan bias . His response was hedged : He said the multitude of errors during the surveillance warrant process , which included the altering of an email by an FBI lawyer , was so “ inexplicable ” and yielded no obvious explanations that he could not be confident about the intention . Even so , Horowitz also repeatedly noted under questioning from Democrats that he had not found evidence that the FBI opened its investigation for political reasons . The probe began with proper cause , he said , after the FBI learned that a Trump campaign aide had been told that Russia had information that could hurt the presidential campaign of Trump ’ s Democratic rival , Hillary Clinton . “ It finds that it was a properly predicated investigation based on the rules of the FBI , ” Horowitz said of his report . Trump and his supporters are counting on different conclusions from a separate investigation led by John Durham , a prosecutor selected by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the early days of the Russia investigation . Durham issued a statement disputing some of Horowitz ’ s conclusions . But Horowitz said they had a relatively technical disagreement — Durham , he said , believed the evidence was sufficient to open a preliminary investigation but not a full one . The latter gives the FBI more intrusive tools for an investigation . Horowitz ’ s report identified significant problems with applications to receive and renew 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 accused him of wrongdoing . Horowitz told senators that the FBI failed to follow its own standards for accuracy and completeness when it sought a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Page ’ s communications . “ We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate , handpicked investigative teams , on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations , after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI , ” Horowitz said . Asked at one point if he believed that Page had been treated fairly , Horowitz responded that he didn ’ t believe the applications were handled fairly and that Page “ was on the receiving end . ” The report detailed 17 errors and omissions during those wiretap applications , including failing to tell the court when questions were raised about the reliability of some of the information that it had presented to receive the warrants . Those problems were especially alarming because the warrant to monitor Page “ related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign ” and “ even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny . ” Horowitz ’ s findings that the FBI was justified in launching the investigation has been criticized by Barr , a vocal Trump defender . On Tuesday , Barr said the Russia investigation was based on a “ bogus narrative . He declined to rule out that agents may have acted in bad faith . Horowitz said he has spoken with Barr about his findings and that the attorney general did not present anything that changed his conclusions . Republican senators asked about another criticism Horowitz leveled at the FBI — that the bureau sent a representative from its Russia investigation team to a strategic intelligence briefing that intelligence officials gave to both the Clinton and Trump campaigns , including to Trump himself and aide Michael Flynn , who later became the administration ’ s national security adviser . The agent ’ s presence was a “ pretext , ” Horowitz said , to collect information that might be relevant for the investigation . The FBI debated but ultimately opted against giving a standard and more extensive defensive briefing that Russia might be trying to influence their campaign , fearful it could impede the ongoing counterintelligence investigation . Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , D-R.I. , suggested the FBI ’ s decision was reasonable , particularly because Flynn was himself under suspicion . He later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia ’ s ambassador to the United States . FBI Director Christopher Wray , who has said he accepts all the inspector general ’ s findings , is making changes on the briefing process . The FBI said that , going forward , briefings will be “ solely intended to provide candidates ” with relevant information and that FBI briefers will not be associated with any ongoing FBI investigation . In a blistering opening statement , the committee chairman , GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , said the code name for the FBI investigation , “ Crossfire Hurricane , ” was an apt title “ because that ’ s what we ended up with — a ‘ Crossfire Hurricane . ’ ” “ What happened here is the system failed . People at the highest levels of government took the law into their own hands , ” said Graham , a Trump ally . Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California , the committee ’ s top Democrat , said , “ I believe strongly that it ’ s time to move on from the false claims of political bias . ”

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2019, during a hearing on the Inspector General's report on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2019, during a hearing on the Inspector General's report on alleged abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department’s internal watchdog was caught in a political tug of war Wednesday as Republican and Democratic senators used his report on the origins of the Russia investigation involving Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign to support their views that it was a legitimate probe or a badly bungled farce. Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his findings that while the FBI had a legitimate basis to launch the investigation and was not motivated by political bias in doing so, there were major flaws in how that investigation was conducted. The hearing was the latest reflection of Washington’s intense politicization. Senators from both parties praised a detailed, nuanced report by a widely respected, nonpartisan investigator, while pressing him to call attention to findings that back their positions. Horowitz himself tried to strike a balance. He noted, on one hand, his conclusion that there was a proper basis to open the investigation and that that decision did not appear motivated by political bias. And under questioning from Democrats, he acknowledged the absence of evidence for some of the most sensational claims by Trump and his supporters: that the investigation into ties between his presidential campaign and Russia had been opened for political reasons, that agents had infiltrated his election bid or that former President Barack Obama had directed a wiretap of the Republican candidate. Still, his opening statement was overwhelmingly critical of the investigation, and he returned time and again throughout the hearing to serious problems that he said underscored the need for policy changes. He made clear that the FBI should not be comforted by his findings. The most serious problems, he said, concerned FBI applications for court approval to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide. He rebuked officials up and down the chain of command for failing to update judges as they learned new information that undercut some of their original assertions. “It doesn’t vindicate anybody at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership,” Horowitz said. That was a rejection of the views of former FBI Director James Comey, who earlier this week had claimed vindication for the bureau based on Horowitz’s conclusions. Republicans and Democrats pressed Horowitz on whether he believed the FBI had acted with partisan bias. His response was hedged: He said the multitude of errors during the surveillance warrant process, which included the altering of an email by an FBI lawyer, was so “inexplicable” and yielded no obvious explanations that he could not be confident about the intention. Even so, Horowitz also repeatedly noted under questioning from Democrats that he had not found evidence that the FBI opened its investigation for political reasons. The probe began with proper cause, he said, after the FBI learned that a Trump campaign aide had been told that Russia had information that could hurt the presidential campaign of Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. “It finds that it was a properly predicated investigation based on the rules of the FBI,” Horowitz said of his report. Trump and his supporters are counting on different conclusions from a separate investigation led by John Durham, a prosecutor selected by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the early days of the Russia investigation. Durham issued a statement disputing some of Horowitz’s conclusions. But Horowitz said they had a relatively technical disagreement — Durham, he said, believed the evidence was sufficient to open a preliminary investigation but not a full one. The latter gives the FBI more intrusive tools for an investigation. Horowitz’s report identified significant problems with applications to receive and renew 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 accused him of wrongdoing. Horowitz told senators that the FBI failed to follow its own standards for accuracy and completeness when it sought a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor Page’s communications. “We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, handpicked investigative teams, on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations, after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI,” Horowitz said. Asked at one point if he believed that Page had been treated fairly, Horowitz responded that he didn’t believe the applications were handled fairly and that Page “was on the receiving end.” The report detailed 17 errors and omissions during those wiretap applications, including failing to tell the court when questions were raised about the reliability of some of the information that it had presented to receive the warrants. Those problems were especially alarming because the warrant to monitor Page “related so closely to an ongoing presidential campaign” and “even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subjected to close scrutiny.” Horowitz’s findings that the FBI was justified in launching the investigation has been criticized by Barr, a vocal Trump defender. On Tuesday, Barr said the Russia investigation was based on a “bogus narrative. He declined to rule out that agents may have acted in bad faith. Horowitz said he has spoken with Barr about his findings and that the attorney general did not present anything that changed his conclusions. Republican senators asked about another criticism Horowitz leveled at the FBI — that the bureau sent a representative from its Russia investigation team to a strategic intelligence briefing that intelligence officials gave to both the Clinton and Trump campaigns, including to Trump himself and aide Michael Flynn, who later became the administration’s national security adviser. The agent’s presence was a “pretext,” Horowitz said, to collect information that might be relevant for the investigation. The FBI debated but ultimately opted against giving a standard and more extensive defensive briefing that Russia might be trying to influence their campaign, fearful it could impede the ongoing counterintelligence investigation. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., suggested the FBI’s decision was reasonable, particularly because Flynn was himself under suspicion. He later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia’s ambassador to the United States. Nonetheless, Horowitz said, “it raises significant policy questions.” FBI Director Christopher Wray, who has said he accepts all the inspector general’s findings, is making changes on the briefing process. The FBI said that, going forward, briefings will be “solely intended to provide candidates” with relevant information and that FBI briefers will not be associated with any ongoing FBI investigation. In a blistering opening statement, the committee chairman, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said the code name for the FBI investigation, “Crossfire Hurricane,” was an apt title “because that’s what we ended up with — a ‘Crossfire Hurricane.’” “What happened here is the system failed. People at the highest levels of government took the law into their own hands,” said Graham, a Trump ally. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s top Democrat, said, “I believe strongly that it’s time to move on from the false claims of political bias.”

www.apnews.com

center

AcmFAxESWCq5WgA4

test

lQLjPetOesZoq0lQ

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/donald-trump-approval-rating-sinks-to-lowest-of-his-presidency

Donald Trump's approval rating sinks to lowest of his presidency

2018-08-31

Joanna Walters

New survey shows first time the national displeasure rating has exceeded 50 % , and a majority of support for Mueller ’ s Russia investigation Donald Trump has slumped to the lowest approval rating of his presidency , with 60 % disapproving of his performance as the US president , according to a new national survey . Trump sits alone 'sulking ' as Washington pays its respects to John McCain Read more The figure includes 53 % who say they disapprove strongly of his performance in the White House , the first time the national displeasure rating has exceeded 50 % , according to a new ABC/Washington Post poll published on Friday morning . The poll also found that a majority support the special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation and think Trump should not fire the attorney general , Jeff Sessions . Just 36 % of those asked said they approved of the job Trump is doing , matching his low in surveys carried out since he was inaugurated in January of 2017 . Sign up to receive the top US stories every morning The startling new measures will make even stronger the contrast on Friday between the low public opinion of Trump and his glaring absence from services scheduled to commemorate the late Senator John McCain , whose casket was transported from Arizona , the state he represented and where he died last Saturday , to Washington DC on Thursday evening . McCain on Friday becomes only the 31st American to be accorded the honor of lying in state in the US Capitol in Washington , where the vice-president , Mike Pence , will represent the administration in a morning service to which Trump has expressly not been invited . The president has also not been invited to the memorial service for McCain in the National Cathedral in Washington on Saturday , where former presidents Barack Obama , a Democrat , and George W Bush , a Republican , were asked by McCain in recent months to give eulogies . The results of the new opinion poll come 10 days after Trump ’ s former campaign manager , Paul Manafort , was found guilty of fraud by a jury in a federal trial in Alexandria , Virginia . And on the day Manafort was convicted , Trump ’ s former longtime lawyer , Michael Cohen , pleaded guilty in a federal court in New York to , among other charges , campaign finance violations for paying hush money to women who allege affairs with Trump in the past – violations that Cohen blamed on Trump in open court . Americans are more or less split on the wisdom of Congress impeaching Trump . The poll found that 49 % said impeachment proceedings that could lead to Trump being removed from office should happen , while 46 % say Congress should not go through with such a move . A total of 64 % of those polled said Trump should not fire Sessions , whom Trump has repeatedly lambasted since the attorney general recused himself , shortly after taking up his post in 2017 , from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election , allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow and obstruction of justice . And a strong 63 % approve of the Russia investigation being carried out , with 52 % saying they strongly approve . In the week since John McCain died , the rift between the two men has been deepened , with criticism of Trump for his lack of tributes to McCain , followed by a belated , lukewarm acknowledgment of McCain ’ s service to the country as a war hero and longtime senator . A final statement from McCain , who was known for reaching across the political divides , read out after his death , was critical of “ tribal ” politics and insular ultra-nationalism in a pointed dig at Trump ’ s style . Sarah Palin , McCain ’ s disastrous choice to be his Republican running mate in the 2008 election , has also pointedly not been invited to the funeral service on Saturday . In another tumultuous week for Trump , he announced that his White House counsel , Don McGahn , who has been cooperating with Mueller , will resign . The president also renewed his assault on the mainstream media and stepped up attacks on internet giant Google , alleging anti-conservative bias from both . He also informed Congress on Thursday that he is canceling pay raises due in January for most civilian federal employees , citing budget constraints even as he repeatedly touts the strength of the US economy .

New survey shows first time the national displeasure rating has exceeded 50%, and a majority of support for Mueller’s Russia investigation Donald Trump has slumped to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, with 60% disapproving of his performance as the US president, according to a new national survey. Trump sits alone 'sulking' as Washington pays its respects to John McCain Read more The figure includes 53% who say they disapprove strongly of his performance in the White House, the first time the national displeasure rating has exceeded 50%, according to a new ABC/Washington Post poll published on Friday morning. The poll also found that a majority support the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and think Trump should not fire the attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Just 36% of those asked said they approved of the job Trump is doing, matching his low in surveys carried out since he was inaugurated in January of 2017. Sign up to receive the top US stories every morning The startling new measures will make even stronger the contrast on Friday between the low public opinion of Trump and his glaring absence from services scheduled to commemorate the late Senator John McCain, whose casket was transported from Arizona, the state he represented and where he died last Saturday, to Washington DC on Thursday evening. McCain on Friday becomes only the 31st American to be accorded the honor of lying in state in the US Capitol in Washington, where the vice-president, Mike Pence, will represent the administration in a morning service to which Trump has expressly not been invited. The president has also not been invited to the memorial service for McCain in the National Cathedral in Washington on Saturday, where former presidents Barack Obama, a Democrat, and George W Bush, a Republican, were asked by McCain in recent months to give eulogies. The results of the new opinion poll come 10 days after Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was found guilty of fraud by a jury in a federal trial in Alexandria, Virginia. And on the day Manafort was convicted, Trump’s former longtime lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty in a federal court in New York to, among other charges, campaign finance violations for paying hush money to women who allege affairs with Trump in the past – violations that Cohen blamed on Trump in open court. Americans are more or less split on the wisdom of Congress impeaching Trump. The poll found that 49% said impeachment proceedings that could lead to Trump being removed from office should happen, while 46% say Congress should not go through with such a move. A total of 64% of those polled said Trump should not fire Sessions, whom Trump has repeatedly lambasted since the attorney general recused himself, shortly after taking up his post in 2017, from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow and obstruction of justice. And a strong 63% approve of the Russia investigation being carried out, with 52% saying they strongly approve. In the week since John McCain died, the rift between the two men has been deepened, with criticism of Trump for his lack of tributes to McCain, followed by a belated, lukewarm acknowledgment of McCain’s service to the country as a war hero and longtime senator. A final statement from McCain, who was known for reaching across the political divides, read out after his death, was critical of “tribal” politics and insular ultra-nationalism in a pointed dig at Trump’s style. Sarah Palin, McCain’s disastrous choice to be his Republican running mate in the 2008 election, has also pointedly not been invited to the funeral service on Saturday. In another tumultuous week for Trump, he announced that his White House counsel, Don McGahn, who has been cooperating with Mueller, will resign. The president also renewed his assault on the mainstream media and stepped up attacks on internet giant Google, alleging anti-conservative bias from both. He also informed Congress on Thursday that he is canceling pay raises due in January for most civilian federal employees, citing budget constraints even as he repeatedly touts the strength of the US economy.

www.theguardian.com

left

lQLjPetOesZoq0lQ

test

QulN3hp0lM7sCsaX

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/16/on-capitol-hill-giffords-kelly-express-optimism-over-gun-bill/

On Capitol Hill, Giffords, Kelly express optimism over gun bill

2013-04-16

Washington ( CNN ) - As proponents of gun control legislation in the Senate struggle to get enough votes for their bill , former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband , Mark Kelly , say they feel `` optimistic '' that the bipartisan compromise will get enough approval . And Sen. Joe Manchin , D-West Virginia indicated the bill could potentially be tweaked to convince opponents to join their side , while Vice President Joe Biden said advocates are `` working '' to get the 60 votes needed to pass . `` We are optimistic that this can pass , '' Kelly told CNN , after walking through the Capitol Tuesday with Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey , R-Pennsylvania . Toomey and Manchin are the two architects of an agreement that would expand the background check system to include firearm sales at gun shows and over the internet . The Senate is expected to take up a package of gun proposals this week , starting with the Manchin-Toomey amendment . The overall gun bill also contains measures to crack down on gun trafficking and straw purchases , as well as finding ways to improve school safety . The compromise deal , reached last week and originally thought to make it through the Senate , is now trying to stay above water , as several Republican senators have indicated they plan to oppose the measure . As the group–Manchin , Toomey , Kelly and Giffords–was walking into an elevator Tuesday , one reporter asked if the senators are considering a possible change to the legislation , which would allow exemptions for rural gun owners who have to travel far to purchase a gun . Such a measure could help sway senators from states like Alaska . `` We 're looking at everything that really makes sense , '' he said . `` We 're looking at everything that could be of more help . '' Asked if he 's optimistic about a bill getting through the Senate , he replied with a smile : `` Always optimistic . '' Biden was also on the Hill Tuesday for a ceremony dedicating a room to Gabe Zimmerman , a congressional aide who lost his life in the same Tucson shooting that wounded Giffords . `` I think we 're going to be OK , '' Biden told reporters when asked about the gun bill in the Senate . But , the former senator from Delaware added , he 's `` learned after 36 years not to predict what the Senate 's going to do on anything . '' Asked if he 's talking to certain senators who are on the fence about the bill , Biden said : `` I 'm just reaching out to my friends . '' `` We are working to get to 60 and it 's fluid . I think we 're there , but it 's not unusual as you all know for people to make up their minds at the last minute , '' he said . `` But we 'll see . '' Despite the obstacles ahead , Kelly also said they 're hopeful the bill can get enough support . Kelly and Giffords , who was shot in the head more than two years ago , have been vocal advocates in the renewed campaign to combat gun violence . `` I think there 's a good chance , '' Kelly said . `` It 's going to take a little work . That 's why Gabby and I are here . And ya know I think we 'll get this done . '' Read more : 'Stronger , better , tougher : ' Giffords improves , but she 'll never be the same Republican Sens . Saxby Chambliss of Georgia , Roger Wicker of Mississippi , and Richard Burr of North Carolina told CNN Monday of their plans to vote against the measure , while Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona announced his decision on his Facebook page the same night . On the other hand , four Republicans have voiced support or said they were leaning in favor of supporting the amendment . With at least two moderate Democrats from pro-gun states known to oppose the measure , it needs at least seven GOP votes to have any chance of passing . Manchin told CNN on Monday a vote on his amendment would be pushed back to try and build more support in order to get the 60 votes that are effectively needed for passage . Asked if the vote would take place Tuesday or Wednesday , as supporters had hoped , Manchin said he did n't think so . `` I would say by the end of the week , probably , '' he added .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - As proponents of gun control legislation in the Senate struggle to get enough votes for their bill, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, say they feel "optimistic" that the bipartisan compromise will get enough approval. And Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia indicated the bill could potentially be tweaked to convince opponents to join their side, while Vice President Joe Biden said advocates are "working" to get the 60 votes needed to pass. Follow @politicalticker "We are optimistic that this can pass," Kelly told CNN, after walking through the Capitol Tuesday with Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania. Toomey and Manchin are the two architects of an agreement that would expand the background check system to include firearm sales at gun shows and over the internet. The Senate is expected to take up a package of gun proposals this week, starting with the Manchin-Toomey amendment. The overall gun bill also contains measures to crack down on gun trafficking and straw purchases, as well as finding ways to improve school safety. The compromise deal, reached last week and originally thought to make it through the Senate, is now trying to stay above water, as several Republican senators have indicated they plan to oppose the measure. As the group–Manchin, Toomey, Kelly and Giffords–was walking into an elevator Tuesday, one reporter asked if the senators are considering a possible change to the legislation, which would allow exemptions for rural gun owners who have to travel far to purchase a gun. Such a measure could help sway senators from states like Alaska. Responding, Manchin suggested a change could be made. "We're looking at everything that really makes sense," he said. "We're looking at everything that could be of more help." Asked if he's optimistic about a bill getting through the Senate, he replied with a smile: "Always optimistic." Biden was also on the Hill Tuesday for a ceremony dedicating a room to Gabe Zimmerman, a congressional aide who lost his life in the same Tucson shooting that wounded Giffords. "I think we're going to be OK," Biden told reporters when asked about the gun bill in the Senate. But, the former senator from Delaware added, he's "learned after 36 years not to predict what the Senate's going to do on anything." Asked if he's talking to certain senators who are on the fence about the bill, Biden said: "I'm just reaching out to my friends." "We are working to get to 60 and it's fluid. I think we're there, but it's not unusual as you all know for people to make up their minds at the last minute," he said. "But we'll see." Despite the obstacles ahead, Kelly also said they're hopeful the bill can get enough support. Kelly and Giffords, who was shot in the head more than two years ago, have been vocal advocates in the renewed campaign to combat gun violence. "I think there's a good chance," Kelly said. "It's going to take a little work. That's why Gabby and I are here. And ya know I think we'll get this done." Read more: 'Stronger, better, tougher:' Giffords improves, but she'll never be the same Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Richard Burr of North Carolina told CNN Monday of their plans to vote against the measure, while Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona announced his decision on his Facebook page the same night. On the other hand, four Republicans have voiced support or said they were leaning in favor of supporting the amendment. With at least two moderate Democrats from pro-gun states known to oppose the measure, it needs at least seven GOP votes to have any chance of passing. Manchin told CNN on Monday a vote on his amendment would be pushed back to try and build more support in order to get the 60 votes that are effectively needed for passage. Asked if the vote would take place Tuesday or Wednesday, as supporters had hoped, Manchin said he didn't think so. "I would say by the end of the week, probably," he added. - CNN's Tom Cohen and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

QulN3hp0lM7sCsaX

test

TClgM81LI5aPNozw

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/17/donald-trump-putin-russia-summit-how-will-republicans-react

Will Republicans punish Trump for his performance with Putin?

2018-07-17

Lauren Gambino

President ’ s comments on election meddling called ‘ disgraceful ’ but most in his party are reluctant to enter open conflict Air Force One departed Helsinki on Monday after a head-spinning week in which the US president attacked the postwar international order and sided with the Russian president Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies about whether Moscow meddled in the US elections . The question that now looms before Republican lawmakers : how will they respond ? Trump 'treasonous ' after siding with Putin on election meddling Read more Donald Trump ’ s conduct during the joint press conference with Putin drew condemnation from across the political spectrum , including from Republicans who have been previously wary of criticizing him . Yet despite the deep disappointment and shock , leading Republicans lawmakers have so far failed to pledge any concrete action to punish Trump for his conduct next to Putin , which some panned as “ shameful ” and a “ sign of weakness ” . “ Some statements coming out from [ Republicans ] are OK , ” said Senator Brian Schatz , a Democrat from Hawaii . “ But the foundational question is whether or not a member of Congress will use their constitutional authorities to slow or stop this . ” Republicans , who hold the majority in both chambers of Congress , could try to force Trump ’ s hand on Russia by holding up nominees , demanding hearings or pushing for increased oversight . There is , as Democrats note , pending legislation that Congress could pass to protect special counsel Robert Mueller , who is investigating whether Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia during the election . On Tuesday , the editors of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine called on Republicans in Congress to formally censure the president . “ We understand that such a measure would be largely symbolic , ” the editors wrote . “ But symbols matter . It would be no small thing for congressional Republicans to declare , in a formal manner , that a president who coddles and defends an anti-American despot doesn ’ t deserve their support . ” Play Video 3:10 Key moments from the Trump-Putin press conference - video Late Monday evening , Senator John Cornyn told CNN Republican lawmakers were considering a measure that would reaffirm support for the intelligence community conclusion on Russian meddling . Such action would follow the non-binding resolution in support of Nato , which the Senate passed last week before Trump landed in Brussels for a summit with military allies . In the hours after the press conference , several leading Republicans rebuked Trump for appearing to disregard his own intelligence community and place trust in Putin , an adversary accused of having attacked the very foundation of American democracy : its electoral system . Russian woman charged with spying for Moscow by 'infiltrating ' NRA Read more “ They think it ’ s Russia , ” Trump said during the press conference , referring to US intelligence officials and aides . “ I have President Putin – he just said it ’ s not Russia . I don ’ t see any reason why it would be . ” In a statement , House speaker Paul Ryan reprimanded Trump : “ There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia. ” He also reasserted his view that there is “ no question ” Russia interfered in the US presidential election and continues to meddle in democracies around the world . Ryan was joined by other Republican lawmakers . John McCain , the ailing Arizona senator and one of the party ’ s leading voices on national security , delivered perhaps the harshest rebuke , calling the press conference “ one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory ” . In a tweet on Tuesday , Trump said the media had distorted a successful European trip . “ While I had a great meeting with NATO , raising vast amounts of money , I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia , ” Trump wrote . “ Sadly , it is not being reported that way – the Fake News is going Crazy ! ” Democrats have laid out four actions they say Republicans could take . The Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , said Republicans should refuse to “ water down ” and instead should “ ratchet up ” sanctions against Russia . Secondly , Schumer asked Republicans to join him in calling on Trump ’ s national security team present for the summit with Putin to testify before Congress . He then called on Republicans to end their attacks on the Mueller investigation . Lastly , he said , Republicans should pressure the president to demand the extradition of the 12 Russian intelligence officers charged last week in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign . “ The president is doing grave harm to the standing of these United States while kowtowing to the number one enemy which we probably have on the globe , Vladimir Putin , ” Schumer said . “ He ’ ll continue to do so if he isn ’ t checked and the best people to check him are not Democrats , but his fellow Republicans . ” Patrick Toomey , a Republican senator from Pennsylvania , suggested the US should threaten “ tough , new sanctions ” if Russia refuses to extradite the 12 intelligence officers . Ryan and Senate No2 John Cornyn subsequently suggested they would support new sanctions . Play Video 0:58 Putin says Russia has never interfered with US internal affairs – video Mark Meadows , chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus , declined to criticize Trump for blaming the US for poor relations with Russia . Senator Rand Paul , of Kentucky , dismissed the focus on Russian meddling as “ Trump derangement syndrome ” . Republicans may settle on a course of action over the coming days . But as past episodes have shown , they largely prefer to avoid open conflict with the president . For now , even Trump ’ s harshest Republican critics seem to place their hopes not in Congress but rather the president ’ s ability to change . “ Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility , ” McCain said . “ One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain . ”

President’s comments on election meddling called ‘disgraceful’ but most in his party are reluctant to enter open conflict Air Force One departed Helsinki on Monday after a head-spinning week in which the US president attacked the postwar international order and sided with the Russian president Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies about whether Moscow meddled in the US elections. The question that now looms before Republican lawmakers: how will they respond? Trump 'treasonous' after siding with Putin on election meddling Read more Donald Trump’s conduct during the joint press conference with Putin drew condemnation from across the political spectrum, including from Republicans who have been previously wary of criticizing him. Yet despite the deep disappointment and shock, leading Republicans lawmakers have so far failed to pledge any concrete action to punish Trump for his conduct next to Putin, which some panned as “shameful” and a “sign of weakness”. “Some statements coming out from [Republicans] are OK,” said Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii. “But the foundational question is whether or not a member of Congress will use their constitutional authorities to slow or stop this.” Republicans, who hold the majority in both chambers of Congress, could try to force Trump’s hand on Russia by holding up nominees, demanding hearings or pushing for increased oversight. There is, as Democrats note, pending legislation that Congress could pass to protect special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia during the election. On Tuesday, the editors of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine called on Republicans in Congress to formally censure the president. “We understand that such a measure would be largely symbolic,” the editors wrote. “But symbols matter. It would be no small thing for congressional Republicans to declare, in a formal manner, that a president who coddles and defends an anti-American despot doesn’t deserve their support.” Play Video 3:10 Key moments from the Trump-Putin press conference - video Late Monday evening, Senator John Cornyn told CNN Republican lawmakers were considering a measure that would reaffirm support for the intelligence community conclusion on Russian meddling. Such action would follow the non-binding resolution in support of Nato, which the Senate passed last week before Trump landed in Brussels for a summit with military allies. In the hours after the press conference, several leading Republicans rebuked Trump for appearing to disregard his own intelligence community and place trust in Putin, an adversary accused of having attacked the very foundation of American democracy: its electoral system. Russian woman charged with spying for Moscow by 'infiltrating' NRA Read more “They think it’s Russia,” Trump said during the press conference, referring to US intelligence officials and aides. “I have President Putin – he just said it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.” In a statement, House speaker Paul Ryan reprimanded Trump: “There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia.” He also reasserted his view that there is “no question” Russia interfered in the US presidential election and continues to meddle in democracies around the world. Ryan was joined by other Republican lawmakers. John McCain, the ailing Arizona senator and one of the party’s leading voices on national security, delivered perhaps the harshest rebuke, calling the press conference “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory”. In a tweet on Tuesday, Trump said the media had distorted a successful European trip. “While I had a great meeting with NATO, raising vast amounts of money, I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia,” Trump wrote. “Sadly, it is not being reported that way – the Fake News is going Crazy!” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Paul Ryan reprimanded Trump for his comments about the US and Russia. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA Democrats have laid out four actions they say Republicans could take. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said Republicans should refuse to “water down” and instead should “ratchet up” sanctions against Russia. Secondly, Schumer asked Republicans to join him in calling on Trump’s national security team present for the summit with Putin to testify before Congress. He then called on Republicans to end their attacks on the Mueller investigation. Lastly, he said, Republicans should pressure the president to demand the extradition of the 12 Russian intelligence officers charged last week in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. “The president is doing grave harm to the standing of these United States while kowtowing to the number one enemy which we probably have on the globe, Vladimir Putin,” Schumer said. “He’ll continue to do so if he isn’t checked and the best people to check him are not Democrats, but his fellow Republicans.” Patrick Toomey, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, suggested the US should threaten “tough, new sanctions” if Russia refuses to extradite the 12 intelligence officers. Ryan and Senate No2 John Cornyn subsequently suggested they would support new sanctions. Play Video 0:58 Putin says Russia has never interfered with US internal affairs – video Still, there were some Republicans who stood by Trump. Mark Meadows, chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, declined to criticize Trump for blaming the US for poor relations with Russia. Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky, dismissed the focus on Russian meddling as “Trump derangement syndrome”. Republicans may settle on a course of action over the coming days. But as past episodes have shown, they largely prefer to avoid open conflict with the president. For now, even Trump’s harshest Republican critics seem to place their hopes not in Congress but rather the president’s ability to change. “Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility,” McCain said. “One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”

www.theguardian.com

left

TClgM81LI5aPNozw

test

Gktri6lFpUwNvFjV

lgbt_rights

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/open_season_on_lgbt_rights_indiana_governor_signs_religious_discrimination_bill/

Open season on LGBT rights: Indiana governor signs religious discrimination bill

2015-03-26

Overruling objections by everyone from Indiana business leaders to actor George Takei , GOP Gov . Mike Pence on Thursday signed legislation that will allow individuals and businesses in the state to deny services to LGBT people on `` religious liberty '' grounds . `` The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion , but today , many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action , '' Pence said in signing the law . Although Pence , a fervent social conservative , had signaled earlier this week that he would sign the legislation , LGBT rights advocates hoped to derail it with a last-ditch pressure campaign . Leading corporations in the state -- including Salesforce and Cummins -- came out against the measure , arguing that sanctioning anti-LGBT discrimination would damage the state 's reputation and its ability to recruit a talented workforce . Takei , meanwhile , vowed to boycott the upcoming GenCon gaming convention in Indianapolis if Pence signed the legislation , and GenCon 's CEO warned the governor that the legislation `` will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years . '' The Disciples of Christ , a liberal denomination , joined the outcry , declaring that it would relocate its General Assembly , which was slated to be held in Indianapolis in 2017 . The legislation Pence signed bars states and localities from `` substantially burdening '' individuals ' religious freedoms in the absence of a compelling government interest . Lawmakers throughout the country have proposed such `` religious liberty '' measures with the intent of allowing business owners and individuals to discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds . Laws like Indiana 's promise to serve as rallying cries for the religious right in the years to come , as conservatives grapple with the imminence of nationwide marriage equality and seek other ways to undermine legal protections for the LGBT community . Among the Republicans vouching for such measures is likely GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush , who told reporters in Atlanta last week that `` people have a right '' to `` act on their faith '' when it comes to providing services to LGBT individuals .

Overruling objections by everyone from Indiana business leaders to actor George Takei, GOP Gov. Mike Pence on Thursday signed legislation that will allow individuals and businesses in the state to deny services to LGBT people on "religious liberty" grounds. "The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion, but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in signing the law. Advertisement: Although Pence, a fervent social conservative, had signaled earlier this week that he would sign the legislation, LGBT rights advocates hoped to derail it with a last-ditch pressure campaign. Leading corporations in the state -- including Salesforce and Cummins -- came out against the measure, arguing that sanctioning anti-LGBT discrimination would damage the state's reputation and its ability to recruit a talented workforce. Takei, meanwhile, vowed to boycott the upcoming GenCon gaming convention in Indianapolis if Pence signed the legislation, and GenCon's CEO warned the governor that the legislation "will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years." The Disciples of Christ, a liberal denomination, joined the outcry, declaring that it would relocate its General Assembly, which was slated to be held in Indianapolis in 2017. The legislation Pence signed bars states and localities from "substantially burdening" individuals' religious freedoms in the absence of a compelling government interest. Lawmakers throughout the country have proposed such "religious liberty" measures with the intent of allowing business owners and individuals to discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds. Laws like Indiana's promise to serve as rallying cries for the religious right in the years to come, as conservatives grapple with the imminence of nationwide marriage equality and seek other ways to undermine legal protections for the LGBT community. Among the Republicans vouching for such measures is likely GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush, who told reporters in Atlanta last week that "people have a right" to "act on their faith" when it comes to providing services to LGBT individuals. (h/t TPM)

www.salon.com

left

Gktri6lFpUwNvFjV

test

UMbCNBu2QEKd0Qxi

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/01/14/project-veritas-bernie-campaigner-dreams-of-slaying-msnbc-hosts-liberals-get-the-fing-wall-first/

Project Veritas–Bernie Campaigner Dreams of Slaying MSNBC Hosts: ‘Liberals Get the F***ing Wall First’

2020-01-14

Joshua Caplan

Undercover footage released by Project Veritas on Tuesday shows a field organizer for Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s ( I-VT ) 2020 campaign warning that liberals will “ get the fucking wall first ” in a socialist revolution . The remark , uttered by an individual identified as Kyle Jurek , was prompted by a Project Veritas journalist , who asked : “ Guys like that ( liberals ) , what are we going to do with them ? ” “ Gulag , ” Jurek quipped with a laugh , before adding : “ Liberals get the fucking wall first . ” The Sanders organizer ’ s comment is a play on the expression “ against the wall , ” a reference to past left-wing regimes placing dissenters against a wall to be shot . At another point , the Project Veritas journalist asks , “ Who you gon na throw down with ? ” Jurek reflects for a moment , then begins counting on his fingers : “ The billionaire class , the fucking media , pundits . ” Running with that train of thought , he fantasizes about killing the staff of cable news channel MSNBC–an openly liberal outlet that has obsessively pursued far-left conspiracy theories about President Trump conspiring with Russia . “ Walk into that MSNBC studios , drag these motherfuckers out by their hair , and light them on fire in the streets , ” he continues . In another part of the video , Jurek is asked what should be done about those who “ resist the change . ” “ Well , I ’ ll tell you what . In Cuba , what did they do to reactionaries ? ” “ They shot them on the beach , ” the Project Veritas journalist answered . “ Do you want to fight against the revolution ? You ’ re gon na die for it , motherfucker , ” Jurek replied . During a separate part of the undercover video , Jurek speaks favorably about gulags , arguing they could be used to re-educate Trump supporters and billionaires . “ In Nazi Germany , after the fall of the Nazi Party , there was a shit-ton of the populace that was fucking Nazified , ” said the Sanders campaigner . “ Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their fucking people to not be Nazis , ” he continues . “ We ’ re probably going to have to do the same fucking thing here . That ’ s kind of what all Bernie ’ s whole fucking like , ‘ hey , free education for everybody ’ because we ’ re going to have to teach you to not be a fucking Nazi . ” “ [ The ] greatest way to break a fucking billionaire of their privilege and their idea that their superior , go and break rocks for 12 hours a day . You ’ re now a working class person and you ’ re going to fucking learn what the means , right ? ” he adds . Tuesday ’ s video comes hours before 2020 Democrats will face-off in the last debate before Iowa ’ s first-in-the-nation caucus on February 3rd . Project Veritas founder James O ’ Keefe has hinted today ’ s footage is one of several upcoming videos to be released as part of the organization ’ s “ Expose2020 ” campaign .

Undercover footage released by Project Veritas on Tuesday shows a field organizer for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) 2020 campaign warning that liberals will “get the fucking wall first” in a socialist revolution. The remark, uttered by an individual identified as Kyle Jurek, was prompted by a Project Veritas journalist, who asked: “Guys like that (liberals), what are we going to do with them?” “Gulag,” Jurek quipped with a laugh, before adding: “Liberals get the fucking wall first.” The Sanders organizer’s comment is a play on the expression “against the wall,” a reference to past left-wing regimes placing dissenters against a wall to be shot. At another point, the Project Veritas journalist asks, “Who you gonna throw down with?” Jurek reflects for a moment, then begins counting on his fingers: “The billionaire class, the fucking media, pundits.” Running with that train of thought, he fantasizes about killing the staff of cable news channel MSNBC–an openly liberal outlet that has obsessively pursued far-left conspiracy theories about President Trump conspiring with Russia. “Walk into that MSNBC studios, drag these motherfuckers out by their hair, and light them on fire in the streets,” he continues. In another part of the video, Jurek is asked what should be done about those who “resist the change.” “Well, I’ll tell you what. In Cuba, what did they do to reactionaries?” “They shot them on the beach,” the Project Veritas journalist answered. “Do you want to fight against the revolution? You’re gonna die for it, motherfucker,” Jurek replied. During a separate part of the undercover video, Jurek speaks favorably about gulags, arguing they could be used to re-educate Trump supporters and billionaires. “In Nazi Germany, after the fall of the Nazi Party, there was a shit-ton of the populace that was fucking Nazified,” said the Sanders campaigner. “Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their fucking people to not be Nazis,” he continues. “We’re probably going to have to do the same fucking thing here. That’s kind of what all Bernie’s whole fucking like, ‘hey, free education for everybody’ because we’re going to have to teach you to not be a fucking Nazi.” “[The] greatest way to break a fucking billionaire of their privilege and their idea that their superior, go and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You’re now a working class person and you’re going to fucking learn what the means, right?” he adds. Tuesday’s video comes hours before 2020 Democrats will face-off in the last debate before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus on February 3rd. Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has hinted today’s footage is one of several upcoming videos to be released as part of the organization’s “Expose2020” campaign.

www.breitbart.com

right

UMbCNBu2QEKd0Qxi

test

Fi3NSlsa5oxfgJhw

lgbt_rights

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46321543

Trump asks US court for review of transgender military ban

President Trump 's administration is asking the US Supreme Court to consider its proposed restrictions on transgender military members . It is requesting that the top court review lower court rulings blocking a military ban on transgender people . Federal courts have prevented the military from implementing a policy barring some transgender Americans from service . The administration wants the court to hear the dispute this term . The president announced on Twitter in 2017 that the country would no longer `` accept or allow '' transgender Americans to serve in the military , citing `` tremendous medical costs and disruption '' . The administration has since limited the policy to transgender individuals with a history of gender dysphoria . Following legal challenges , judges in federal courts in three jurisdictions - Washington state , California , and Washington , DC - have refused to lift injunctions issued against the president 's original ban to allow the updated policy to be enforced . On Friday , the Trump administration filed petitions to the Supreme Court asking for its `` immediate review '' of the constitutional challenges to the ban . `` And absent this Court 's prompt intervention , it is unlikely that the military will be able to implement its new policy any time soon , '' it said . The petitions ask for the top court to consolidate the cases for decision and consider the dispute during its current term , which ends in June or July 2019 . Between 4,000 and 10,000 US active-duty and reserve service members are believed to be transgender . An Obama administration policy change has allowed them to serve in the US military . The revised policy under the Trump administration says that transgender individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are barred from military service `` except under certain limited circumstances '' . The new policy approved by President Trump allows current transgender service members with gender dysphoria to continue serving if they were diagnosed after the Obama administration 's policy took effect . People with gender dysphoria experience distress or discomfort as a result of a disparity between a their biological sex ( assigned at birth ) and what they feel their gender to be . According to the American Psychiatric Association , not all transgender individuals suffer from gender dysphoria .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption People protest President Trump's announcement of plans to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals from serving President Trump's administration is asking the US Supreme Court to consider its proposed restrictions on transgender military members. It is requesting that the top court review lower court rulings blocking a military ban on transgender people. Federal courts have prevented the military from implementing a policy barring some transgender Americans from service. The administration wants the court to hear the dispute this term. The president announced on Twitter in 2017 that the country would no longer "accept or allow" transgender Americans to serve in the military, citing "tremendous medical costs and disruption". The administration has since limited the policy to transgender individuals with a history of gender dysphoria. Following legal challenges, judges in federal courts in three jurisdictions - Washington state, California, and Washington, DC - have refused to lift injunctions issued against the president's original ban to allow the updated policy to be enforced. The US government is appealing those decisions. On Friday, the Trump administration filed petitions to the Supreme Court asking for its "immediate review" of the constitutional challenges to the ban. "And absent this Court's prompt intervention, it is unlikely that the military will be able to implement its new policy any time soon," it said. The petitions ask for the top court to consolidate the cases for decision and consider the dispute during its current term, which ends in June or July 2019. Between 4,000 and 10,000 US active-duty and reserve service members are believed to be transgender. An Obama administration policy change has allowed them to serve in the US military. The revised policy under the Trump administration says that transgender individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are barred from military service "except under certain limited circumstances". The new policy approved by President Trump allows current transgender service members with gender dysphoria to continue serving if they were diagnosed after the Obama administration's policy took effect. People with gender dysphoria experience distress or discomfort as a result of a disparity between a their biological sex (assigned at birth) and what they feel their gender to be. According to the American Psychiatric Association, not all transgender individuals suffer from gender dysphoria.

www.bbc.com

center

Fi3NSlsa5oxfgJhw

test

RFEmFflGZClTNtY0

environment

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/22/gore-says-climate-change-deniers-melting-away/

Gore says climate change deniers melting away

2013-08-22

( CNN ) – Former Vice President Al Gore said he 's optimistic about the future of the climate change debate , arguing Republicans are growing weary of global warning deniers . In an interview with The Washington Post , Gore said climate change activists are in the process of `` winning the conversation , '' just like activists won the civil rights movement . `` The same thing happened on apartheid , '' he told columnist Ezra Klein in the interview posted online Wednesday . `` The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement . The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition . A few months ago , I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up . We 're winning that conversation . '' He also pointed to the debate over smoking , saying people thought the late-Sen. Frank Lautenburg of New Jersey was `` crazy '' for pushing legislation that would ban smoking in airplanes . `` But he was rewarded politically and then politicians began falling all over themselves to do the same . That 's the optimistic scenario . And it 's not just a scenario ! It 's happening now , '' he said , adding that Republicans tell him privately they 're starting to accept climate change . That process of `` winning the conversation , '' however , has been stalled in prior years because `` a shrinking group of denialists fly into a rage when it 's mentioned , '' he said . `` It 's like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage every time a subject is mentioned and so everybody avoids the elephant in the room to keep the peace , '' he said , but argued `` the ability of the raging deniers to stop progress is waning every single day . '' Organizing for Action , the political group formed from the president 's re-election campaign , earlier this month delivered unicorn statues to Republican deniers in Congress . The effort was part of a larger push from the group to `` hold members of Congress accountable for their positions on climate change , '' according to a press release . Gore credited President Barack Obama for his aggressive new climate change strategy that calls for limiting pollution from existing coal-fired power plants and issuing directives requiring the EPA to establish carbon pollution standards for plants that are already active . Gore said he was `` very encouraged '' by the policy moves .

6 years ago (CNN) – Former Vice President Al Gore said he's optimistic about the future of the climate change debate, arguing Republicans are growing weary of global warning deniers. In an interview with The Washington Post, Gore said climate change activists are in the process of "winning the conversation," just like activists won the civil rights movement. Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN "The same thing happened on apartheid," he told columnist Ezra Klein in the interview posted online Wednesday. "The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition. A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We're winning that conversation." He also pointed to the debate over smoking, saying people thought the late-Sen. Frank Lautenburg of New Jersey was "crazy" for pushing legislation that would ban smoking in airplanes. "But he was rewarded politically and then politicians began falling all over themselves to do the same. That's the optimistic scenario. And it's not just a scenario! It's happening now," he said, adding that Republicans tell him privately they're starting to accept climate change. That process of "winning the conversation," however, has been stalled in prior years because "a shrinking group of denialists fly into a rage when it's mentioned," he said. "It's like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage every time a subject is mentioned and so everybody avoids the elephant in the room to keep the peace," he said, but argued "the ability of the raging deniers to stop progress is waning every single day." Organizing for Action, the political group formed from the president's re-election campaign, earlier this month delivered unicorn statues to Republican deniers in Congress. The effort was part of a larger push from the group to "hold members of Congress accountable for their positions on climate change," according to a press release. Gore credited President Barack Obama for his aggressive new climate change strategy that calls for limiting pollution from existing coal-fired power plants and issuing directives requiring the EPA to establish carbon pollution standards for plants that are already active. Gore said he was "very encouraged" by the policy moves. - CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

RFEmFflGZClTNtY0

test